Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)
kaev wrote:
> There are exactly two ways to make truth out of
> your claim that:
> '"Level" has nothing to do with "learning."'
>
> One is to adopt a definition of learning that excludes
> experience (let us not forget that "levels" are the product of
> "experience" in the games under discussion, eh?).
No, let's not. "Learning" in EQ (and EQ2, can't speak
to others) is represented by skill increases. That's the
same type of "learning" veteran troops give recruits,
skilled craftsmen give apprentices, etc. The other
type of "learning" - experience - is *only* gained by
doing the work yourself.
> Perhaps that accounts for your confusion.
I'm not confused -- I just have a different viewpoint.
I deal all the time with people with "learning" (college
degrees) without experience and people with
"experience" (levels, if you will) with older or no
"learning" (college degrees.) They're different
things to me. Yes, you can use "learning" as a
catch-all, but almost all people can see the difference
between experience and "learning."
Levels are gained by "doing," not "watching." That
is the basis of the apprentice system -- give the new
guy smaller, easier tasks, and let him work his way
up. Yes, the more experienced person is available
to provide training -- just like a person in EQ (and
supposedly shortly in EQ2) gets "training points"
to use.
I just disagree with your assumptions. You're looking
at real-world models without seeing the underlying
dynamics, IMO.
kaev wrote:
> There are exactly two ways to make truth out of
> your claim that:
> '"Level" has nothing to do with "learning."'
>
> One is to adopt a definition of learning that excludes
> experience (let us not forget that "levels" are the product of
> "experience" in the games under discussion, eh?).
No, let's not. "Learning" in EQ (and EQ2, can't speak
to others) is represented by skill increases. That's the
same type of "learning" veteran troops give recruits,
skilled craftsmen give apprentices, etc. The other
type of "learning" - experience - is *only* gained by
doing the work yourself.
> Perhaps that accounts for your confusion.
I'm not confused -- I just have a different viewpoint.
I deal all the time with people with "learning" (college
degrees) without experience and people with
"experience" (levels, if you will) with older or no
"learning" (college degrees.) They're different
things to me. Yes, you can use "learning" as a
catch-all, but almost all people can see the difference
between experience and "learning."
Levels are gained by "doing," not "watching." That
is the basis of the apprentice system -- give the new
guy smaller, easier tasks, and let him work his way
up. Yes, the more experienced person is available
to provide training -- just like a person in EQ (and
supposedly shortly in EQ2) gets "training points"
to use.
I just disagree with your assumptions. You're looking
at real-world models without seeing the underlying
dynamics, IMO.