For my example, I'd like to use WoW..oh no not again! :P But anyway, I feel that this is a game that most MMO players really know well. There are certain classes in WoW that I feel don't take much effort, mainly DPS classes (sorry guys, aggro control can be tough but that's maybe it). The ones that DO take more skill are the ones that if you were to take them out, the raid would fail. Healers..Tanks..Crowd Control. Now where WoW has succeeded, other games have failed (ie EQ, Enchanters were the only CC class, granted it's an older game), WoW has taken the crowd control and split it up amongst Rogues (sap) Mages (poly) Warlocks (banish) and priests (shackle). If I missed something there, I apologize. But in order to play your class well, you need to have skill but I feel only in certain classes you need more skill. i.e. priests are harder, rogues are easier. locks are harder, mages are easier. So it kind of depends.
I like freedom in my games, I realy dislike being forced to pick a class and then not beeing able to learn other things then those the devs think that class should know. I think the hole idea of class system is a easy fix for lazy companys that isnt ready to invest the extra time to develop a game that alows feedom for the gamer to create his/her own gameing experience.
Class system is a brain less system that works well for the ppl that dont want to be botherd with creating the char they want to play, and I see no wrong in that, but can we that want to be the masters of how our chars develope get some games too
(and I did not mean that the ppl that wants an easy class system game is brain dead, only the game system, the same as most tv shows are brain dead but the ppl that watch them can be smart )
When using skill-based system player have minimum chances to get "bad" set of skills,traits, percs and/or attributes, because he can learn everething. The leveling in skill-based system can be by group of skill, for exaple warriror skills, crafting skills etc (like Runescape). There are good system in EVE too, when skill learning speed depend from attribute.
Skill would be found in free games more, why make a new character when you can just get everything? But the best thing in my point of view would probabaly to mix them up a circle in this case you choose the warrior , magic is on the other side of the circle, so the warrior doesnt do good at all with magic but can still use it, something like this would be an example: -------------your warrior so your bottom right would be tank and your bottom left would be archer. so thats half the circle. if your a wizard you would have defence magic on your top right and enchanter* top left of you. and of course the wizard is on the bottom. *thats the first thing i could think of - enchanting arrows but those are just examples
Having a skill based system doesnt mean you can learn everything. There might be a limit or degeration mechanism in the game.
"I cherish the memories of a question my grandson asked me the other day when he said..Grandpa, were you a hero in the war?...No, but i served in a company of heroes" Sgt. Mike Ranney E-company 506PIR 101'st airborn
I'd rather play a shoddy skill-based system than a well-balanced, well-planned class-based system. That's how stifling I find class-based systems to be with regard to player creativity, individuality, gameplay experience, etc.
Skill based is obviously the best choice for people that like control of their character. Ryzom is compoletely skill based and you can learn everything. They balance it out through gear. A tank can cast anything he wants, but if he's wearing heavy armor and not using a staff/wand then he's going to cast ungodly slow, interupt easily, and the spell will be much weaker. A game needs to be made with a Ryzom setup but toned down a little bit. They made the game so open it became overly complicated. Another reason Skill based games are great is that it is very easy to allow people to lvl through PvP, albeit with safeguards to prevent people from mass skilling off friends/alt accounts/etc. And in skill based games you can still advance even if you fail to kill the npc/pc. You gain skills throughout the fight and not just in one lump when you slay your foe. I think most devs are afraid of heavy skill based games because they actualy require "gasp" alot of creativity and they can't force an endgame onto players. I've been playing a class based game for 3 yrs now, Lineage 2, and the only thing that holds the game back is how restrictive classes are. Gamers want options! and not just 10 options, or 100 options, we want 1000's and 1000's of options. Enough options that we cudn't possibly experience every angle of the game in a gaming lifetime. And they need to make enviroments 1000x more interactive/reactive but thats a whole new debate. Eventually the MMO market will implode on itself and only the creative devs will survive.
Unfortunately, it is very much harder for designers to provide enough balanced content to keep a skill-based world/universe going. Players also have trouble understanding that they are not limited by traditional class roles in such a system. UO & Ryzom both did skill-based well, but not well enough to garner/maintain the population of many class-based games...
Hybrid skill system would be best. And not a damned korean point system like someone else mentioned as a good skill system. Korean point systems are just linear systems that allow you to diversify, however if you don't follow a specific skillpoint distribution you gimp yourself in the always the same pvp endgame.
Here is what I am talking about:
Everything is set up as a traditionaly skill based system. All skills are available to all players from the start or through progression in a specific skillset (eg: to learn uber slash_weaponskill_1, you need to have learned beginner and advanced slash_weaponskill_1 though 5). Somewhere in the character's progression through storyline, they are given a class specialization choice, which essentially gives the character access to a specific skill enhancement path. This specialization would not necessarily grant new skills, but rather modifiers or boosters to related skills obtained through the traditional skill system. Bottom line is that everyone has access to all skills, however those that choose to specialize will be better in that one area. In this way, I would envision people being able to build teams with healing, tanking, dps, stealth, buffing, etc specializations. I would also allow specialization paths to be changable through some side quest or other minor time / money sink that fits into the storyline. Here's the catch though, I would definately put a limit on skills so that PC's could not obtain every skill in the game (ala Ryzom) and make choices (ala SWG). If a PC chooses to be the best dps in the game, they will not have enough points to be the best healer and tank and stealther in the game.
I would go into my reasons for all of the above, but that would be too much for here and much of it is already mentioned in this thread.
Create an MMO where there is no skill/class/abilitiy advancement.
Your character starts as good skill/ability/talent/class wise all they will ever get. You can custom pick all of your skills/jobs/abilities, create your own type of character, any combination you choose (with a limit to max number you an have at a given time of course). You can change/swap when you wish to, altering your spec either slightly or completely.
What would you do then?
Social advancement. Player crafted towns/cities, just have to organize and gather resources. Structures/cities are upgraded based on longevity and strength of the community. The more involved you are in your home city / community, over time the better your house/shop/establishment will get.
Titles and honor/reputation are the key advancement system here. You work towards the highest fame/infamy/honor/reputation etc. with your race, faction, city, community, etc. You advance in rank through military action, be it PVP or PVE. Form militias, armies, etc.
Have players not only battling for these things but against some dominant force. An evil alliance of bad guys, make all territory, even player's hard earned cities up for grabs by the invading force. Players / cities have to band together to defend their homes, their kingdoms, push the enemy back and acquire new territory for new colonies. If the enemy runs you out of your home, you must gather your armies and re-take your home, rebuild, fortify...
Give town mayors special diplomatic power, give high ranking military officers special power...
Put in systems for betrayel, players can choose to make deals and/or side with the enemy, but at a high price. Whole cities can join the dark cause, or a single maniacal player can "accidentally" open the gate and allow the enemy to rush in..
Point is, F class, F skill, F XP, F leveling, F grinding, F farming, F instancing....
Make a game where players care about their community, their country, their honor, their power....
Not stats and levels and gear. That's the motivation. You don't log on to grind out that next level, to raid for that next epic drop... You log on to further your cause, advance your position, defend your country...
Here's an interesting idea.... Create an MMO where there is no skill/class/abilitiy advancement. Your character starts as good skill/ability/talent/class wise all they will ever get. You can custom pick all of your skills/jobs/abilities, create your own type of character, any combination you choose (with a limit to max number you an have at a given time of course). You can change/swap when you wish to, altering your spec either slightly or completely. What would you do then? Social advancement. Player crafted towns/cities, just have to organize and gather resources. Structures/cities are upgraded based on longevity and strength of the community. The more involved you are in your home city / community, over time the better your house/shop/establishment will get. Titles and honor/reputation are the key advancement system here. You work towards the highest fame/infamy/honor/reputation etc. with your race, faction, city, community, etc. You advance in rank through military action, be it PVP or PVE. Form militias, armies, etc. Have players not only battling for these things but against some dominant force. An evil alliance of bad guys, make all territory, even player's hard earned cities up for grabs by the invading force. Players / cities have to band together to defend their homes, their kingdoms, push the enemy back and acquire new territory for new colonies. If the enemy runs you out of your home, you must gather your armies and re-take your home, rebuild, fortify... Give town mayors special diplomatic power, give high ranking military officers special power... Put in systems for betrayel, players can choose to make deals and/or side with the enemy, but at a high price. Whole cities can join the dark cause, or a single maniacal player can "accidentally" open the gate and allow the enemy to rush in.. Point is, F class, F skill, F XP, F leveling, F grinding, F farming, F instancing.... Make a game where players care about their community, their country, their honor, their power.... Not stats and levels and gear. That's the motivation. You don't log on to grind out that next level, to raid for that next epic drop... You log on to further your cause, advance your position, defend your country... Booyah.
That would be an awesome game. I'd play it.
Here's why it won't ever be made:
Game developers are like local bands. I've played in bands since I was really young. I've played blues, punk, hard rock, jazz, fusion, and I've even played my trumpet in Carnagie Hall with a symphonic band.
Guys in local bands talk a big game about how they want to make great music that's new and innovative and hasn't been done before, but they don't really want that.
9 times out of 10 those types of people just want to be famous, they don't want to be musicians, they don't even really care about being creative.
Contemporary developers aren't concerned with creating games like that. Their only concern is profit margins. To this end they shoot themselves in the foot time and time again by reaching for what they think is a tried and proven method to gaining profits, i.e. grinds and timesinks. They say they create their games with the player in mind, but the end product brings the lie to all their hype.
Much like the local band wanna be famous guys they totally miss the big picture.
The reason why epic bands became epic bands is because the memebers worked together to create music based on their personalities, insights, and dispositions. They did it for the love of music and it showed. People bought their music and saw them in concert because they wanted to be apart of that magic just for a few minutes or hours.
Developers have been doing the same thing. If they'd stop trying to design games based around getting and keeping a steady flow of cash, and developed a game that is just all out fun with no grinding or timesinks, people would flock to that game just to be apart of that kind of magic.
So far, I count 2 Simpsons references in this thread, and I say "BRAVO" to you!
For those not counting: "BOOOOO-urns" and "superfunhappyslide".
Apologies in advance: it wasn't supposed to be quite this long.
As I was reading this thread, I stumbled on what might be the beginning of a halfway decent class/skill hybrid system. Now imagine this:
You all know about the diagrams with the overlapping circles - Venn diagrams - so let's start with something like that. For simplicity's sake (you could potentially have as many of these circles as you wanted) we'll go with four: Adventurer, Harvester, Crafter and Magic. Now, each of these circles has skills that belong to them and them alone, and some that overlap with each of the others, and some that belong to all four.
You're also given a 'character level' which advances as you gain XP. Still with me?
In this system, you'd be working with advancing your character level through XP gain, depending on your choice of Sphere/Circle/whatever. Harvesters gain experience through Harvesting, Crafters through Crafting, Adventurers through Adventuring and Mages through Magic-ing. Now, although some of the basic skills given to these folks will be available to everyone, the higher 'level' abilities will only be available to those who specialize.
Adventurers would have skills that would allow them to either take a ranged, light and fast, or tank-style. They could take some basic magic to assist them (maybe light healing, no rez, and a couple minor nukes for pulling?). Depending on the skills taken, different abilities would be unlocked. (I wouldn't want them to play like today's 'skills' - special attacks and whatnot, but for arguments sake, let's call it that for now). They would also have access to basic crafting (no magical equipment?) and basic harvesting (get it, can't refine it?)
Crafters would have multiple skills to work with, different professions. They would have access to basic Adventuring skills (no special abilities?) and basic Harvesting (get it, can't refine it?) and some basic Magic for simple magical equipment (would have to consult with a Mage for the most magical stuff).
Harvesters would have multiple types of resources, and the higher your skill in a certain resource type, the bigger your yield -- this Sphere/Circle/Whatever might get absorbed into Crafting in initial testing, but for now we'll call it something separate. They would have basic Adventuring skills, so as to defend themselves when necessary, and some basic spells, like Adventurers.
Mages would have access to the highest level of spells, and some access to basic Crafting, as well as basic Adventuring and Harvesting. Mages would have multiple paths (defence specialist, ranged damage, crowd control, pets, healing?)
Each Circle could advance to the highest level in their chosen one, and only to certain levels in others. Assume 20 levels (it would probably be higher, but this is an easy number to work with) Like so:
Adventurer --
Adventuring: 20
Magic: 5
Crafting: 10
Harvesting: 10
Crafter --
Crafting: 20
Adventuring: 5
Magic: 10
Harvesting: 10
Harvester --
Harvesting: 20
Magic: 5
Adventuring: 10
Crafting: 10
Mage --
Magic: 20
Crafting: 5
Adventuring: 10
Harvesting: 10
This is mostly a mind-dump/brainstorm, obviously it would need refining, but it has the potential to give some true customizability while still providing some defined (but somewhat overlapping) roles. Does this make sense to anyone else?
--------
"Give a man a fire, and he is warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life."
Hybrid, Smybrid, you are all smoking something. A pure skill based system trumps them all.
Games where the character skills are fully developed at creation or easily attained are out there already, it is called guild wars. If you were dumb enough to code a game like this, the only way to insure cash is to use guild wars method of getting all the money up front because people will get bored very fast with no character evolvement.
UO and AC were the best MMO's for me as they were skill based and you could change your characters skills as you like, albeit with some work involved.
I still wonder about Turbine, they went from the successful skill based AC1 to a disaster of a class based game AC2, yet both DDO and LOTR are both class based. Since neither have pvp, I do not understand why they chose the easier class based system.
I still long for an upgraded AC, I would dump all these games for it.
Both systems have their good points but ultimately I would say drop both and make something else, something more commonsensical.
Class/level systems limit you in the name of group dynamics, support grinding for levels and ultimately makes it where everyone in the same class plays pretty much the same.
Skill systems have you grinding for hours to raise your bow skill by one point, and after you master bow, guess what, you can spend coutless hours mastering all the other skills so you can be like everyone else.
That is why I propose the Achievement and profeciency system,
Characters startoff with half the max ammount of points used for purchasing skills, that way you lessen some grind by being halfway there and your character starts out as a competent fighter rather than corky the special warrior who only knows one attack. Meaning you could start being pretty good with a gun or know quite a bit about smithing.
The remaining points must be earned by completeing challanges, note the word challange, I don't meaning like fetch quests, those are good for money, I mean something like a tough fight with another player or the crafting of some really nice sword or what have you.
With your newly earned points you go to a trainer, pick the skill you want and train, when I say skill I don't mean "sword skill" I mean more like thrust, slash, parry, dodge, grapple, locks, counter, jab, uppercut, you get the point. I think instead of learning a specific attack or recipe, the character just learns a technique, letting the player use the techniques to comeup with something new.
EX instead of learning to make steel sword, you would learn to make edges and how to connect parts, then buy some steel at the market go home to your smithy and make a sword, the same thing goes for fighting, in stead of learning bash, you learn dash and some sort of basic attack, combine them and you get a bash like attack. You learn the general techniques instead of the specific.
To gain access to the new skill you have to complete a mini game or in other words a QT challenge, hints the achievement part, when you finish you can know use that skill, the better you perform in the QT challenge the more profeciency points you earn.
Profeciency points are accumulated by use of the skill and can be used to tweek aspects of the skill, EX say you use thrust a lot, you can use the profeciency points to improve the speed, power or endurance cost of that skill by a bit.
Basically mine is a skill system, but I like to think it is a more refined skill system based more on commonsense and completing challanges rather than repeatative use.
It seems many people think of class vs skill as either/or when you could very well do both, or in this case niether.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I believe you summed up the basic pros/cons and main attributes of skill and class based advancement systems very well. We've all seen throughout the history of the games we've played that both can be good/bad for a game. In SWG, the extreme end of a skill based system, we saw how flexible and involving a skill based system could be, and that rocked. But, we saw how imbalanced it became, as players switched nearly weekly/monthly to the next new "uber" template, the most overpowered balance of skills/professions of the current patch. And in reference to the quest vs. open-world debate, SWG was idealy set up for the open-world environment it had, however, the grind became very, very prevalent.
This was an interesting post. But again I must emphasize, if people are changing out their templates weekly that is a GOOD thing. Players should indeed be experiementing with different templates. Players love 'options', creativity, and freedom. The more you restrict those options- the more you encroach on the gamer's freedom. If SWG pre-CU suffered from FOTM (Flavor of the month) then the Game Designers did a crappy job balanacing the powers, period. There's all there is to it. In Class Based games you can still have FOTM that has nothing to do with skill based vs Class based. In City Of Heroes people rerolled the latest new thing all the time. But this was because the alternatives sucked so bad and were so damn gimp they didnt give us a choice. For those familar with that game- you can d/l CoH/CoV Builder and look at the numbers. Assault Rifle is so god awful- its horrible choices like that in which made the FOTM sets like Energy Melee a clear winner.
Flavor Of The Month comes from bad game design period- has nothing to do with skill based games besides the fact that its a LOT more obvious how poor the game balance is when players have the freedom to switch to that template at will. Also, just because one game made mistakes does not mean a major mainstream publisher that invests years into their product cant get it right.
I do like your ideas about FFXI but that game also includes "elitism" just like any other Class based LEvel grind. If my friend has been playing for a few months then I join the game I cant game with him. In a skill based game- it should be possible to grab the necessary skills to make my avatar viable to any encounter. In a skill based game, I can always join up with my friends and contribute. In FFXI, players get dissed if they do not have the combo teams are looking for. That's not right. In a skill based game you will not have this problem
To make it worse with games like FFXI, it requires a HUGE time committment to do the end game content (which should not exist in the first place). Additionally, it creates a 'divide' between the new players and the veterans. I cannot game with the past population so I have to play 'catchup'.
The most important thing in an MMO period is being able to play with my friends. However, Class Based Level grinds detract from that experience greatly. Thus, the have to put a "level cap" so that once everyone reaches the cap, they can all play together. Thus, this is why we have the end game in level based games its inevitable. A skill based MMO can avoid this pitfall and offer the prospect of offering rich gaming opportunities for a long time.
The problem is this- we still have not seen a major skill based title get released that has the budget that World Of Warcraft had. Once we do, I think the MMORPG will be taken by storm. The casual gamers will be amazed by the freedom, replay, and infinite combinations they can achieve. The hardcore will also appreciate this. No longer will you need "alts". In the virtual world, just like real life, you only need one avatar.
Both systems have their good points but ultimately I would say drop both and make something else, something more commonsensical. Class/level systems limit you in the name of group dynamics, support grinding for levels and ultimately makes it where everyone in the same class plays pretty much the same. Skill systems have you grinding for hours to raise your bow skill by one point, and after you master bow, guess what, you can spend coutless hours mastering all the other skills so you can be like everyone else. That is why I propose the Achievement and profeciency system, Characters startoff with half the max ammount of points used for purchasing skills, that way you lessen some grind by being halfway there and your character starts out as a competent fighter rather than corky the special warrior who only knows one attack. Meaning you could start being pretty good with a gun or know quite a bit about smithing. The remaining points must be earned by completeing challanges, note the word challange, I don't meaning like fetch quests, those are good for money, I mean something like a tough fight with another player or the crafting of some really nice sword or what have you. With your newly earned points you go to a trainer, pick the skill you want and train, when I say skill I don't mean "sword skill" I mean more like thrust, slash, parry, dodge, grapple, locks, counter, jab, uppercut, you get the point. I think instead of learning a specific attack or recipe, the character just learns a technique, letting the player use the techniques to comeup with something new. EX instead of learning to make steel sword, you would learn to make edges and how to connect parts, then buy some steel at the market go home to your smithy and make a sword, the same thing goes for fighting, in stead of learning bash, you learn dash and some sort of basic attack, combine them and you get a bash like attack. You learn the general techniques instead of the specific. To gain access to the new skill you have to complete a mini game or in other words a QT challenge, hints the achievement part, when you finish you can know use that skill, the better you perform in the QT challenge the more profeciency points you earn. Profeciency points are accumulated by use of the skill and can be used to tweek aspects of the skill, EX say you use thrust a lot, you can use the profeciency points to improve the speed, power or endurance cost of that skill by a bit. Basically mine is a skill system, but I like to think it is a more refined skill system based more on commonsense and completing challanges rather than repeatative use. It seems many people think of class vs skill as either/or when you could very well do both, or in this case niether.
Nice I commend your effort for thinking out of the box I like your ideas a lot. Giving players a lot of skills upfront means you are giving newbs a fighting chance against a veteran which means rich open pvp. Plus, giving them points upfront suggests to that player a template they should follow. Only thing I would add to your system is the freedom to respec all those 'points' to something else by talking to an NPC. This way, players wont delete their toon if they feel they allocated their points to the wrong thing. Also, this promotes experiementing with different skills upfront, etc. I suspect you already thought of this or if after implementation, you might arrive at that conclusion
Here's an interesting idea.... Create an MMO where there is no skill/class/abilitiy advancement. Your character starts as good skill/ability/talent/class wise all they will ever get. You can custom pick all of your skills/jobs/abilities, create your own type of character, any combination you choose (with a limit to max number you an have at a given time of course). You can change/swap when you wish to, altering your spec either slightly or completely. What would you do then? Social advancement. Player crafted towns/cities, just have to organize and gather resources. Structures/cities are upgraded based on longevity and strength of the community. The more involved you are in your home city / community, over time the better your house/shop/establishment will get. Titles and honor/reputation are the key advancement system here. You work towards the highest fame/infamy/honor/reputation etc. with your race, faction, city, community, etc. You advance in rank through military action, be it PVP or PVE. Form militias, armies, etc. Have players not only battling for these things but against some dominant force. An evil alliance of bad guys, make all territory, even player's hard earned cities up for grabs by the invading force. Players / cities have to band together to defend their homes, their kingdoms, push the enemy back and acquire new territory for new colonies. If the enemy runs you out of your home, you must gather your armies and re-take your home, rebuild, fortify... Give town mayors special diplomatic power, give high ranking military officers special power... Put in systems for betrayel, players can choose to make deals and/or side with the enemy, but at a high price. Whole cities can join the dark cause, or a single maniacal player can "accidentally" open the gate and allow the enemy to rush in.. Point is, F class, F skill, F XP, F leveling, F grinding, F farming, F instancing.... Make a game where players care about their community, their country, their honor, their power.... Not stats and levels and gear. That's the motivation. You don't log on to grind out that next level, to raid for that next epic drop... You log on to further your cause, advance your position, defend your country... Booyah.
That would be an awesome game. I'd play it.
Here's why it won't ever be made:
Game developers are like local bands. I've played in bands since I was really young. I've played blues, punk, hard rock, jazz, fusion, and I've even played my trumpet in Carnagie Hall with a symphonic band.
Guys in local bands talk a big game about how they want to make great music that's new and innovative and hasn't been done before, but they don't really want that.
9 times out of 10 those types of people just want to be famous, they don't want to be musicians, they don't even really care about being creative.
Contemporary developers aren't concerned with creating games like that. Their only concern is profit margins. To this end they shoot themselves in the foot time and time again by reaching for what they think is a tried and proven method to gaining profits, i.e. grinds and timesinks. They say they create their games with the player in mind, but the end product brings the lie to all their hype.
Much like the local band wanna be famous guys they totally miss the big picture.
The reason why epic bands became epic bands is because the memebers worked together to create music based on their personalities, insights, and dispositions. They did it for the love of music and it showed. People bought their music and saw them in concert because they wanted to be apart of that magic just for a few minutes or hours.
Developers have been doing the same thing. If they'd stop trying to design games based around getting and keeping a steady flow of cash, and developed a game that is just all out fun with no grinding or timesinks, people would flock to that game just to be apart of that kind of magic.
I like the comparison to music. I think I've seen you make references to this type of thing beore. Somthing along the lines of "Stairway to Heaven could only have been made once" kind of thing...
I know it's a big risk to go "outside the box" but even though the MMORPG genre is still (sort of) in its infancy, there's something to be said for innovation.
For example, take Halo / Halo 2.. nothing really that amazingly innovative, just a proven formula tested and adapted and refined to the point of perfection. Then look at F.E.A.R. add the tried and true with a healthy dose of innovation. Or Half-Life 2. Same deal. They didn't reinvent the wheel, but they took what worked and expanded upon it.
Current MMO's are trying to do the same, can't blame them. You take what works, add some new flavor, re-package and refine it.
It's safe, yes, it "works," yes; however what are you adding to the genre? It's like pop music, take what works, take what's safe, add a new twist, shove it down our throats.
All it's going to take is a big name developer with some under-the-naval fortitude, a bright flash of brilliance, an infathomable budget, and some good old fashion luck to try something different, really think outside the box and create something unique.
Closest thing we have in the current MMO market is Guild Wars. "No monthly fee? You're insane!" Guess they proved the nay-sayers wrong. "Allow people to create max-level PVP toons? Impossible!" Nope, worked out well for 'em didn't it?
I think our only hope for a game like I described will be if someone big and generally innovative like Bethesda or Bioware decide to take that gamble. It'll pay off for them I reckon.
So far, I count 2 Simpsons references in this thread, and I say "BRAVO" to you!
For those not counting: "BOOOOO-urns" and "superfunhappyslide".
Apologies in advance: it wasn't supposed to be quite this long.
As I was reading this thread, I stumbled on what might be the beginning of a halfway decent class/skill hybrid system. Now imagine this:
You all know about the diagrams with the overlapping circles - Venn diagrams - so let's start with something like that. For simplicity's sake (you could potentially have as many of these circles as you wanted) we'll go with four: Adventurer, Harvester, Crafter and Magic. Now, each of these circles has skills that belong to them and them alone, and some that overlap with each of the others, and some that belong to all four.
You're also given a 'character level' which advances as you gain XP. Still with me?
In this system, you'd be working with advancing your character level through XP gain, depending on your choice of Sphere/Circle/whatever. Harvesters gain experience through Harvesting, Crafters through Crafting, Adventurers through Adventuring and Mages through Magic-ing. Now, although some of the basic skills given to these folks will be available to everyone, the higher 'level' abilities will only be available to those who specialize.
Adventurers would have skills that would allow them to either take a ranged, light and fast, or tank-style. They could take some basic magic to assist them (maybe light healing, no rez, and a couple minor nukes for pulling?). Depending on the skills taken, different abilities would be unlocked. (I wouldn't want them to play like today's 'skills' - special attacks and whatnot, but for arguments sake, let's call it that for now). They would also have access to basic crafting (no magical equipment?) and basic harvesting (get it, can't refine it?)
Crafters would have multiple skills to work with, different professions. They would have access to basic Adventuring skills (no special abilities?) and basic Harvesting (get it, can't refine it?) and some basic Magic for simple magical equipment (would have to consult with a Mage for the most magical stuff).
Harvesters would have multiple types of resources, and the higher your skill in a certain resource type, the bigger your yield -- this Sphere/Circle/Whatever might get absorbed into Crafting in initial testing, but for now we'll call it something separate. They would have basic Adventuring skills, so as to defend themselves when necessary, and some basic spells, like Adventurers.
Mages would have access to the highest level of spells, and some access to basic Crafting, as well as basic Adventuring and Harvesting. Mages would have multiple paths (defence specialist, ranged damage, crowd control, pets, healing?)
Each Circle could advance to the highest level in their chosen one, and only to certain levels in others. Assume 20 levels (it would probably be higher, but this is an easy number to work with) Like so:
Adventurer --
Adventuring: 20
Magic: 5
Crafting: 10
Harvesting: 10
Crafter --
Crafting: 20
Adventuring: 5
Magic: 10
Harvesting: 10
Harvester --
Harvesting: 20
Magic: 5
Adventuring: 10
Crafting: 10
Mage --
Magic: 20
Crafting: 5
Adventuring: 10
Harvesting: 10
This is mostly a mind-dump/brainstorm, obviously it would need refining, but it has the potential to give some true customizability while still providing some defined (but somewhat overlapping) roles. Does this make sense to anyone else?
Asian MMOs do this like Rappelz and Fly For Fun (FFF). Although their system is a bit mroe restrictive because in their game you do pick a class upfront then you later specialize. Everquest 2 also does this. You start out with a generic template and later down the road you specialize.
You have good ideas but it suffers from all the flaws that Class Level based grinds have. I like how in your system I start out generic and have freedom but then you 'force' me into a template and remove my freedom to choose the powers I want. Your system punishes players for picking the wrong specilization just like EQ2 does. To make matters worse, players will seek out certain types of specilizations at end game thus making content inaccessbile to undesired builds. We all have to understand players will always min/max and seek the most efficient team compositions.
Your system is not one that encourages the freedom of choice. It creates a 'divide' between the young and new because for sure the veteran teams during the tough content will seek out the 'specialized' builds. It also forces players into your 'vision' of how they should play. My opinion is that your system will suffer from all the restrictions Rappelz, FFF, and EQ2 all suffer from. It removes control from the player and places all the power into the hands of the Developer which ultimately isn't different from the existing systems we have now in the long run. Good ideas I like how you visually broke down your concepts. And I am not saying such a system will not succeed its just too restrictive for an open ended game
Originally posted by vajuras Asian MMOs do this like Rappelz and Fly For Fun (FFF). Although their system is a bit mroe restrictive because in their game you do pick a class upfront then you later specialize. Everquest 2 also does this. You start out with a generic template and later down the road you specialize. You have good ideas but it suffers from all the flaws that Class Level based grinds have. I like how in your system I start out generic and have freedom but then you 'force' me into a template and remove my freedom to choose the powers I want. Your system punishes players for picking the wrong specilization just like EQ2 does. To make matters worse, players will seek out certain types of specilizations at end game thus making content inaccessbile to undesired builds. We all have to understand players will always min/max and seek the most efficient team compositions. Your system is not one that encourages the freedom of choice. It creates a 'divide' between the young and new because for sure the veteran teams during the tough content will seek out the 'specialized' builds. It also forces players into your 'vision' of how they should play. My opinion is that your system will suffer from all the restrictions Rappelz, FFF, and EQ2 all suffer from. It removes control from the player and places all the power into the hands of the Developer which ultimately isn't different from the existing systems we have now in the long run. Good ideas I like how you visually broke down your concepts. And I am not saying such a system will not succeed its just too restrictive for an open ended game
I appreciate your constructive criticism. I'm not sure how exactly you see it being forced into a template, if there are multiple skills in each Sphere, all of which are equally viable (would take serious balancing effort, I admit), the only thing you're forced into is the initial role that you choose.
Ah. As I typed that out, I suddenly see your point.
Perhaps it would be better, than, to lose the Sphere idea entirely and just merge all the skills together into one large pool? Then all you'd need is a 'skill credit' cap that would be decided during testing, that would allow a decent amount of diversity but not give players the option of 'having it all'.
I think the major problem that everyone brings up with the skill system is that you wind up eventually with 'uber templates' that essentially turn into classes anyway. If you don't have an 'uber template', then you're a 'gimp' and a useless person to group with or have in a guild. I can only imagine that it would require a lot of testing time and effort in order to make everything equally viable, if perhaps in different ways.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on how to avoid the 'specialized build' problem in general. How would you build an open-ended game?
EDITED TO ADD A FEW MORE THOUGHTS:
My first MMORPG was Asheron's Call, which uses a hybrid level/skill system. You can build your character essentially any way you like, except that people have decided on a few 'uber templates' that have become absolutely necessary for maximum advancement. Even in the early days of the game, those who did not have the best templates were considered essentially worthless.
In my ideal game, I would like there to be freedom, but also a sense of interdependence. In order to allow complete freedom with a skill-based system, you run the risk of allowing everyone to be an absolutely perfect independent solo-creature. MMORPGs are about community, and I think that the most successful system will be one that creates and fosters a sense of true interdependence amongst the playerbase. If this means restricting some freedoms, so that the players actually NEED to rely on each other -- then that is a necessary evil, to create a true sense of community in the game. I want adventurers to need crafters, and vice versa. I would really like a game that doesn't encourage min-maxing and racing to the end-game, but instead creates a true feeling of community.
Am I alone in this?
--------
"Give a man a fire, and he is warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life."
Originally posted by vajuras Asian MMOs do this like Rappelz and Fly For Fun (FFF). Although their system is a bit mroe restrictive because in their game you do pick a class upfront then you later specialize. Everquest 2 also does this. You start out with a generic template and later down the road you specialize. You have good ideas but it suffers from all the flaws that Class Level based grinds have. I like how in your system I start out generic and have freedom but then you 'force' me into a template and remove my freedom to choose the powers I want. Your system punishes players for picking the wrong specilization just like EQ2 does. To make matters worse, players will seek out certain types of specilizations at end game thus making content inaccessbile to undesired builds. We all have to understand players will always min/max and seek the most efficient team compositions. Your system is not one that encourages the freedom of choice. It creates a 'divide' between the young and new because for sure the veteran teams during the tough content will seek out the 'specialized' builds. It also forces players into your 'vision' of how they should play. My opinion is that your system will suffer from all the restrictions Rappelz, FFF, and EQ2 all suffer from. It removes control from the player and places all the power into the hands of the Developer which ultimately isn't different from the existing systems we have now in the long run. Good ideas I like how you visually broke down your concepts. And I am not saying such a system will not succeed its just too restrictive for an open ended game
I appreciate your constructive criticism. I'm not sure how exactly you see it being forced into a template, if there are multiple skills in each Sphere, all of which are equally viable (would take serious balancing effort, I admit), the only thing you're forced into is the initial role that you choose.
Ah. As I typed that out, I suddenly see your point.
Perhaps it would be better, than, to lose the Sphere idea entirely and just merge all the skills together into one large pool? Then all you'd need is a 'skill credit' cap that would be decided during testing, that would allow a decent amount of diversity but not give players the option of 'having it all'.
I think the major problem that everyone brings up with the skill system is that you wind up eventually with 'uber templates' that essentially turn into classes anyway. If you don't have an 'uber template', then you're a 'gimp' and a useless person to group with or have in a guild. I can only imagine that it would require a lot of testing time and effort in order to make everything equally viable, if perhaps in different ways.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on how to avoid the 'specialized build' problem in general. How would you build an open-ended game?
Well like I said before your ideas are very nice and the organization of the various skill sets is good. But if I were to refine it I would indeed set a max limit of the amount of skills a player can have active. Basically, I would make it so players have the freedom to earn any skill they want -but- they can only have so many skills active at a time. Each skill should perhaps be given a 'weight' or value. This way, you wont have a super warrior that has an unfair advantage over newbies. Also, this encourages good teamplay because veteran teams will benefit from newbies.
I like having the various spheres of disciplines that you had. Perhaps you could balance your system by charging a weight for each 'sphere' players choose to grab skills from for their current template. I suppose it might end up like Guild Wars at the end but it still has flexibility to allow the jack-of-all-trades to grab skills from all the spheres and have them active. I think FURY (developed by Auran) is working on something similar to your system. Your system also reminds of FFX (I think it was that one) whereas you could grab skills from various spheres.
But even in its current form I want to point out your system is a very good one -but- it would suffer from some of the pitfalls some of the other games have
I'm not going to go into long winded details here. I think a skills based system is a move into the right direction for MMO's. I also agree with a previous poster, game developers just need to start thinking a bit outside of the box in either case. Again this is just my opinion, that MMO's need a more organic system versus a very hard nosed pick it and stick it.
Yeah, I know min / maxing goes on in both types i guess some people will always want their character to be the best. And you are right, rerolling does suck, which is why i like the idea of being able to learn and change sub jobs and secondary skill sets to have a more varied experience. The flexability of the GW skill set shows my point that class systems with this flexability not only work but are very popular.
Im not asking you to buy into the fact that he wouldnt be able to try. Im saying he would probably suck at it. Im my summary i put "restrictions... but not complete dead ends" meaning this exact concept... the warrior should be able to try (it really does bug me when you cant put on a bit of armour or equip a certain weapon) but i dont want him (or her - just watched Monty Pythons "Life of Brian", sorry ) to be great at it.
I apologize for my rude post to you- you've shown a lot more maturity in your response then I did. /bow
Good ideas and yes Guild Wars is a very popular model you are correct (I love GW). just keep in mind though an elementalist can always pickup a sword and become a warrior (ele/war). Also, once any skill is unlocked in Guild Wars, you can create a max level toon that utilizes all of your skills. Their system is a lot more open and flexible then FFXI for instance. Once you unlock some skills you can always change even your primary and go Warrior / Elementalist. And it has limits in place to prevent 'uber templates'.
The only bad thing GW suffers from is that its a very linear path during leveling. A Level 18 team does not benefit from a Level 1. GW, in PvE, suffers from the same 'divide' that other RPGs suffer from. To make matters worse, in PvE, teams seek specilized builds (like mage, warrior, priest) and players lack the freedom to change their primary. The secondary does not have the same benefits as the primary skill. If GW level cap was a lot higher their system would quickly unravel and it would suffer from the exact same pitfalls as FFXI. The newbies would find end game content inaccesible and would be unable to play with their friends. They would have to play 'catchup'
GW 2 says they will initiate a sidekick system but that is still not as flexible as a skill system because the lowbies will still lack essential skills. So of course, I expect teams to not seek out sidekicks which is the situation we have in City Of Heroes
the biggest problem with any skill/class based mmo is the measuring it creates...
People who are higher level, and/or have better gear, more maxed out skills, in bigger/better guilds...
The competition can be healthy, as it may encourage players a little lower on the totem pole to aspire to the greatness they see in another person's uber-toon.... But as we all know it can be very, very bad when we see the creation of L337 kids...
Sore winners are far worse then sore losers. Any system with a measurable degree of progress/status creates all kinds of positive and negative social consequences.. be it griefing, powerleveling, etc.
then how do you avoid this? create a class/level/skill/rank free system? what then becomes the motivation for players to be better, to strive for advancing their character?
EQ started what I consider the very steep downward spiral of gear dependancy, made far worse by WoW, Lineage 2, etc.
Remember, Ultima Online all the gear was crap, lootable, etc. Wasn't until EQ that gear became an issue.
All the systems of a MMORPG are interconnected, thus it is impossible to debate the pros/cons of skill vs. class advancement without thinking about gear, loot, pvp rules, gameplay, etc etc etc.
Point is...
Skill vs. Class, which is better is more a product of how the rest of the game is done then anything else.
You take a game like WoW and all of a sudden, don't change ANYTHING but allow you to mix and match skills/abilities/talent trees to come up with your own class... everything else in the game changes. Look what SWG did to itself with the NGE? They switched the whole thing to a class based system and look what happened? Deader then a womp rat that got bulls eye'd by a T16....
FIrst, not all skill based systems eschew experience points or even levels. In many cases, you still earn xp, but now instead of gaining a whole level in a class, you can choose to spend it on a particular skill (or set of skills). Some games (a few text muds) lumped skills into rough groups and tracked those to determine your level... that is, if you gained enough skill points in skills that were considered "magic user" skills, you'd be shown as a "level X Mage", which made coding item restrictions or NPC interaction much simpler.
Secondly, while you can make skills open-ended, in practice this isn't done. It would create a system where the oldest players will ALWAYS win, as without any form of cap, they'd always be ahead in everything. If you use repeated use instead of xp gain, then the macro/bot players will always win. To overcome this problem, EVE-Online took the unique solution of making skills train in real-time, and ONLY in real-time. That overcomes the macro/bot problem automatically, and also overcomes the oldest player problem. How, see the next paragraph.
Another problem skill based systems often have is that players end up with cookie-cutter master-of-all-trades characters at end-game. Instead of seeing a hundred level 70 paladins walking around, you see 200 maxed-out players who can all do everything. Some games try to add mutual-exclusion to skills... saying if you learn "Advanced Finger Waggling", it prevents you from learning "Advanced Tin Can Opening"... but that's a sneaky form of class. The solution that works for EVE-Online (and only because of its real-time training) is to provide far more skills than anyone can master in a given lifetime. Someone calculated that it would take 24 years to max out every single skill in that game, and the game has been live for only 4 years. So, you have to choose.... max out specific skills to be the best at one particular thing (such as a covert-ops pilot), or put a few points in everything but never be as good as anyone who has specialized? That's where skills shine, IMHO.
Another problem skill based systems often have is that players end up with cookie-cutter master-of-all-trades characters at end-game. Instead of seeing a hundred level 70 paladins walking around, you see 200 maxed-out players who can all do everything. Some games try to add mutual-exclusion to skills... saying if you learn "Advanced Finger Waggling", it prevents you from learning "Advanced Tin Can Opening"... but that's a sneaky form of class. The solution that works for EVE-Online (and only because of its real-time training) is to provide far more skills than anyone can master in a given lifetime. Someone calculated that it would take 24 years to max out every single skill in that game, and the game has been live for only 4 years. So, you have to choose.... max out specific skills to be the best at one particular thing (such as a covert-ops pilot), or put a few points in everything but never be as good as anyone who has specialized? That's where skills shine, IMHO.
Excellent points but Guild Wars/Fury presents the best solution to me for capping the oldest player problem by simply limiting the amount of active skills you can use. Now granted, they went extreme and made it 8. In EvE, the oldest player problem is still there because someone that has trained their skills for 4 years will have way more skills then the newbies and I'd imagine they can outfit their ships with the best equipment.
I think the Guild Wars approach is the best one atm. Since you can learn any skill but only have a certain amount active at a time. But like I pointed out before, their system flaw is only in the PvE portion (leveling up). The pvp portion at max level is really solid. Plus, it allows the hardcore players to grind out all the skills and it wont make any difference. A newbie is on even footing with a veteran.
Just pointing out their system and the one that Fury will have has already solved the 'uber template' problem. Additonally, because the skills are capped- well this allows a newbie to enjoy the game with their veteran peers
Comments
I like freedom in my games, I realy dislike being forced to pick a class and then not beeing able to learn other things then those the devs think that class should know. I think the hole idea of class system is a easy fix for lazy companys that isnt ready to invest the extra time to develop a game that alows feedom for the gamer to create his/her own gameing experience.
Class system is a brain less system that works well for the ppl that dont want to be botherd with creating the char they want to play, and I see no wrong in that, but can we that want to be the masters of how our chars develope get some games too
(and I did not mean that the ppl that wants an easy class system game is brain dead, only the game system, the same as most tv shows are brain dead but the ppl that watch them can be smart
)
When using skill-based system player have minimum chances to get "bad" set of skills,traits, percs and/or attributes, because he can learn everething. The leveling in skill-based system can be by group of skill, for exaple warriror skills, crafting skills etc (like Runescape). There are good system in EVE too, when skill learning speed depend from attribute.
Skill would be found in free games more, why make a new character when you can just get everything?
But the best thing in my point of view would probabaly to mix them up a circle in this case you choose the warrior , magic is on the other side of the circle, so the warrior doesnt do good at all with magic but can still use it, something like this would be an example:
-------------your warrior so your bottom right would be tank and your bottom left would be archer. so thats half the circle. if your a wizard you would have defence magic on your top right and enchanter* top left of you. and of course the wizard is on the bottom.
*thats the first thing i could think of - enchanting arrows but those are just examples
"I cherish the memories of a question my grandson asked me the other day when he said..Grandpa, were you a hero in the war?...No, but i served in a company of heroes"
Sgt. Mike Ranney E-company 506PIR 101'st airborn
Skill based FTW!
Unfortunately, it is very much harder for designers to provide enough balanced content to keep a skill-based world/universe going. Players also have trouble understanding that they are not limited by traditional class roles in such a system. UO & Ryzom both did skill-based well, but not well enough to garner/maintain the population of many class-based games...
Somebody make a Poll:
Skill based
Class based
Hybrid with classes
Hybrid with skill sets
<p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg></a></p>;
Hybrid skill system would be best. And not a damned korean point system like someone else mentioned as a good skill system. Korean point systems are just linear systems that allow you to diversify, however if you don't follow a specific skillpoint distribution you gimp yourself in the always the same pvp endgame.
Here is what I am talking about:
Everything is set up as a traditionaly skill based system. All skills are available to all players from the start or through progression in a specific skillset (eg: to learn uber slash_weaponskill_1, you need to have learned beginner and advanced slash_weaponskill_1 though 5). Somewhere in the character's progression through storyline, they are given a class specialization choice, which essentially gives the character access to a specific skill enhancement path. This specialization would not necessarily grant new skills, but rather modifiers or boosters to related skills obtained through the traditional skill system. Bottom line is that everyone has access to all skills, however those that choose to specialize will be better in that one area. In this way, I would envision people being able to build teams with healing, tanking, dps, stealth, buffing, etc specializations. I would also allow specialization paths to be changable through some side quest or other minor time / money sink that fits into the storyline. Here's the catch though, I would definately put a limit on skills so that PC's could not obtain every skill in the game (ala Ryzom) and make choices (ala SWG). If a PC chooses to be the best dps in the game, they will not have enough points to be the best healer and tank and stealther in the game.
I would go into my reasons for all of the above, but that would be too much for here and much of it is already mentioned in this thread.
Here's an interesting idea....
Create an MMO where there is no skill/class/abilitiy advancement.
Your character starts as good skill/ability/talent/class wise all they will ever get. You can custom pick all of your skills/jobs/abilities, create your own type of character, any combination you choose (with a limit to max number you an have at a given time of course). You can change/swap when you wish to, altering your spec either slightly or completely.
What would you do then?
Social advancement. Player crafted towns/cities, just have to organize and gather resources. Structures/cities are upgraded based on longevity and strength of the community. The more involved you are in your home city / community, over time the better your house/shop/establishment will get.
Titles and honor/reputation are the key advancement system here. You work towards the highest fame/infamy/honor/reputation etc. with your race, faction, city, community, etc. You advance in rank through military action, be it PVP or PVE. Form militias, armies, etc.
Have players not only battling for these things but against some dominant force. An evil alliance of bad guys, make all territory, even player's hard earned cities up for grabs by the invading force. Players / cities have to band together to defend their homes, their kingdoms, push the enemy back and acquire new territory for new colonies. If the enemy runs you out of your home, you must gather your armies and re-take your home, rebuild, fortify...
Give town mayors special diplomatic power, give high ranking military officers special power...
Put in systems for betrayel, players can choose to make deals and/or side with the enemy, but at a high price. Whole cities can join the dark cause, or a single maniacal player can "accidentally" open the gate and allow the enemy to rush in..
Point is, F class, F skill, F XP, F leveling, F grinding, F farming, F instancing....
Make a game where players care about their community, their country, their honor, their power....
Not stats and levels and gear. That's the motivation. You don't log on to grind out that next level, to raid for that next epic drop... You log on to further your cause, advance your position, defend your country...
Booyah.
That would be an awesome game. I'd play it.
Here's why it won't ever be made:
Game developers are like local bands. I've played in bands since I was really young. I've played blues, punk, hard rock, jazz, fusion, and I've even played my trumpet in Carnagie Hall with a symphonic band.
Guys in local bands talk a big game about how they want to make great music that's new and innovative and hasn't been done before, but they don't really want that.
9 times out of 10 those types of people just want to be famous, they don't want to be musicians, they don't even really care about being creative.
Contemporary developers aren't concerned with creating games like that. Their only concern is profit margins. To this end they shoot themselves in the foot time and time again by reaching for what they think is a tried and proven method to gaining profits, i.e. grinds and timesinks. They say they create their games with the player in mind, but the end product brings the lie to all their hype.
Much like the local band wanna be famous guys they totally miss the big picture.
The reason why epic bands became epic bands is because the memebers worked together to create music based on their personalities, insights, and dispositions. They did it for the love of music and it showed. People bought their music and saw them in concert because they wanted to be apart of that magic just for a few minutes or hours.
Developers have been doing the same thing. If they'd stop trying to design games based around getting and keeping a steady flow of cash, and developed a game that is just all out fun with no grinding or timesinks, people would flock to that game just to be apart of that kind of magic.
For those not counting: "BOOOOO-urns" and "superfunhappyslide".
Apologies in advance: it wasn't supposed to be quite this long.
As I was reading this thread, I stumbled on what might be the beginning of a halfway decent class/skill hybrid system. Now imagine this:
You all know about the diagrams with the overlapping circles - Venn diagrams - so let's start with something like that. For simplicity's sake (you could potentially have as many of these circles as you wanted) we'll go with four: Adventurer, Harvester, Crafter and Magic. Now, each of these circles has skills that belong to them and them alone, and some that overlap with each of the others, and some that belong to all four.
You're also given a 'character level' which advances as you gain XP. Still with me?
In this system, you'd be working with advancing your character level through XP gain, depending on your choice of Sphere/Circle/whatever. Harvesters gain experience through Harvesting, Crafters through Crafting, Adventurers through Adventuring and Mages through Magic-ing. Now, although some of the basic skills given to these folks will be available to everyone, the higher 'level' abilities will only be available to those who specialize.
Adventurers would have skills that would allow them to either take a ranged, light and fast, or tank-style. They could take some basic magic to assist them (maybe light healing, no rez, and a couple minor nukes for pulling?). Depending on the skills taken, different abilities would be unlocked. (I wouldn't want them to play like today's 'skills' - special attacks and whatnot, but for arguments sake, let's call it that for now). They would also have access to basic crafting (no magical equipment?) and basic harvesting (get it, can't refine it?)
Crafters would have multiple skills to work with, different professions. They would have access to basic Adventuring skills (no special abilities?) and basic Harvesting (get it, can't refine it?) and some basic Magic for simple magical equipment (would have to consult with a Mage for the most magical stuff).
Harvesters would have multiple types of resources, and the higher your skill in a certain resource type, the bigger your yield -- this Sphere/Circle/Whatever might get absorbed into Crafting in initial testing, but for now we'll call it something separate. They would have basic Adventuring skills, so as to defend themselves when necessary, and some basic spells, like Adventurers.
Mages would have access to the highest level of spells, and some access to basic Crafting, as well as basic Adventuring and Harvesting. Mages would have multiple paths (defence specialist, ranged damage, crowd control, pets, healing?)
Each Circle could advance to the highest level in their chosen one, and only to certain levels in others. Assume 20 levels (it would probably be higher, but this is an easy number to work with) Like so:
Adventurer --
Adventuring: 20
Magic: 5
Crafting: 10
Harvesting: 10
Crafter --
Crafting: 20
Adventuring: 5
Magic: 10
Harvesting: 10
Harvester --
Harvesting: 20
Magic: 5
Adventuring: 10
Crafting: 10
Mage --
Magic: 20
Crafting: 5
Adventuring: 10
Harvesting: 10
This is mostly a mind-dump/brainstorm, obviously it would need refining, but it has the potential to give some true customizability while still providing some defined (but somewhat overlapping) roles. Does this make sense to anyone else?
--------
"Give a man a fire, and he is warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life."
Hybrid, Smybrid, you are all smoking something. A pure skill based system trumps them all.
Games where the character skills are fully developed at creation or easily attained are out there already, it is called guild wars. If you were dumb enough to code a game like this, the only way to insure cash is to use guild wars method of getting all the money up front because people will get bored very fast with no character evolvement.
UO and AC were the best MMO's for me as they were skill based and you could change your characters skills as you like, albeit with some work involved.
I still wonder about Turbine, they went from the successful skill based AC1 to a disaster of a class based game AC2, yet both DDO and LOTR are both class based. Since neither have pvp, I do not understand why they chose the easier class based system.
I still long for an upgraded AC, I would dump all these games for it.
Both systems have their good points but ultimately I would say drop both and make something else, something more commonsensical.
Class/level systems limit you in the name of group dynamics, support grinding for levels and ultimately makes it where everyone in the same class plays pretty much the same.
Skill systems have you grinding for hours to raise your bow skill by one point, and after you master bow, guess what, you can spend coutless hours mastering all the other skills so you can be like everyone else.
That is why I propose the Achievement and profeciency system,
Characters startoff with half the max ammount of points used for purchasing skills, that way you lessen some grind by being halfway there and your character starts out as a competent fighter rather than corky the special warrior who only knows one attack. Meaning you could start being pretty good with a gun or know quite a bit about smithing.
The remaining points must be earned by completeing challanges, note the word challange, I don't meaning like fetch quests, those are good for money, I mean something like a tough fight with another player or the crafting of some really nice sword or what have you.
With your newly earned points you go to a trainer, pick the skill you want and train, when I say skill I don't mean "sword skill" I mean more like thrust, slash, parry, dodge, grapple, locks, counter, jab, uppercut, you get the point. I think instead of learning a specific attack or recipe, the character just learns a technique, letting the player use the techniques to comeup with something new.
EX instead of learning to make steel sword, you would learn to make edges and how to connect parts, then buy some steel at the market go home to your smithy and make a sword, the same thing goes for fighting, in stead of learning bash, you learn dash and some sort of basic attack, combine them and you get a bash like attack. You learn the general techniques instead of the specific.
To gain access to the new skill you have to complete a mini game or in other words a QT challenge, hints the achievement part, when you finish you can know use that skill, the better you perform in the QT challenge the more profeciency points you earn.
Profeciency points are accumulated by use of the skill and can be used to tweek aspects of the skill, EX say you use thrust a lot, you can use the profeciency points to improve the speed, power or endurance cost of that skill by a bit.
Basically mine is a skill system, but I like to think it is a more refined skill system based more on commonsense and completing challanges rather than repeatative use.
It seems many people think of class vs skill as either/or when you could very well do both, or in this case niether.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
This was an interesting post. But again I must emphasize, if people are changing out their templates weekly that is a GOOD thing. Players should indeed be experiementing with different templates. Players love 'options', creativity, and freedom. The more you restrict those options- the more you encroach on the gamer's freedom. If SWG pre-CU suffered from FOTM (Flavor of the month) then the Game Designers did a crappy job balanacing the powers, period. There's all there is to it. In Class Based games you can still have FOTM that has nothing to do with skill based vs Class based. In City Of Heroes people rerolled the latest new thing all the time. But this was because the alternatives sucked so bad and were so damn gimp they didnt give us a choice. For those familar with that game- you can d/l CoH/CoV Builder and look at the numbers. Assault Rifle is so god awful- its horrible choices like that in which made the FOTM sets like Energy Melee a clear winner.
Flavor Of The Month comes from bad game design period- has nothing to do with skill based games besides the fact that its a LOT more obvious how poor the game balance is when players have the freedom to switch to that template at will. Also, just because one game made mistakes does not mean a major mainstream publisher that invests years into their product cant get it right.
I do like your ideas about FFXI but that game also includes "elitism" just like any other Class based LEvel grind. If my friend has been playing for a few months then I join the game I cant game with him. In a skill based game- it should be possible to grab the necessary skills to make my avatar viable to any encounter. In a skill based game, I can always join up with my friends and contribute. In FFXI, players get dissed if they do not have the combo teams are looking for. That's not right. In a skill based game you will not have this problem
To make it worse with games like FFXI, it requires a HUGE time committment to do the end game content (which should not exist in the first place). Additionally, it creates a 'divide' between the new players and the veterans. I cannot game with the past population so I have to play 'catchup'.
The most important thing in an MMO period is being able to play with my friends. However, Class Based Level grinds detract from that experience greatly. Thus, the have to put a "level cap" so that once everyone reaches the cap, they can all play together. Thus, this is why we have the end game in level based games its inevitable. A skill based MMO can avoid this pitfall and offer the prospect of offering rich gaming opportunities for a long time.
The problem is this- we still have not seen a major skill based title get released that has the budget that World Of Warcraft had. Once we do, I think the MMORPG will be taken by storm. The casual gamers will be amazed by the freedom, replay, and infinite combinations they can achieve. The hardcore will also appreciate this. No longer will you need "alts". In the virtual world, just like real life, you only need one avatar.
Nice I commend your effort for thinking out of the box I like your ideas a lot. Giving players a lot of skills upfront means you are giving newbs a fighting chance against a veteran which means rich open pvp. Plus, giving them points upfront suggests to that player a template they should follow. Only thing I would add to your system is the freedom to respec all those 'points' to something else by talking to an NPC. This way, players wont delete their toon if they feel they allocated their points to the wrong thing. Also, this promotes experiementing with different skills upfront, etc. I suspect you already thought of this or if after implementation, you might arrive at that conclusion
That would be an awesome game. I'd play it.
Here's why it won't ever be made:
Game developers are like local bands. I've played in bands since I was really young. I've played blues, punk, hard rock, jazz, fusion, and I've even played my trumpet in Carnagie Hall with a symphonic band.
Guys in local bands talk a big game about how they want to make great music that's new and innovative and hasn't been done before, but they don't really want that.
9 times out of 10 those types of people just want to be famous, they don't want to be musicians, they don't even really care about being creative.
Contemporary developers aren't concerned with creating games like that. Their only concern is profit margins. To this end they shoot themselves in the foot time and time again by reaching for what they think is a tried and proven method to gaining profits, i.e. grinds and timesinks. They say they create their games with the player in mind, but the end product brings the lie to all their hype.
Much like the local band wanna be famous guys they totally miss the big picture.
The reason why epic bands became epic bands is because the memebers worked together to create music based on their personalities, insights, and dispositions. They did it for the love of music and it showed. People bought their music and saw them in concert because they wanted to be apart of that magic just for a few minutes or hours.
Developers have been doing the same thing. If they'd stop trying to design games based around getting and keeping a steady flow of cash, and developed a game that is just all out fun with no grinding or timesinks, people would flock to that game just to be apart of that kind of magic.
I like the comparison to music. I think I've seen you make references to this type of thing beore. Somthing along the lines of "Stairway to Heaven could only have been made once" kind of thing...
I know it's a big risk to go "outside the box" but even though the MMORPG genre is still (sort of) in its infancy, there's something to be said for innovation.
For example, take Halo / Halo 2.. nothing really that amazingly innovative, just a proven formula tested and adapted and refined to the point of perfection. Then look at F.E.A.R. add the tried and true with a healthy dose of innovation. Or Half-Life 2. Same deal. They didn't reinvent the wheel, but they took what worked and expanded upon it.
Current MMO's are trying to do the same, can't blame them. You take what works, add some new flavor, re-package and refine it.
It's safe, yes, it "works," yes; however what are you adding to the genre? It's like pop music, take what works, take what's safe, add a new twist, shove it down our throats.
All it's going to take is a big name developer with some under-the-naval fortitude, a bright flash of brilliance, an infathomable budget, and some good old fashion luck to try something different, really think outside the box and create something unique.
Closest thing we have in the current MMO market is Guild Wars. "No monthly fee? You're insane!" Guess they proved the nay-sayers wrong. "Allow people to create max-level PVP toons? Impossible!" Nope, worked out well for 'em didn't it?
I think our only hope for a game like I described will be if someone big and generally innovative like Bethesda or Bioware decide to take that gamble. It'll pay off for them I reckon.
Asian MMOs do this like Rappelz and Fly For Fun (FFF). Although their system is a bit mroe restrictive because in their game you do pick a class upfront then you later specialize. Everquest 2 also does this. You start out with a generic template and later down the road you specialize.
You have good ideas but it suffers from all the flaws that Class Level based grinds have. I like how in your system I start out generic and have freedom but then you 'force' me into a template and remove my freedom to choose the powers I want. Your system punishes players for picking the wrong specilization just like EQ2 does. To make matters worse, players will seek out certain types of specilizations at end game thus making content inaccessbile to undesired builds. We all have to understand players will always min/max and seek the most efficient team compositions.
Your system is not one that encourages the freedom of choice. It creates a 'divide' between the young and new because for sure the veteran teams during the tough content will seek out the 'specialized' builds. It also forces players into your 'vision' of how they should play. My opinion is that your system will suffer from all the restrictions Rappelz, FFF, and EQ2 all suffer from. It removes control from the player and places all the power into the hands of the Developer which ultimately isn't different from the existing systems we have now in the long run. Good ideas I like how you visually broke down your concepts. And I am not saying such a system will not succeed its just too restrictive for an open ended game
Ah. As I typed that out, I suddenly see your point.
Perhaps it would be better, than, to lose the Sphere idea entirely and just merge all the skills together into one large pool? Then all you'd need is a 'skill credit' cap that would be decided during testing, that would allow a decent amount of diversity but not give players the option of 'having it all'.
I think the major problem that everyone brings up with the skill system is that you wind up eventually with 'uber templates' that essentially turn into classes anyway. If you don't have an 'uber template', then you're a 'gimp' and a useless person to group with or have in a guild. I can only imagine that it would require a lot of testing time and effort in order to make everything equally viable, if perhaps in different ways.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on how to avoid the 'specialized build' problem in general. How would you build an open-ended game?
EDITED TO ADD A FEW MORE THOUGHTS:
My first MMORPG was Asheron's Call, which uses a hybrid level/skill system. You can build your character essentially any way you like, except that people have decided on a few 'uber templates' that have become absolutely necessary for maximum advancement. Even in the early days of the game, those who did not have the best templates were considered essentially worthless.
In my ideal game, I would like there to be freedom, but also a sense of interdependence. In order to allow complete freedom with a skill-based system, you run the risk of allowing everyone to be an absolutely perfect independent solo-creature. MMORPGs are about community, and I think that the most successful system will be one that creates and fosters a sense of true interdependence amongst the playerbase. If this means restricting some freedoms, so that the players actually NEED to rely on each other -- then that is a necessary evil, to create a true sense of community in the game. I want adventurers to need crafters, and vice versa. I would really like a game that doesn't encourage min-maxing and racing to the end-game, but instead creates a true feeling of community.
Am I alone in this?
--------
"Give a man a fire, and he is warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life."
Ah. As I typed that out, I suddenly see your point.
Perhaps it would be better, than, to lose the Sphere idea entirely and just merge all the skills together into one large pool? Then all you'd need is a 'skill credit' cap that would be decided during testing, that would allow a decent amount of diversity but not give players the option of 'having it all'.
I think the major problem that everyone brings up with the skill system is that you wind up eventually with 'uber templates' that essentially turn into classes anyway. If you don't have an 'uber template', then you're a 'gimp' and a useless person to group with or have in a guild. I can only imagine that it would require a lot of testing time and effort in order to make everything equally viable, if perhaps in different ways.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on how to avoid the 'specialized build' problem in general. How would you build an open-ended game?
Well like I said before your ideas are very nice and the organization of the various skill sets is good. But if I were to refine it I would indeed set a max limit of the amount of skills a player can have active. Basically, I would make it so players have the freedom to earn any skill they want -but- they can only have so many skills active at a time. Each skill should perhaps be given a 'weight' or value. This way, you wont have a super warrior that has an unfair advantage over newbies. Also, this encourages good teamplay because veteran teams will benefit from newbies.
I like having the various spheres of disciplines that you had. Perhaps you could balance your system by charging a weight for each 'sphere' players choose to grab skills from for their current template. I suppose it might end up like Guild Wars at the end but it still has flexibility to allow the jack-of-all-trades to grab skills from all the spheres and have them active. I think FURY (developed by Auran) is working on something similar to your system. Your system also reminds of FFX (I think it was that one) whereas you could grab skills from various spheres.
But even in its current form I want to point out your system is a very good one -but- it would suffer from some of the pitfalls some of the other games have
In short; My opinion.
I'm not going to go into long winded details here. I think a skills based system is a move into the right direction for MMO's. I also agree with a previous poster, game developers just need to start thinking a bit outside of the box in either case. Again this is just my opinion, that MMO's need a more organic system versus a very hard nosed pick it and stick it.
I apologize for my rude post to you- you've shown a lot more maturity in your response then I did. /bow
Good ideas and yes Guild Wars is a very popular model you are correct (I love GW). just keep in mind though an elementalist can always pickup a sword and become a warrior (ele/war). Also, once any skill is unlocked in Guild Wars, you can create a max level toon that utilizes all of your skills. Their system is a lot more open and flexible then FFXI for instance. Once you unlock some skills you can always change even your primary and go Warrior / Elementalist. And it has limits in place to prevent 'uber templates'.
The only bad thing GW suffers from is that its a very linear path during leveling. A Level 18 team does not benefit from a Level 1. GW, in PvE, suffers from the same 'divide' that other RPGs suffer from. To make matters worse, in PvE, teams seek specilized builds (like mage, warrior, priest) and players lack the freedom to change their primary. The secondary does not have the same benefits as the primary skill. If GW level cap was a lot higher their system would quickly unravel and it would suffer from the exact same pitfalls as FFXI. The newbies would find end game content inaccesible and would be unable to play with their friends. They would have to play 'catchup'
GW 2 says they will initiate a sidekick system but that is still not as flexible as a skill system because the lowbies will still lack essential skills. So of course, I expect teams to not seek out sidekicks which is the situation we have in City Of Heroes
the biggest problem with any skill/class based mmo is the measuring it creates...
People who are higher level, and/or have better gear, more maxed out skills, in bigger/better guilds...
The competition can be healthy, as it may encourage players a little lower on the totem pole to aspire to the greatness they see in another person's uber-toon.... But as we all know it can be very, very bad when we see the creation of L337 kids...
Sore winners are far worse then sore losers. Any system with a measurable degree of progress/status creates all kinds of positive and negative social consequences.. be it griefing, powerleveling, etc.
then how do you avoid this? create a class/level/skill/rank free system? what then becomes the motivation for players to be better, to strive for advancing their character?
EQ started what I consider the very steep downward spiral of gear dependancy, made far worse by WoW, Lineage 2, etc.
Remember, Ultima Online all the gear was crap, lootable, etc. Wasn't until EQ that gear became an issue.
All the systems of a MMORPG are interconnected, thus it is impossible to debate the pros/cons of skill vs. class advancement without thinking about gear, loot, pvp rules, gameplay, etc etc etc.
Point is...
Skill vs. Class, which is better is more a product of how the rest of the game is done then anything else.
You take a game like WoW and all of a sudden, don't change ANYTHING but allow you to mix and match skills/abilities/talent trees to come up with your own class... everything else in the game changes. Look what SWG did to itself with the NGE? They switched the whole thing to a class based system and look what happened? Deader then a womp rat that got bulls eye'd by a T16....
FIrst, not all skill based systems eschew experience points or even levels. In many cases, you still earn xp, but now instead of gaining a whole level in a class, you can choose to spend it on a particular skill (or set of skills). Some games (a few text muds) lumped skills into rough groups and tracked those to determine your level... that is, if you gained enough skill points in skills that were considered "magic user" skills, you'd be shown as a "level X Mage", which made coding item restrictions or NPC interaction much simpler.
Secondly, while you can make skills open-ended, in practice this isn't done. It would create a system where the oldest players will ALWAYS win, as without any form of cap, they'd always be ahead in everything. If you use repeated use instead of xp gain, then the macro/bot players will always win. To overcome this problem, EVE-Online took the unique solution of making skills train in real-time, and ONLY in real-time. That overcomes the macro/bot problem automatically, and also overcomes the oldest player problem. How, see the next paragraph.
Another problem skill based systems often have is that players end up with cookie-cutter master-of-all-trades characters at end-game. Instead of seeing a hundred level 70 paladins walking around, you see 200 maxed-out players who can all do everything. Some games try to add mutual-exclusion to skills... saying if you learn "Advanced Finger Waggling", it prevents you from learning "Advanced Tin Can Opening"... but that's a sneaky form of class. The solution that works for EVE-Online (and only because of its real-time training) is to provide far more skills than anyone can master in a given lifetime. Someone calculated that it would take 24 years to max out every single skill in that game, and the game has been live for only 4 years. So, you have to choose.... max out specific skills to be the best at one particular thing (such as a covert-ops pilot), or put a few points in everything but never be as good as anyone who has specialized? That's where skills shine, IMHO.
Excellent points but Guild Wars/Fury presents the best solution to me for capping the oldest player problem by simply limiting the amount of active skills you can use. Now granted, they went extreme and made it 8. In EvE, the oldest player problem is still there because someone that has trained their skills for 4 years will have way more skills then the newbies and I'd imagine they can outfit their ships with the best equipment.
I think the Guild Wars approach is the best one atm. Since you can learn any skill but only have a certain amount active at a time. But like I pointed out before, their system flaw is only in the PvE portion (leveling up). The pvp portion at max level is really solid. Plus, it allows the hardcore players to grind out all the skills and it wont make any difference. A newbie is on even footing with a veteran.
Just pointing out their system and the one that Fury will have has already solved the 'uber template' problem. Additonally, because the skills are capped- well this allows a newbie to enjoy the game with their veteran peers