After speaking with Knaight via IRC I will be moding this system. I will repost when I get the coorections finished.

--
Skill Progression:
- Superb
- Great
- Good
- Fair
- Mediocre
- Poor
- Terrible

--
Skill Rating and Starting Value:
Every skill has a rating. Skills are rated based on their ease of learning. These ratings are the same as the initial skill cost ratings detailed in Section 1.62, "Skills" in the table entitled "Cost of Skills in Objective Character Creation." Each rating requires the spending of a certain number of experience points, which is listed in the table below.
Every skill has a base skill level. This skill level is also listed in the table.

Skill Rating -- Cost -- Skill Level
Easy -- 1 EP -- Mediocre
Most -- 2 EP -- Poor
Hard -- 3 EP-- Terrible
Very Hard-- 4 EP -- Terrible-1

Sorry couldn't figure out the "Tables" on this BBC.

--
Skills - Must spend EP in that Skills Table to get the chance to upgrade with an Experience Check.
Special Skills - Must spend EP in that Skills Table and meet the Skills requirement to get the chance to upgrade with an Experience Check.
--

--
-------------------
Combat Skills Table
-------------------
Hand-to-hand Combat - Skill (Easy: 1EP)
Knives - Skill (Easy: 1EP)
-- Throwing Knives - Special Skill (Most: 2EP) [Must be "Fair" in Knives]
Pistols - Skill (Most: 2EP)
-- Fast Draw - Special Skill (Hard: 3EP) [Must be "Mediocre" in Pistols]
-- Duel Wield Pistols - Special Skill (Hard: 3EP) [Must be "Mediocre" in Pistols]
Shotguns - Skill (Most 2EP)
Sub-Machine Guns - Skill (Most: 2EP)
Rifles - Skill (Most: 2EP)
Tactics - Skill (Most: 2EP)
-- Read Opponent - Special Skill (Hard: 3EP) [Must be "Poor" in Tactics]
--

--
Raising Skills:
To raise a skill the player must first spend the number of experience points required to make the attempt for that skill's category. He then must make a skill roll using the base skill level for skills of that rating with his current level as a difficulty. This is called an Experience Check. If the player succeeds in the skill roll, then the experience check is successful and the skill is raised by one level. If the player fails the roll, then the experience check has failed, and the skill remains where it is.
--

--
Failed Experience Check:
When a player fails an experience check, the spent experience points are lost. The player is given a +1 modifier on his next attempt at raising the skill. This modifier cannot be used in experience checks for other skills. This modifier is cumulative across successive failures, making it more likely that the next attempt will succeed, all other things being equal.
--

I notice that the main point I was making (varying experience cost is pointless due to modeling what is taken account by another mechanic), was ignored. What is the rationale on that?

Knaight wrote:

I notice that the main point I was making (varying experience cost is pointless due to modeling what is taken account by another mechanic), was ignored. What is the rationale on that?

Review it now. I was still working on it when you posted that message.

After some additional conversation over IRC, numbers have been requested. Given that the exact experience point costs for easy, most, and hard skills have yet to be determined (though I may be wrong on that, I suspect that 2, 3, 4 and such are still options) the table below provides values to be multiplied by that number. It is a measure of rolls required to exceed 50% probability of success for individual skill improvements, taking into account skill difficulty.

The Level value is the level to reach; easy, most, and hard the quantity of rolls needed to exceed 50% coming from the previous difficulty, with parenthesis indicating cumulative rolls.
Rolls Necessary
level|easy|most|hard|
Terrible|N/A|N/A|0(0)
Poor|N/A|0(0)|2(2)
Mediocre|0(0)|2(2)|3(5)
Fair|2(2)|3(5)|3(8)
Good|3(5)|3(8)|4(12)
Great|3(8)|4(12)|5(17)
Superb|4(12)|5(17)|6(23)
Legendary|5(17)|6(23)|7(30)[/table]

Cumulative Point Requirements (March 7 Point Costs)
level|easy|most|hard|
Terrible|N/A|N/A|0|
Poor|N/A|0|6|
Mediocre|0|4|15|
Fair|2|10|24|
Good|5|16|36|
Great|8|24|51|
Superb|12|34|69|
Legendary|17|46|90|

I consider the second table indicative of a problem. It should not be harder to get a hard skill to Fair than an easy one to Legendary, as it is the cost of a Legendary Easy skill is comparable to a Mediocre Hard Skill. I consider this solved using a 1 per roll system, as anyone who witnessed the last debate on IRC gathered.

EDIT: The table function is being difficult. If anyone knows how to get it cooperating, I would be much obliged.

Great number crunch Knaight. I appreciate the work you put into that

Knaight wrote:

I consider the second table indicative of a problem. It should not be harder to get a hard skill to Fair than an easy one to Legendary, as it is the cost of a Legendary Easy skill is comparable to a Mediocre Hard Skill. I consider this solved using a 1 per roll system, as anyone who witnessed the last debate on IRC gathered.

I still have a problem with this statement. I believe that a more technical skill should be harder to obtain that an easier one. I will use the skills of WALKING (Easy) and AEROSPACE ENGINEERING (Hard) in my example. I believe that is should cost the same amount to get WALKING to Legendary as to get AEROSPACE ENGINEERING to Mediocre, comparably speaking. There would be no point in puting a  "Difficulty Ranking" system on the skills if this was wasn't the point. I still think it should take more time and effort to upgrade AEROSPACE ENGINEERING than WALKING, due to the difficulty level difference of the two.

I hope that I am deciphering your comments and concerns correctly.

Maybe this helps.

I would tend to side with Jharius that raising a Hard (experts only) skill two levels (to Mediocre) being about the same as raising an Easy (anybody can do it somewhat) five levels is reasonable (even generously too easy).  What I find hard mathematically is that Most skills are twice as expensive as Easy (2EP vs 1EP to purchase a chance to advance) , but Hard skills are only 50% more than Most (3EP vs 2EP).  The difference in Scale levels is typically cited as 1.5 which matches the Most-to-Hard transition, but Easy-to-Most is 33% more than it should be.  It might be hard to change the 1:2 ratio for Easy:Most, but perhaps the cost to attempt a Hard skill advancement should be raised to 4EP, using a consistent doubling of base cost.  This would heighten the "problem" as Knaight states it, but would maintain the tripling of the expected cumulative cost between achieving same level of a Most skill of the cost of an easy skill (i.e. to achieve Easy/Great=8, Most/Great=24, and Hard/Great=68 (not 51 as the current table shows)).

The only method that I can think that progresses in that why is "Scale- Strength and Mass":

"To calculate appropriate Strength/Mass Scale values, figure that each level of Strength Scale represents an increase of about 1.5 times the Strength and Mass of the previous Scale level. This is because the Fudge core rules define each level of Strength(from Terrible to Superb) to be 1.5 times stronger than the previous level. (This progression isn't necessarily true for other attributes. Superb Dexterity is only about twice as good as Fair Dexterity, and each level of Speed is 1.2 times faster than the previous level.) Strength Scale increases at the same rate: a Scale 1, Fair Strength individual is 1.5 times stronger than a Scale 0, Fair Strength individual."

Is this the type of system that you are talking about. I don't exactly understand what you were saying.