Uhm... it's not a general page as it currently is written. I personally do think we need skills, and yes, there will be differences between characters. As to "sense of advancement"... org ranks won't cut it, since those are (for player-run orgs) decided by players. Someone could be very good in the game, but for some reason (trust?) someone else is promoted above them, faster than they are.
Constraints could be higher skill cost for higher levels (AO as IP (improvement points) which you get a certain number per level, and you can spend them on your skills, with higher levels costing more per increase (and, interestingly, different skills having different costs depending on class and race).
Or mutual exclusion of training for skills. Let's say you'd need a trainer for actually training a skill, and a trainer for skill A would refuse to train you in this skill if you have trained a certain other skill (maybe only if you trained it above a specific level, or trained a certain subskill of it).
One more: if you had crafting without skills... then everyone could construct any blueprint. How'd you restrict that? Of course, with some kind of skill system. (Any my simulationist heart says you need skills, just because crafting higher quality stuff takes experience, and experience comes from practice).
--Jae 21:56, 11 March 2006 (CET)
Hmm. Clearly this is part of some kind of core mecanics that differentiates different game rule sets.
E.g. personally I'm against levels, while others want them, so that is also something that changes based on ruleset.
Death is another thing that seems ruleset specific.
Some other features seem to be relatively ruleset independent, e.g. organizations and subgames (although the server may have parameters configuring exactly what kind of organizations are needed).
We could try to collect these ruleset specific issues to an own Rule Set Parameters page. E.g. there could be games with permadeath and levels, without permadeath but with levels, with permadeath and no levels, etc..
Regarding mutually exclusive skills, one could also implement that by restricting the number of skills one can learn, like professions in WoW.
Agreed about blueprints, I'm not saying we don't need skills, I'm just applying occams razor to skill design. :-)
--zzorn 22:09, 11 March 2006 (CET)
Occam's Razor is always a tool to be used... within reason, and with judgement, of course ;)
Another point pro (very pro) skills (of some kind, there are lots of different kinds of systems): you'd put different quality equipment in the game, wouldn't you? Without some restricting (and, what else could you use for that than some kind of skills/level/whatever, in general, some changing character attribute(s)), even a very new player could put on the very best armor/weapons/shields/whathaveyou.
In AO, this "twinking" is crazy. They put in "Overequipping" to reign it in, because in the past, you could, with (outside) buffs, put on a weapon (for example) that was lots and lots of levels higher than you, then when the buffs ran out, you could still use it. Just need this "ubah" weapon, and friends to buff you, and you're, well, crazy "ubah". OE (overquipping) means the equippment loses effectiveness when you're below a certain skill. If you have less than 80% of a required skill, the equipment is only 75% effective. <60% -> 50%. <40% -> 25%. And if you have less than 20% of the required skill, the equipment is useless. And still, they twink like crazy.
You need some limiting factor. Some character attribute(s). Which have to increase over time (so, strength, stamina, intelligence are pretty much out, at least as the only factors) so people can put on better equipment.
--Jae 22:47, 11 March 2006 (CET)