Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Low intelligence nerf: disable book leveling below int threshold #15421

Open
Coolthulhu opened this issue Feb 15, 2016 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@Coolthulhu
Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 15, 2016

Currently intelligence is of very low importance: everything a genius can do, an idiot can do to, just that an idiot will take more time and/or attempts.

Having books strictly require some intelligence to use for levelling would help making that stat meaningful. Low intelligence characters could still learn, but they'd learn by doing rather than by reading.

Also, low intelligence could disable book learning. Same as a above: to learn recipe from a book, a low intelligence character would need to craft said thing, once again to learn by doing.

To prevent it from fluctuating too much, intelligence used here could be the maximum one instead of current one (to avoid having meth "unlock" books).

The restriction could be more fluid: having 1-2 intelligence points could radically slow down levelling, but not prevent it. Having 2 points above requirement could lower skill requirements by one.

@Rivet-the-Zombie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 15, 2016

radically slow down levelling, but not prevent it.

I like this better, at least until we have some means of improving one's abilities outside of mutations/CBMs.

@mugling

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 15, 2016

The lower bound can be easily implemented via player::can_use

@kevingranade

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 16, 2016

On Feb 15, 2016 1:43 PM, "Angela Graves" notifications@github.com wrote:

having 1-2 intelligence points could radically slow down levelling, but
not prevent it.

I like this better, at least until we have some means of improving one's
abilities outside of mutations/CBMs.

Why? If you don't want the effect, don't take a very low int score.

@Rivet-the-Zombie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 16, 2016

Even complete morons are still capable of learning stuff. I don't like the idea of an implementation that completely bars some characters from being able to benefit from reading a book because their intelligence stat is a point lower than the book demands. I could totally dig it if it slows them down a whole bunch, but unless they've taken the illiterate trait, I don't think we should lock them out of any books entirely.

@Coolthulhu

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Feb 16, 2016

I could totally dig it if it slows them down a whole bunch, but unless they've taken the illiterate trait, I don't think we should lock them out of any books entirely.

We already do that. The result is that anything a genius can learn, a moron can too, just with more time. No one needs to learn by doing.

If hard caps are out, I'd suggest something halfway there ("al-dente cap"?):
For every point/2 points of lacking intelligence, the maximum skill level available from the book is lowered by 1.

@mugling

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 16, 2016

How about hard cap at a very low level and increasing success after this?

For every point/2 points of lacking intelligence, the maximum skill level available from the book is lowered by 1.

Although this is also an interesting proposal

@Rivet-the-Zombie

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 16, 2016

For every point/2 points of lacking intelligence, the maximum skill level available from the book is lowered by 1.

This is a neat idea. It makes low INT properly suck, but doesn't completely cripple dumb characters.

@ZhilkinSerg

This comment has been minimized.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.