The Drunken Lizard Pub

Forral wrote:

Randomizer wrote:While it's possible to wait until the trainers, most players won't go that route. It requires prior knowledge of where to go and a way into Port Kuudad. Then you have to raise money to pay the 3600 per trainer per skill. Even few players are going to want to sit there and farm food to raise the money. While they exist, if you want to go that way then fine. Otherwise the trainers exist for players that just want to build up a few skills and not exploit the system.

My hat's definitely off to those players because the trainers sort of scream: "Exploit me! Exploit me so hard!" It doesn't take any mischevious little min-maxer cooking up elaborate plans to see this. When I first encountered the trainers my reaction was something along of: "Uuurgh? Huh? What the hell? Why would they stick a feature in the game that encourages you to abuse game mechanics?"

Some would probably consider me one of those little min-maxing devils and it's probably true. I have a past of tinkering with various D&D builds down to the allocation of every single skill-point, after all.

However, to me this is so glaringly and openly abusable, that choosing not abuse it is a bit like chosing to go to battle with a cheese grater instead of a battle axe. I'd have to willingly gimp my character out of pride- which is a horrible and cruel choice to inflict on your loyal customers, I may add. It's especially cruel, as the technical work of ensuring that it can't be abused isn't very time consuming.

If Skill Books always gave the same benefits regardless of when read, and if skill trainers offered the same benefits regardless of when used- there is nothing there to actually abuse - is there?

Would that detract from the game?

I don't feel it would. Quite the opposite, actually. I think it would allow the player, min-maxer or not, to properly enjoy the game without feeling the need to plan his progression into minute detail. To explore, to experience, and to play the character he envisioned from the start and to the end of the game, regardless which skills said character may be using.

I think you missed a big chunk of his point there... the "prior knowledge" part. The people who are going to exploit the system have to know about the system beforehand. This means: 1. They've played the game before; 2. They've visited the forums to find the best way to build their character and were planning on taking advantage of exploits to begin with.

If you're a self-proclaimed min-maxer, you really can't complain about using exploits. It's one of those "pot calling the kettle black" scenarios.

Forral wrote:My hat's definitely off to those players because the trainers sort of scream: "Exploit me! Exploit me so hard!"

Yeah, people always tell me how jealous of me they are that I don't drink/smoke... but I don't see the big deal.

So basically, the only way you can come up with to defend the current system, is by telling the people who dislike it that it's their fault for having that particular play style? Sheesh.

Slarty wrote:So basically, the only way you can come up with to defend the current system, is by telling the people who dislike it that it's their fault for having that particular play style? Sheesh.

I'm not sure, but in general if you discuss things in a less antagonistic way I'm sure you would get people replying in more receptive way. At the moment, I do not want to even bother responding to you, since you seem to have your mind made up and are itching for an arguement.

You could theoretically wait until you get to a trainer, but it would not be that much fun and you wouldn't be very good with many skills. Honestly, I think you could do without the trainers and complete the game. I do not use them.

Slarty wrote:So basically, the only way you can come up with to defend the current system, is by telling the people who dislike it that it's their fault for having that particular play style? Sheesh.

When people who dislike it say what amounts to little more than "it sucks, I hate it," or "it's not right, change it because I said so," what exactly would you suggest I do? I've offered what I think is a logical view of the situation. I have little desire to put on my psychology cap and delve deeper into the minds of people who refuse to offer constructive criticism and plausible alternatives for consideration.

Back to the topic at hand, if you walked into some convenience store that had no security, would you start stealing everything? Would you tell the store owner that he needs to put up some security cameras or you'll start stealing everything?

I think people are so used to video games that do virtually everything but play the game for them (technically those exist too), that they have trouble appreciating a game that pretty much lets them do whatever they want from a character development standpoint.

Are you familiar with the trick in the original Super Mario Brothers game that allows you to get 99 lives just by jumping on a turtle that is coming down a set of stairs? I never bothered using that trick other than the first time I found out about it... and I found out about it pretty early on in my ownership of the game. I thought it better to challenge myself to beat the game without fancy tricks like 99 men or using the double-warp-tunnel-to-get-to-the-end-super-fast exploit. When I play RPGs, I do the same thing on my first couple of play-throughs. Then I use things like exploits and strategy guides to beat the game for fun.

Nobody is twisting your arm, forcing you to take advantage of exploits or build a lopsided uber-character. You choose to play how you want.

I want to be able to scrape some helpful info from this topic before the flames get any hotter, so I'm going to lock it. Thanks for the suggestions- we'll see what we can do.