I would choose class, I dont want to go pvp and fight someone that has level 70 in archery magic and fighting, I want to fight an archer with my mage and see who wins. I wouldent hesitate to play a fun skill based game either its just class is better for me.(probabaly cause im not too creative).
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?
Hell no. The key to that problem I feel is allowing the players to create their own goals. Allowing them the freedom to be discriminating and decide amongst themselves what they want. And they must do that without making the game linear, only one way to succeed.
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.
My thoughts too. Since in some skill based games you have to "level" each individual skill.
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.
Agreed. Ryzom is another example of having all the skills. The specialisation in that game came from armor and spells which you could tailor to you style.
I find myself agreeing alot with Heerobya, Kryogenic, & Vajuras. Lord Kelleyan put forward his idea about a game so i think i will put my ideal game forward. It's certainly not unique but its what i would want in a game.
Skill based: (UO model) Each skill has a maximum of 50 skill points. Every 5 skill points within a skill grants you an ability(Most useful at lower level). Each character has a max of 200 skill points. 20 skills. (rough random numbers to give an idea).
Skills do not enhance one another directly. ie NO anatomy skill bonus to damage. That sort of bonus should come from the skill of the combatant, enabled by intelligent game design.
im not trying to appear biased, but i honestly see no appeal to class based games when compared to skill based games.
So what if people always switch to an "Uber-build", you can always experiment and try and find a better one, find one that is specifically target against said build, or experiment with it yourself. Plus it brings together the communty. Rarely in a skill based game can you complain about "nerfing" as you arent confined to a specific class. the only time you could being if you were a purist build, but still the beauty with a skill system is that you can make your own "class" (or find on on the internet) and blend styles.
A class system is also the traditional system for this genre. Even going back as far as the original Dungeons and Dragons pen and paper game, advancement in a role-playing game has been done through classes and levels.
No it isnt traditional for this genre. There are plenty of skill based pen and paper games out there - Runequest, Call of Cthulu etc. It just happens that Dungeons and Dragons is the one most people (and the author) know of.
There is a lot of room for developers to think outside the box. Take Tabula Rasa - they have addressed the class problem by having an inverse class tree. So rather than picking your class at character creation everyone starts as a recruit - then at some level you decide if you want to move down the combat or specialist paths - these then branch again and again.
Originally posted by _Shadowmage There is a lot of room for developers to think outside the box. Take Tabula Rasa - they have addressed the class problem by having an inverse class tree. So rather than picking your class at character creation everyone starts as a recruit - then at some level you decide if you want to move down the combat or specialist paths - these then branch again and again.
That's not new at all EQ2, Rappelz, and FFF have that. Asian MMOs been doing that for a long time now. It doesnt solve any of the problems class based MMOs have as a matter of fact it actually exponentially compounds the problem. At each juncture players can possibly make a mistake they reget forever (pick the wrong specialization). Additonally, it adds a lot more grind because system like that, like I just mentioned, usually dont let you 'respec'. So, if you screw yourself with the wrong specilization guess what you have to reroll and work your way back up. It's just a fancy coating for extreme grind (which is why many Asian MMOs use this feature). The key thing to look for is determine if they let you redistribute your points at anytime (like switch from one specilization to another w/o penalty like guild wars). Still looks like an interesting game but I just dont think that part of it is innovative so far
I say classes because its an rpg at the end of the day you need classes to have a good team, yes lots of warriors and a healer works but like wow you need to have sub classes/skills so a warriors doesnt always have to be the front line maybe wants to shoot a gun....wow does this very well, normaly i will try all the classes in a new mmo sit back see witch one i enjoyed the most and then move on from there, Eve on the other hand i started mining and oh my isnt that just boring, then u find out that you have to wait 6 months to be able to be a pvp fighter. no fun
I still think some of the new games in dev at the moment may find the perfect mix of both class and skill, because this debate will go on forever untill someone works out how you mix a class system with a skill system and still have a good game, maybe the answer is as easy as havin classes but being able to change your class (say make a max lvl warrior, then change and start again as a healer but still have to choose to swap beween them as you wish) while keeping all the sub skills like crafting and mounts and such? have i come on the answer? please pick hole in my idea we the players must know the answer hell you know what they say about moneys and skakespear....
I say classes because its an rpg at the end of the day you need classes to have a good team (This is not necessary true. You can have a skill-based system and still have good team. Also in RPG you role-play a role, and no matter if you are using a class system or a skill system, you will have a role. The question is if the role is the one YOU want to play or are you limited within the class), yes lots of warriors and a healer works but like wow you need to have sub classes/skills so a warriors doesnt always have to be the front line maybe wants to shoot a gun....wow does this very well(You may think WoW does it well, but to me, the Class system already give the players a predetermined mind set. Think of it this way: You roll a Warrior, and you want to head down Arm/Fury build because you want DPS over tanking, but since most people associate Warrior = tank, you will always have someone telling you how you are bad at what you do becuase you do not fit "THEIR" perception of what Warrior should do and be. ), normaly i will try all the classes in a new mmo sit back see witch one i enjoyed the most and then move on from there, Eve on the other hand i started mining and oh my isnt that just boring, then u find out that you have to wait 6 months to be able to be a pvp fighter. no fun I still think some of the new games in dev at the moment may find the perfect mix of both class and skill, because this debate will go on forever untill someone works out how you mix a class system with a skill system and still have a good game, maybe the answer is as easy as havin classes but being able to change your class (say make a max lvl warrior, then change and start again as a healer but still have to choose to swap beween them as you wish) while keeping all the sub skills like crafting and mounts and such? have i come on the answer? please pick hole in my idea we the players must know the answer hell you know what they say about moneys and skakespear.... cheers Doc
Well, with change of class it comes down to HOW? Do you let the players changes with a function? how many times can you do it? any time limit to it? and any restriction to when you can or cannot change it?
If you made it so that you change class anytime = you have unstable team since you'll begin to see group with peopel switching roles around too many time, and that is harder to control.
If you made it so you can only do it once in a certain set timeframe = it might work, but then again, for groups, there will be some instability due to if the main tank suddenly change to healer and none of the other members can tank... or have a secondary class that can tank...
If you made it with even more restriction (i.e. FFXI method, play gold method, using special item method...) = it might work, but depends on the system you'll have different issues.
As I say it before, I'll say it again. Class limited the diversity for player and create a pre-determined mind set for players. These are the main reasons that I dislike Class-based system. On the other hand, if you make them as Professions, combine with skill-based system, then it's a different story since it will allow a greater diversity into setting up your character.
Hybrid idea is ok, but in the end, it all comes down to implementation.
Also, I don't mean Skill-based is not without disadvantage, but I just like it better since it allow more freedom in character development, and that is important to me in MMORPG.
I'll be the first to admit I'm proably biased cause swg was my first mmo, but I'm definitely for the SWG model of skill based in a sandbox environment. (Though with the diminishing returns aspect that they added later on to limit min maxing, ie someone becoming completely immune to knockdown or could dodge everything) Though it is a lot harder to keep balanced, it offers much more freedom and openness to the game. Especially in a game like SWG, where if you wanted something different it would only take a couple of days to go from a complete ranged templete to a melee and vice versa. As well, I loved the fact that crafters could be a full combat profession in it and could hold their own in pvp. Don't get me started about crafted gear being better than dropped gear. I did like how they added things in like acklay bones and krayt tissues, though. Instead of high level mobs and dungeons dropping gear they dropped the components to craft the best gear. That way even if you couldn't get a group together because of time constraints or w/e you could still collect enough money and buy the best gear. Of course this makes the game very gear dependent, but of course name an mmo that isn't gear dependent, its just "easier" per se to get the gear and equalize the playing field then spending months raiding the same stupid dungeon to get exactly equal gear. While in a skill based sandbox game (btw I hold the 2 synonymous, its hard to have a true sandbox with a level system (which is usually a class based system), as well a skill based system in a tradtional linear mmo doesn't really work imo.) the entire game is the endgame. Getting to the max level isn't the goal, thats the start of the game. Whereas in a class based the "story" is told thru the leveling process. However, once you reach max level, its difficult to implement player created content in a linear game, whereas in a open ended game player created content is the game.
Class based games can be fun, don't get me wrong WOW is a great game. However, they lack the longevity of sandboxed skill games, imo. In a class game, once you reach the highest level the only option is to raid dungeons to get gear, as this is the only way to improve your character. However, this becomes very repetitive and is the ultimate downfall of class based games. Raid X dungeon to get Y gear so you can then raid Z dungeon. Then once you get everything, wait until next xpac comes out so you can raid the next dungeon. Once you've raided a dungeon a few times, it gets old fast. Especially considering the time requirements of raiding. I probably played WOW and SWG the same amount, but it's much more free playing in a sandboxed skill environment. I didn't feel obligated to stay for 4 hours at a time, i could come and go as i please, whereas in raiding if I leave it is detrimental to the group.
Which also goes into the whole traditional 3 class system of rpg's and traditional mmos as well. You have your 3 though sometimes can be 4 standard classes. You have your tank, dps, healer, and sometimes CC/support/buffer/debuffer. Dps of course can be expanded into ranged/melee, magic/physical, etc. This is great for the developers because it makes balancing PvE and dungeons extremely easy (per se). The fights can be structured and even programmed by the developers. However, the same problem occurs in every rpg, the 2 classes that are an absolute necessity are usually the hardest to find. Nobody wants to play the healer or the tank (though there are many exceptions, this is speaking in averages). Every time you try to get a group together, and even if you are in a large guild, you struggle to find a healer and a tank. Yes it is fun to play these classes, sometimes, but most people don't like it. Why? Because it pigeonholes you in the rest of the game. A tank has a billion armor, but can usually do almost no damage, a healer vice versa can keep a group up forever, but can deal out absolutely no damage as well. When they go out into the world they are forced to group with someone else, or suffer extremely long fights to do even soloable quests. Granted WOW offered the chance for those classes to "respec" and become shadow priests or damage dealing warriors, but they would have to "respec" back (spending a crap load of gold in the process) in order to raid again. This of course boils over into PvP as well. Class based systems make PvP fights the exact same every time: Kill healer, kill clothies, take out rest of dps classes, take out heavy armored. This is the standard practice for organized PvP in a class based game. Granted you can develop extensive strategies in order to counteract this, but it all ends up being the same.
PvP in a skills based game is usually quite different. It usually becomes just a free for all, with the more organized team that focus fires coming out on top. There is no "preferred" target usually. Everyone is equally threatening, and equally proportionate part of the group. In a class based game, if you take out the enemies healer, and your healer is still up, unless you are just completely retarded its game over. In a skills based game if one person is taken out its not so much of a big deal. I absolutely loved SWG because you didn't need healers. Everyone could "heal" if they took some points in medic, you could have a designated healer, and it sometimes helped, but it was not necessary nor preferred. When you did PvE, you still had a tank, but any melee class would suffice and tanks could be swapped back and forth. As well, everyone could throw a heal on the tank, as well as the tank healing himself. Though he would usually run out of mind, which prevented soloing high end content.
Anyway, as you can see I'm obviously biased towards SWG, but I really feel that Pre-CU had the best platform for an MMO, if they hadn't messed up with the whole jedi thing (btw i did have a ranked jedi, they were overpowered) and just fixed some balance issues, while adding story arcs and assisting player created content more, I would have played SWG till the servers went down, and I know most of the vets would have too. Well I'll stop babbling.
I've read the main article and I've had a quick gander through the 9 pages of replies. I think that the author of the article is indeed simplifying things to the extreme. Skill-based doesn't necessarily mean you get skills from actively using them, you may get xp from leveling etc. There is a lot of middle ground here.
Personally, I prefer mmos as open as possible. Skill-based advancement, no levels, no "leveled" areas or tons of quests you have to do to advance. When I say this, people laugh at me and say that it's "impossible". The funny thing, it was done over 10 years ago, in a game called Ultima Online. It is to date the best mmo on the market if you ask me, even with graphics that make modern kids scuff. I'll take gameplay over graphics any day.
The only game currently on the market that I have any serious hopes for is Darkfall Online. Of course, since it doesn't fit into the "WoW" mold, people berate it. It also made the mistake of creating a community VERY early in development, so people have been waiting for it for years now. I hope it comes out, because I think it will bring what all other mmos fail to bring us at this time; freedom to do what we like, and then face the consequences.
Yes, the skill system in DFO will take a lot of balancing, but that's what betas and player feedback is for. It's how you make a good game great.
DFO also has prestige classes, meaning if you train a certain skillset and adhere to a certain "code", you can get classlike bonuses, including unique skills. However, this comes with the restrictions that you have to stick to the code of the class, which might be that you have to fight with certain weapons or not kill unless attacked (Paladin).
"A class system is also the traditional system for this genre. Even going back as far as the original Dungeons and Dragons pen and paper game, advancement in a role-playing game has been done through classes and levels."
This got me. The thing that most current games seem to be missing is that classic pen and paper games often have a skill system embeded in them to add diversity. You can be a sorcerer in 3.5 D&D, but whether you take animal handling and ride is entirely up to you, and of course the GM. The other aspect is that the class system in the original Dungeons and Dragons system is also an illusion - sure you might be a warrior, but if a few games into the campaign you feel that warrior is really not your thing, the DM can let you change to something else or, with the group's concensus, simply switch your class to something more suitable.
Saying "look classes are traditional!" entirely ignores the inherent flexibility that pen and paper systems have, because they are not hard coded. I have yet to meet a game that has anywhere near the depth of modern pen and paper games, when that some day occurs I will be very happy, but for now the systems are symplistic and indeed inelegant compared to pen and paper games that are run well. MMORPG's are something I like to play, a good pen and paper game is something I love to play in with a good group of friends.
The current computer design approach is still too scripted to have anywhere near the flexibility and depth of storytelling available to pen and paper games; it will change over time. EVE already has a very flexible system leading to dynamic and unpredictable playstyles, but it has not yet added the level of social interaction that personal gaming can achieve. At a design level, I would put EVE at the front-edge of games looking to successfully merge the class/skill divide in the way that modern pen and paper games do. If you look at it analytically, EVE is very very different, because in effect it is a skill system based on a financial level-based system. Anyone can train anything they like, but if you do not have the money to buy the skill training book you need to "level up" your finances first, whether that is through combat missions, piracy, trading, manufacturing, mining etc - no money no 40,000,000 credit skill book for you. An "EQ" style game would simply make that kind of skill unavailable until level 40 in crafting or adventuring, btu would have a substantially lower relative cost for such skills - you put in the time levelling a formal level, so you need to put in relatively less game-time worth of in-game money.
Overall, class systems that do not permit reclassing or true multi-classing simply do not have the same longevity of gameplay. In a skill based game, where you can drop one skill and earn another instead, you can play the same character for years, forming strong community bonds and attachments with the avatar. My UO scribe-tailor-mage-tamer was an illustration: I could, and did, play the same character for years, dabbling in almost all of the skills available until I found a combination that was uniquely suitable for my playstyle (remembering that UO let you have "parts" of skills, as did pre-NGE SW:G). Likewise my dancer - Jedi in SW:G - had the NGE not come along and made the game entirely unplayable for me (I tried, too much clicking), I would still be playing that same character today, even though I almost certainly would ahve changed the skill balance several times (again).
The class systems also impose stereotype roles on characters, creating expectations that drive people away from games. I have known people to not make warriors simply because in almost every class-based MMORPG the warrior has to choose what NPC to "pull", creating a huge responsibility, even though wearing full plate and whacking things with sword and sheild may apply. Returning to the original dungeons and dragons, the "classes" were never as scripted as they are now. You can have a D&D warrior with 18 charisma and heal skill if you want to - sure that may be "sub-optimal" from a powergamers point of view, but it can be great from a role-playing point of view.
Speaking of power-gamers, a fundamental mistake in RPGs is to try to make all classes "balanced". Vanguard is a good example, they are doing a huge amount of work trying to "balance" their 15 existing classes, but honestly I really do not care - I like the style of the Blood Mage class, so that is what I play (although I would love to have the option to take sword skill instead of staff). Another good example is Blood Elf paladins in WoW - they are hardly "balanced" at low level PvP, but the point is no-one really cares that much that they are unbalanced, you either make one too or not. The eternal pursuit of "balance" is in my view a gigantic failure of power-gamer orientated designers to remember that roleplaying is meant to be about style and individuality too. By focusing on the class model, distinct roles are enforced, and with or without skill options players are inevitably pressured to take the skills that enable them to meet those eforced roles. That kills off individuality, especially where clothing is armour, so reagardless of whether that EQ2 guild reward dress looks great or not you better put your armour back on before pulling the MOB or else!
If I want narrow classes and scripted gameplay I will buy an online FPS game with team PvP combat. In an MMO I want to be able to express my individuality, and the class system fundamentally limts that by imposing "requirements" to meet the imposed roles that come with the classes. A question to ask devs - did you ever roleplay D&D as four rouges, or four merchants? I bet almost none ever did, always going for "balanced" parties in adventures that pre-assumed combat. Some of the most enjoyable roleplaying I have had was when our fearless warrior bought a cartload of cheese spending much of the party's funds, which we then struggled to make a profit on. The GM had written the adventure to be our party attacking a bandit camp, we did get to that the next week, but for a while it was all about peddling cheese, which was so bizarre and unexpected that it was just great fun. You typically don't get warriors in online games who have meaningful merchant and haggling skills, except to date in EVE.
So overall, class centered games tend to lead to scripted, predictable encounters that end up being dreary and repetitive. Skill based games mean that you actually have to talk to people to know what they offer to a group, and in my view it really does not matter whether particular skills are "balanced" or not - as long as they are fun, who cares if dancing is not going to kill the Bounty Hunter? Dancing with a lightsabre had style . When SW:G changed from skill to class, I simply couldn't stand it any more - same graphics, mostly same core gameplay (dance, kill things, gather, craft, fly) , but it just felt scripted and stale knowing that I had to be one thing or another, not a bit of this and a bit of that to suit my particular playstyle.
I posted the majority of the beginning of my own response to this at my blog (http://damianov.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/classes-vs-skills, if anyone is interested), but I thought I'd just highlight a few of the points already made by others that I think really get to the heart of the matter.
First, as has been noted earlier, which system (classes or skills) works best is highly dependent upon the rest of your system, and also what you are trying to accomplish. Classes are very effective in most existing games because they are highly combat-centric. A class can very efficiently define your role and ability in that single dominant activity with a minimum of fuss. If, on the other hand, you are attempting to create a game where other activities have importance as well, especially if you want players to be able to move back and forth between them as they wish, then a simple class system becomes more problematic. Multi-classing, class/skill hybrids, talent trees... these are all attempts to finesse the issue, and combine some of the advantages of both "extremes".
Many implementations of Skills often can be viewed as "mini-classes". Conversely, many implementations of Classes are simply "a group of related skills".
There are a host of alternatives for defining "advancement" that step completely outside classes and skills. Social advancement in particular has been mentioned a few times. None of these are necessarily an "all-or-nothing" proposition... how heavily you weight them in your design is the real question.
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? Hell no. The key to that problem I feel is allowing the players to create their own goals. Allowing them the freedom to be discriminating and decide amongst themselves what they want. And they must do that without making the game linear, only one way to succeed. 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. My thoughts too. Since in some skill based games you have to "level" each individual skill. 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. Agreed. Ryzom is another example of having all the skills. The specialisation in that game came from armor and spells which you could tailor to you style. I find myself agreeing alot with Heerobya, Kryogenic, & Vajuras. Lord Kelleyan put forward his idea about a game so i think i will put my ideal game forward. It's certainly not unique but its what i would want in a game. Skill based: (UO model) Each skill has a maximum of 50 skill points. Every 5 skill points within a skill grants you an ability(Most useful at lower level). Each character has a max of 200 skill points. 20 skills. (rough random numbers to give an idea). Skills do not enhance one another directly. ie NO anatomy skill bonus to damage. That sort of bonus should come from the skill of the combatant, enabled by intelligent game design. Question are attribute points nessesary?
To answer your question, I think atrribute points are neccessary, as long as they are done right. No game that I can recall except for UO has done this right. There were only 3 attributes, and I cant remember the max, but let's say it was 250. So you could have 100 strength, 100 dexterity, yet only 50 intelligence. This is the kind of attribute system games of the future need.
Take the focus off of maximizing your stats, getting better gear with +strength or +stamina or +intellect... instead, you have to choose what to focus on and what to neglect.. Your stats rose and fell based off of what skills you were using, but with limits on what the character was capable of. You could "lock" the attributes in place once they got to a certain point. It was pretty ingenius.
As I'm big on interconnectivity, that all game systems are related and need to be balanced to each other, the attribute system in UO only worked so well because of how the skill system and health/mana worked.
Everyone had the same health, the same amount of mana. That's the way to do it. Let skills/attributes effect that. Maximize your strength and wear heavy armor and your life pool will last longer, you'll take less damage. Maximize your intelligence and skill up your Magery skills and you'll use less mana per spell, it'll regenerate quicker... The skill system was the same way.
You could only have so many total skill points, I think it was 700 total. That's 7 skills at maximum. You could raise and lower them or lock them in place once you reached the cap. Some skills complimented each other, like Anatomy and any Melee damage skill. Or Inscription and Magery I think it was..
It was simple, yes, but it worked SO well.
I'm talking old school UO. As old school UO was the Shizbam. I'm interested in the new UO with the big graphical upgrade, see if it can help recapture some of the magic that was the original UO.
Is this some EU vs US thing? Or maybe Sweden vs US, because of the over 20 different Pen & Paper RPG systems I have played only 1 was class/level based and that system mostly sucked (Swedish version of the Lord of the Rings PnP RPG).
And if I take it one more step and include PnP RPGs that I have heard of the only major which is class/level based is AD&D. Is AD&D the only PnP RPG played in the US or something?
This whole idea that current MMORPGs are class/level based is because PnP RPGs are so just seems wrong to me, because it does not fit with my experience at all.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Is this some EU vs US thing? Or maybe Sweden vs US, because of the over 20 different Pen & Paper RPG systems I have played only 1 was class/level based and that system mostly sucked (Swedish version of the Lord of the Rings PnP RPG). And if I take it one more step and include PnP RPGs that I have heard of the only major which is class/level based is AD&D. Is AD&D the only PnP RPG played in the US or something? This whole idea that current MMORPGs are class/level based is because PnP RPGs are so just seems wrong to me, because it does not fit with my experience at all.
Alot of the older PnP games are all Class based. The d20 system (d20 Star Wars, d20 D&D, ect.) is based on Class, feats, skills.
I've played in old school D&D campaigns, d20 D&D campaigns, and d20 Star Wars campaigns. I've also DMed a d20 STar Wars campaign.
I'm very partial to the d20 system. If it was implemented into an MMORPG, I'd play it. Knights of the Old Republic was based off the d20 Star Wars PnP game. It was fun and engaging.
I still hold the opinion that a skill based system would be much more fun and engaging in an online environment though.
But yeah it is a weak agruement to say that MMORPGs should be class based because PnP games are. This isn't true. Yeah you pick a class, but in every PnP game you can multiclass, choose from a multitude of skills and feats. This ends up leaving you with the kind of charcater you want. It boils down to choosing the skills you want to use that will inturn make up who your charcater is.
As I touched on in the other IMGDC thread, I'm all for whichever method allows for the most grouping oppotunities. Skills systems tend to be more flexible in this regard, as many have pointed out with Star Wars Galaxies. You could group with anyone in SWG, and contribute. You may not be contributing as much as someone with higher skills, but what you did had an effect. But as with City of Heroes sidekicking system, level based games can afford this as well. Its vital to the well-being of mmorpgs themselves that new players have the ability to play with more advanced players and their characters. I've been in games where most of the player base has had some time to advance and I was just starting out new. Feeling alone in a newb zone you are stuck in is not conducive to player retention. Not having anyone to group with has made me abandon more than one game in the past.
I am talking much older games than that, I started with PnP RPGs around 20 years ago. The d20 systems is a new system (2000, by then I had almost stopped playing PnP RPGS) that was released after the initial MMORPG wave. I would even go so far to say the the modern d20 systems are inspired by MMORPGs and not the other way around.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
It's not a US v EU thing... more just a matter of when you started (and perhaps stopped) playing. Most of the earliest games, back when I started gaming back in the mid-1970s, were an eclectic mix of systems... there were class-based, skill-based, hybrid, and some that were kind of tough to classify even now (Traveller?)
Classes and class-like systems became a bit more common over time, being the simpler of the two strategies to implement, and fed by the popularity of D+D, of course. Even the White Wolf games, (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, etc.) when they were the hottest property going, had classes of a sort, in form of the various Families, Schools, etc. Skill-based and hybrid systems are still quite easily found, tho... Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, and ICE Rolemaster (which is more of a hybrid) being some titles anyone interested in the genre might have run across over time.
The D20 system's rebirth as an "open source" system (a genius stroke of marketing there, I have to admit) has gotten a lot of play and attention this decade in the US, which is why you will see some people holding it up as the be-all-end-all. The pendulum swings, and then it swings back...
Definitely prefer skill-based, and I have ever since UO. UO and SWG are the two games I've enjoyed most because of being mostly/entirely driven by individual skills rather than pre-defined classes. It's nice being able to change your character's abilities completely, or sample several skills/abilities at a time without having to create a new character each time you want to do it.
When SWG first came out I made my char as a pistoleer, doctor and architect. I have fighting, healing, and crafting all in one character. I liked the 250-point cap because it meant I couldn't master all three professions. This keeps the person from racing to max out their char in all available skills (I mention this because there have been multiple posts about unending skill-gain possibilities). I had to choose what was most important to me and what was secondary. I changed my guy several times throughout my playtime and ended up being a combination bounty hunter/creature handler and had a lot of fun with it - and didn't have to create a new character from scratch to do so.
Character restriction is necessary to some degree, but I feel class-based games are way too defined.
I also think class games are more focused on items and gear than player skill. WoW is the worst about this. Doing level 60 battlegrounds (pre-BC) was worthless for some because they would often be clad in quest- and "normal"-instance gear vs someone decked out in full epics. It's hopeless if you're fighting someone whose weapon does 50% more damage and who has 50% more stats than you simply because they have better clothes on and their sword's name is written in purple instead of blue. A player's RL skill takes a backseat to who can devote more time in raids.
PVP is better with skill-based games. I remember a guildmate in UO who was about 2.5X GM who could easily kill 3- or 4X GM characters due to plain old-fashioned player talent. I know non-UOers may not understand that lingo but basically someone who had used 250 out of 700 max skill points was able to regularly defeat players with 300 or 400 skill points. They had the same gear, they had access to the same skill choices to focus on - the first player was just better at the game. PvP should never be dominated by levels/classes. If you don't agree, pit your Level 30 Mage vs my Level 45 Warrior and see who wins.
Class systems are currently better then the skills systems
The class systems promote comunity and group play, this is a problem i found with the skill systems. Players make builds normally around solo abality or end game play. With the skill system i found that when in a party i leveled slower and even got less item and gold reward then solo simple because other players did not have good builds or personal skill.
Over all the playing experence and community i found to be far to lacking in the skill based systems.
The Class systems can be far to much railed and tend to require gear to be better to reach the achevments of the skill based system
Ideally what i would like to see is a class based system with more collectablity in the character
Example:
base skills, bonuses, ablities - freely earned sololy on lv
common skills, bonuses, ablities - easily earn through exploration and quests or kills
uncommon skills, bonuses, ablities - less common with like chance earned
rare skills, bonuses, ablities - few players would likely have these
the base and common ones would give the most benifit where the uncommon or rare would be a small bonus to the point where its nice to have but by itself not major example: .1 of a stat or +1 hp
The other problem i have with the class based system is when you lv up you instantly gain a bunch of bonuses and some times major damage increases
I personally would rather see all those bonuses split up and paid for one at a time this allows for faster return on time spend
example you grind for an intire week end and gain 1 or 2 lvs, rather you could have it when the players are every few mins gain a bonus
This think would lead to far better game play and collectablity of the character
So the idea is use the class based system and make the characters more collectable
Eve is a 100% skill based game, SWG was not. Nor was FFXI.
There are very few pure skill based games out there, and for good reason too.
Personally i think every game out there should have ..... BOTH . OMGZ what ?
SWG had a combination of class and skill, so did FFXI , and many others. DAOC did , you had your base class then you trained your ability points into various different skills.
I prefer this type of system more becuase while it does lock a character into certain range of abilities, it also differs game plan and add diversity. In EvE flyign my drake i fly somethign that looks 95% what others usign drake do. Sure i can pick a myrmi but i am 85% like others, etc. You could say thats not bad .. well that could be true but when i look at my play time in SWG, i see that my TKM was nothing like my comabt medic. See limitatiosn can also make a game better. Lets look at doac , if i could just skill anything then well i sould be able to wear high abs armor whield a 2 handed sword and cast super power pure caster magic and everyoen would do thsi .... why not. Now instead look at a real use of what i am talkign about DDO, in ddo everythign is skill base minus hp and mana. as a caster you can wear heavy armor , etc. However, limitations come into play , your going to outright fail/fizzle many of your spells. The game is class base but your abilities are skill base. Certain class get skills automaticly becuase of their class, but everythign you do is based on skills. This is how characters should be a combination of both, and i rather prefer more open or effect skill system then DDO has ... it has been crafted to make classes stronger at doign what they already do good.
It remains that in all daoc, swg, FFXI, and DDO palyers have more diversity than in pure skill games. So skill is not greater than class , and class is not greater than skill , becuase you should have both. And the combinations should create diversity and abilities, play style, and experince.
except that in swg, you could have skills from bounty hunter, ranger and animal tamer all rolled into one (or similar combinations). you didn't choose a "class" and then that's all your character ever was. unless you're talking about non pre-cu swg, which doesn't really count for anything other than laughs.
so, how was swg a hybrid if, at any time, i could drop every skill from my chosen "class" and pick a completely different "class" to be? it's just skill sets with pre-reqs. just like eve skills have prereqs. or how ryzom has classes, but you can skill up in every classes' skills that ryzom offers. so that's not so much a class system, since you can be EVERYTHING. UO is skill based.
i don't see how you can define a game as a class-based game, if you can either be EVERYTHING in the game, or you can completely unlearn/relearn at will.
please don't define it as saying something inane like, "well it has classes". if that's as far as someone can go in this discussion, please gbtw. mmmkay?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I do not enjoy being told what kind of character i am playing. I do not believe this supports the ideals of an MMORPG in any way. I also do not enjoy being told what my role and story within the game are... which further leads away from both the MMO and the RPG aspects.
If i want a story/plot and/or a role dictated to me.. i'll play a single player game and allow the direction of that story to go where ever..because then atleast i know that the content is made SPECIFICALLY for that character and game. MMORPGs are not made for one person..they are made for many..so turning the many into several builds... let's say even 50 builds.. 200 builds.. what ever you want to say something like WoW has in a feasible manner, that's not at all near the quantity of the games population..and still..within those builds..you can only choose a certain amount dependant on your class. I don't want to be told my warrior is useless unless he wears platemail and focuses on either defense or dps to make up for his lack of ability to utilize combat situations in a more tactical way. This problem doesn't merely stim from skill vs calss though..it also stems from the whole rolled combat idea i nthe first place.
I've been a DM and part of a chat rp D 20 system before. There is little wrong with it i nthat sense..because truthfully..there is more freedom and thinking involved than any graphical game, as the GUI for it is really your mind, thus pretty limitless to interpretation. However, when you add that to a 3d game..you end up restricting the players and bogging them down with the fact that their character is too dumb to do what you yourself know is possible in the situation. The game tells you that your character missed..when you clearly hit them..and possibly timed the attack well... it matters not..because the game didn't roll in your favor. I don't enjoy when a game decides i wasn't lucky enough to hit... instead of my circumstances/skills/ability as a player determining my weakness or advantages in battle.
Class based systems are notorious for taking this to the extreme though..even with the limited choises you get..it's still your stats vs another persons stats. Yes... you can find ways to manipulate the system and make things favorable for you (note that i did not say cheating), but largely, this was not how the game was designed. Though you may come out on top.. it's only because you found a way around the system to benefit your situation more. Some consider this skill,and to the degree that the games allow you to express skill, this may be try, but for the most part.. it's merely manipulation of a hard coded system.
Skill based games unfortuantely also are usually rolled..but the difference here is, you individualize your characters and thus literally paly with YOUR strengths and weaknesses, nto your characters...so much. Yes there are still limited amounts of options..but the limit is much more expanded and profound than the dictation of a class system. I don't play a Role playing game to be told my Role. in fact, the only reason i've played WoW is because my friends do... i don't go into an MMORPG to find internet friends to paly with, it's not me. I've palyed this sort of game far..far...far too long and it does not surprise me and barely entertained me.. i nthe begining (beta/stress test phase). I had hope that it would bring some Warcraft flavor to MMo's ...but it doesn't seem to do that until Burning Crusade and i'm not gonna suffer through it until i get to what i paid for. Any how back on point. With a skill based system, you are atleast given the option to say "I am a swordsmen of minor fire that prefers to evade an attack than take it and also is proficient in medical skills" ... instead of the class based system of "I am a swordsmen that has tweaked his character slightly to allow a better dodge rate..though i am predestined to forever be a tank and not pick up many if any other skills that are contrary to this generalized mindset".
To summarize....
1. I don't enjoy being told who and what my character is.
2. I don't enjoy being told what my story is and how i rise to the exact same level and palce i nthe world as every other character of my class. (linear gameplay)
3. A role playing game can be played 2 ways... you play a given role..or you play a role and grow with it. If i'm palying with thousands/millions of other players... why in the world would i want to play a given role?
4. tired of the same old lack of choices (though, because of the Linearity post, i was able to find out about Ryzom..so i'm happy about that).
An online world should be defined by the efforts of it's palyers... not statically dictated by the devs. The devs, are like the "creators" of the universe (literally and metaphorically), and we the palyers are the beings that were made i nthat wake... to be told our destinies to any extent..and be given little choice i nthe matter..brings basically no meaning to our existance. You may as well just have a millions of super computers randomly dishing out numbers and seeing which predefined name gets to "70" first. You dont' EARN anything by getting to maximum level in most games like this..you are predestined to as long as you follow your nice little path al lthe way through. If i wanted to read a book i would. When i want to play a game, i want to be in control of my experience to a large degree and make myself known as "bad" "good" ugly" without being a carbon copy of everyone else.
Just a bit further... i've seen some of you mentino that class systems build community? Farthest thing fro mthe truth i've ever heard. It builds a good, balanced team of players..but nto at all a community. You don't need to know alot of people if most of them are almost exactly the same character wise. What builds a community is the differences within the community, and how that works for or against you. Having 200 crafters that are known through the game for their quality products when their making the same things is pointless other than it's more widespread. Having 200 crafters that have mastered diferent crafting skills AND techniques is a completely different beast. peopel from SWG know what i am talking about. You can't create a brand name when you make the exact same thing as everyone else.
Hardship is part of the journey... and individually climbing above hardship into the good times is part of what makes those adventure stories alot of us read and are inspired by. Having the hardship mapped out makes it so that all you have to do is read about it and how to get through it... there is no adventure in a quest with all the answers. It's not even about RP.. it's a sense of pride and accomplishment in this completely fabricated reality of gaming. It's nto real..and nothing really happens or is effected by it..but you can still have stories and be happy that "one time i accidently found this dragons lair..and i tried to quietly pass it but the dam nthing woke up and tried to kill me. Well .. luckily unlike most warriors i had a bit of skill with the flute..and i put the sucker back to sleep with "lullaby 5" ". You can't get that when your told your not able to wield that case warriors are too stupid or just uninterested in musical theory.
Not in the same line of thinking. Class based systems, and largely, skill based systems, are still missing something that they have tried to artificially include, but usually ends up not acctualy ybeing at all important in the end. That is character talent.
Usually, a character is "talented" if they have a couple of extra poitns added to a skill, or if they are able to learn it quicker than tohers. That is not talent however, that is merely a tangible and calcuable alteration of that characters progress. Talent isn't so easy to define, and the only real way i can think of having talent truly previlant in a game is without a rolled system. HOWEVER there are games like Eve and in SWG (skill based times) when you would see people use skills that..yeah..everyone could use..but nto everyone was good at. I had heard of something where you had to place these sensors and then somehow use them to triangulate ships positions in EVE. This was said to be very hard and nto often used, but those who did use it and were known for it were extremely celebrated and desired. They ended up 'fixing" it to make it easier on people..and those trade secrets and reknowned players ended up losing their niche..for the same of ease of everyone.
Basically, their talents were stiffled because peopel complained aobut not being able to do it, probably because they were being trumped by the people who could. Talent i have always believed is a factor that needs to have a palce in a community driven game. Without talent..and without choices..what's the point of playing other than a slightly more entertaining interactive chatroom?
"The class systems promote comunity and group play"
I raelly disagree on that, as in my experience class systems also inherently require a level system, and that shatters the community. My level 41 cleric (yeah, I'm a goddess at levelling in WoW, it's only been about 6 months!) simply cannot hunt with anyone not level 38-46, either they get no xp or I get killed instantly if a critter notices my micro-heals, and I cannot respectably PvP until I get to at least 46. That's not community enhancing in any way - sure I have a role in a group, but only people in my level band can effectively play together with me, and aobut 80%+ of people are not in my level band (they level out to the 50s pretty efficiently). In contrast SW:G (pre NGE) a newly made medic who has been given a factory crate of stimpack B's could play a pivotal role in free-flow group PvP, and have a lot fo fun. Sure the very carefully composed max skillset and armour combination characters would defeat that player one on one, but the point is with a skill based game they could still play together.
Vanguard is actually doing quite well in adding skill diversity into a class system, by having +skill lockskill and -skill sliders for skills within certain areas of the class professions. They could still do better, such as a mechanic to acquire out of class skills and abilities to add more diversity, btu at least they are trying. A warrior designed around agility and fast weapons is not going to play the same way as a warrior built entirely around being a tank, and as you have quite a lot of flexibility over stats and stances it is not simply down to who has the better equipment, although if they "balance" things too much more that may happen yet.
Coming a little bit late to the argument. I have played swg, guiild wars (first one), wow and vanguard and as regards systems i preferred swg to the rest. Having single characters per account per server i felt made crafting systems much better. I could be a master armourer and still max out tka for some combat. Granted peiople changed there templates on a regular basis but most people enjoy diversity. As regards the uber template argument that doesnt realy stick for me, all you find in a class sytem is an larger percentage of the strongest pvp or pve class. Any former swg player wil remember with relish (hopefully) the debates on forums for that uber template and will remember will that there was never an agreed one. I would argue also that skill based systems can be easier for new players as veterans, although they have the money can only level a skill set to particular level.
Lastly although it may seem im plugging swg (woohoo) I spent 2 years or more with swg and only seven months with wow, less with gw and well vanguard isnt worth mentioning. I think everyone enjoys new skills, and its easier to level skill sets like swg and then changing, than leveling a 60+ Character and then doing the same again on an alt.
Intresting post DamianoV. Very thorough. That website looks great.
"It was simple, yes, but it worked SO well." - Heerobya
Amen. I wonder what its like now. UO was a great game with its own flaws. I heard about the paladin skillset. Hopefully its not gone class based : /. I might try it out again.
I was thinking about what realy kills the enjoyment in a game for me. I realised it was mainly to do with arrested or impeeded developement. Basically having the developement of my character delayed so that i would need to pay more money to get my character to a point where i could start doing what i wanted. Actually thats 2 things.
Comments
I wouldent hesitate to play a fun skill based game either its just class is better for me.(probabaly cause im not too creative).
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?
Hell no. The key to that problem I feel is allowing the players to create their own goals. Allowing them the freedom to be discriminating and decide amongst themselves what they want. And they must do that without making the game linear, only one way to succeed.
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.
My thoughts too. Since in some skill based games you have to "level" each individual skill.
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.
Agreed. Ryzom is another example of having all the skills. The specialisation in that game came from armor and spells which you could tailor to you style.
I find myself agreeing alot with Heerobya, Kryogenic, & Vajuras. Lord Kelleyan put forward his idea about a game so i think i will put my ideal game forward. It's certainly not unique but its what i would want in a game.
Skill based: (UO model) Each skill has a maximum of 50 skill points. Every 5 skill points within a skill grants you an ability(Most useful at lower level). Each character has a max of 200 skill points. 20 skills. (rough random numbers to give an idea).
Skills do not enhance one another directly. ie NO anatomy skill bonus to damage. That sort of bonus should come from the skill of the combatant, enabled by intelligent game design.
Question are attribute points nessesary?
skill based system without question,
im not trying to appear biased, but i honestly see no appeal to class based games when compared to skill based games.
So what if people always switch to an "Uber-build", you can always experiment and try and find a better one, find one that is specifically target against said build, or experiment with it yourself. Plus it brings together the communty. Rarely in a skill based game can you complain about "nerfing" as you arent confined to a specific class. the only time you could being if you were a purist build, but still the beauty with a skill system is that you can make your own "class" (or find on on the internet) and blend styles.
No it isnt traditional for this genre. There are plenty of skill based pen and paper games out there - Runequest, Call of Cthulu etc. It just happens that Dungeons and Dragons is the one most people (and the author) know of.
There is a lot of room for developers to think outside the box. Take Tabula Rasa - they have addressed the class problem by having an inverse class tree. So rather than picking your class at character creation everyone starts as a recruit - then at some level you decide if you want to move down the combat or specialist paths - these then branch again and again.
That's not new at all EQ2, Rappelz, and FFF have that. Asian MMOs been doing that for a long time now. It doesnt solve any of the problems class based MMOs have as a matter of fact it actually exponentially compounds the problem. At each juncture players can possibly make a mistake they reget forever (pick the wrong specialization). Additonally, it adds a lot more grind because system like that, like I just mentioned, usually dont let you 'respec'. So, if you screw yourself with the wrong specilization guess what you have to reroll and work your way back up. It's just a fancy coating for extreme grind (which is why many Asian MMOs use this feature). The key thing to look for is determine if they let you redistribute your points at anytime (like switch from one specilization to another w/o penalty like guild wars). Still looks like an interesting game but I just dont think that part of it is innovative so far
I say classes because its an rpg at the end of the day you need classes to have a good team, yes lots of warriors and a healer works but like wow you need to have sub classes/skills so a warriors doesnt always have to be the front line maybe wants to shoot a gun....wow does this very well, normaly i will try all the classes in a new mmo sit back see witch one i enjoyed the most and then move on from there, Eve on the other hand i started mining and oh my isnt that just boring, then u find out that you have to wait 6 months to be able to be a pvp fighter. no fun
I still think some of the new games in dev at the moment may find the perfect mix of both class and skill, because this debate will go on forever untill someone works out how you mix a class system with a skill system and still have a good game, maybe the answer is as easy as havin classes but being able to change your class (say make a max lvl warrior, then change and start again as a healer but still have to choose to swap beween them as you wish) while keeping all the sub skills like crafting and mounts and such? have i come on the answer? please pick hole in my idea we the players must know the answer hell you know what they say about moneys and skakespear....
cheers Doc
Well, with change of class it comes down to HOW? Do you let the players changes with a function? how many times can you do it? any time limit to it? and any restriction to when you can or cannot change it?
If you made it so that you change class anytime = you have unstable team since you'll begin to see group with peopel switching roles around too many time, and that is harder to control.
If you made it so you can only do it once in a certain set timeframe = it might work, but then again, for groups, there will be some instability due to if the main tank suddenly change to healer and none of the other members can tank... or have a secondary class that can tank...
If you made it with even more restriction (i.e. FFXI method, play gold method, using special item method...) = it might work, but depends on the system you'll have different issues.
As I say it before, I'll say it again. Class limited the diversity for player and create a pre-determined mind set for players. These are the main reasons that I dislike Class-based system. On the other hand, if you make them as Professions, combine with skill-based system, then it's a different story since it will allow a greater diversity into setting up your character.
Hybrid idea is ok, but in the end, it all comes down to implementation.
Also, I don't mean Skill-based is not without disadvantage, but I just like it better since it allow more freedom in character development, and that is important to me in MMORPG.
Current MMO: FFXIV:ARR
Past MMO: Way too many (P2P and F2P)
I'll be the first to admit I'm proably biased cause swg was my first mmo, but I'm definitely for the SWG model of skill based in a sandbox environment. (Though with the diminishing returns aspect that they added later on to limit min maxing, ie someone becoming completely immune to knockdown or could dodge everything) Though it is a lot harder to keep balanced, it offers much more freedom and openness to the game. Especially in a game like SWG, where if you wanted something different it would only take a couple of days to go from a complete ranged templete to a melee and vice versa. As well, I loved the fact that crafters could be a full combat profession in it and could hold their own in pvp. Don't get me started about crafted gear being better than dropped gear. I did like how they added things in like acklay bones and krayt tissues, though. Instead of high level mobs and dungeons dropping gear they dropped the components to craft the best gear. That way even if you couldn't get a group together because of time constraints or w/e you could still collect enough money and buy the best gear. Of course this makes the game very gear dependent, but of course name an mmo that isn't gear dependent, its just "easier" per se to get the gear and equalize the playing field then spending months raiding the same stupid dungeon to get exactly equal gear. While in a skill based sandbox game (btw I hold the 2 synonymous, its hard to have a true sandbox with a level system (which is usually a class based system), as well a skill based system in a tradtional linear mmo doesn't really work imo.) the entire game is the endgame. Getting to the max level isn't the goal, thats the start of the game. Whereas in a class based the "story" is told thru the leveling process. However, once you reach max level, its difficult to implement player created content in a linear game, whereas in a open ended game player created content is the game.
Class based games can be fun, don't get me wrong WOW is a great game. However, they lack the longevity of sandboxed skill games, imo. In a class game, once you reach the highest level the only option is to raid dungeons to get gear, as this is the only way to improve your character. However, this becomes very repetitive and is the ultimate downfall of class based games. Raid X dungeon to get Y gear so you can then raid Z dungeon. Then once you get everything, wait until next xpac comes out so you can raid the next dungeon. Once you've raided a dungeon a few times, it gets old fast. Especially considering the time requirements of raiding. I probably played WOW and SWG the same amount, but it's much more free playing in a sandboxed skill environment. I didn't feel obligated to stay for 4 hours at a time, i could come and go as i please, whereas in raiding if I leave it is detrimental to the group.
Which also goes into the whole traditional 3 class system of rpg's and traditional mmos as well. You have your 3 though sometimes can be 4 standard classes. You have your tank, dps, healer, and sometimes CC/support/buffer/debuffer. Dps of course can be expanded into ranged/melee, magic/physical, etc. This is great for the developers because it makes balancing PvE and dungeons extremely easy (per se). The fights can be structured and even programmed by the developers. However, the same problem occurs in every rpg, the 2 classes that are an absolute necessity are usually the hardest to find. Nobody wants to play the healer or the tank (though there are many exceptions, this is speaking in averages). Every time you try to get a group together, and even if you are in a large guild, you struggle to find a healer and a tank. Yes it is fun to play these classes, sometimes, but most people don't like it. Why? Because it pigeonholes you in the rest of the game. A tank has a billion armor, but can usually do almost no damage, a healer vice versa can keep a group up forever, but can deal out absolutely no damage as well. When they go out into the world they are forced to group with someone else, or suffer extremely long fights to do even soloable quests. Granted WOW offered the chance for those classes to "respec" and become shadow priests or damage dealing warriors, but they would have to "respec" back (spending a crap load of gold in the process) in order to raid again. This of course boils over into PvP as well. Class based systems make PvP fights the exact same every time: Kill healer, kill clothies, take out rest of dps classes, take out heavy armored. This is the standard practice for organized PvP in a class based game. Granted you can develop extensive strategies in order to counteract this, but it all ends up being the same.
PvP in a skills based game is usually quite different. It usually becomes just a free for all, with the more organized team that focus fires coming out on top. There is no "preferred" target usually. Everyone is equally threatening, and equally proportionate part of the group. In a class based game, if you take out the enemies healer, and your healer is still up, unless you are just completely retarded its game over. In a skills based game if one person is taken out its not so much of a big deal. I absolutely loved SWG because you didn't need healers. Everyone could "heal" if they took some points in medic, you could have a designated healer, and it sometimes helped, but it was not necessary nor preferred. When you did PvE, you still had a tank, but any melee class would suffice and tanks could be swapped back and forth. As well, everyone could throw a heal on the tank, as well as the tank healing himself. Though he would usually run out of mind, which prevented soloing high end content.
Anyway, as you can see I'm obviously biased towards SWG, but I really feel that Pre-CU had the best platform for an MMO, if they hadn't messed up with the whole jedi thing (btw i did have a ranked jedi, they were overpowered) and just fixed some balance issues, while adding story arcs and assisting player created content more, I would have played SWG till the servers went down, and I know most of the vets would have too. Well I'll stop babbling.
Personally, I prefer mmos as open as possible. Skill-based advancement, no levels, no "leveled" areas or tons of quests you have to do to advance. When I say this, people laugh at me and say that it's "impossible". The funny thing, it was done over 10 years ago, in a game called Ultima Online. It is to date the best mmo on the market if you ask me, even with graphics that make modern kids scuff. I'll take gameplay over graphics any day.
The only game currently on the market that I have any serious hopes for is Darkfall Online. Of course, since it doesn't fit into the "WoW" mold, people berate it. It also made the mistake of creating a community VERY early in development, so people have been waiting for it for years now. I hope it comes out, because I think it will bring what all other mmos fail to bring us at this time; freedom to do what we like, and then face the consequences.
Yes, the skill system in DFO will take a lot of balancing, but that's what betas and player feedback is for. It's how you make a good game great.
DFO also has prestige classes, meaning if you train a certain skillset and adhere to a certain "code", you can get classlike bonuses, including unique skills. However, this comes with the restrictions that you have to stick to the code of the class, which might be that you have to fight with certain weapons or not kill unless attacked (Paladin).
[DTE]
This got me. The thing that most current games seem to be missing is that classic pen and paper games often have a skill system embeded in them to add diversity. You can be a sorcerer in 3.5 D&D, but whether you take animal handling and ride is entirely up to you, and of course the GM. The other aspect is that the class system in the original Dungeons and Dragons system is also an illusion - sure you might be a warrior, but if a few games into the campaign you feel that warrior is really not your thing, the DM can let you change to something else or, with the group's concensus, simply switch your class to something more suitable.
Saying "look classes are traditional!" entirely ignores the inherent flexibility that pen and paper systems have, because they are not hard coded. I have yet to meet a game that has anywhere near the depth of modern pen and paper games, when that some day occurs I will be very happy, but for now the systems are symplistic and indeed inelegant compared to pen and paper games that are run well. MMORPG's are something I like to play, a good pen and paper game is something I love to play in with a good group of friends.
The current computer design approach is still too scripted to have anywhere near the flexibility and depth of storytelling available to pen and paper games; it will change over time. EVE already has a very flexible system leading to dynamic and unpredictable playstyles, but it has not yet added the level of social interaction that personal gaming can achieve. At a design level, I would put EVE at the front-edge of games looking to successfully merge the class/skill divide in the way that modern pen and paper games do. If you look at it analytically, EVE is very very different, because in effect it is a skill system based on a financial level-based system. Anyone can train anything they like, but if you do not have the money to buy the skill training book you need to "level up" your finances first, whether that is through combat missions, piracy, trading, manufacturing, mining etc - no money no 40,000,000 credit skill book for you. An "EQ" style game would simply make that kind of skill unavailable until level 40 in crafting or adventuring, btu would have a substantially lower relative cost for such skills - you put in the time levelling a formal level, so you need to put in relatively less game-time worth of in-game money.
Overall, class systems that do not permit reclassing or true multi-classing simply do not have the same longevity of gameplay. In a skill based game, where you can drop one skill and earn another instead, you can play the same character for years, forming strong community bonds and attachments with the avatar. My UO scribe-tailor-mage-tamer was an illustration: I could, and did, play the same character for years, dabbling in almost all of the skills available until I found a combination that was uniquely suitable for my playstyle (remembering that UO let you have "parts" of skills, as did pre-NGE SW:G). Likewise my dancer - Jedi in SW:G - had the NGE not come along and made the game entirely unplayable for me (I tried, too much clicking), I would still be playing that same character today, even though I almost certainly would ahve changed the skill balance several times (again).
The class systems also impose stereotype roles on characters, creating expectations that drive people away from games. I have known people to not make warriors simply because in almost every class-based MMORPG the warrior has to choose what NPC to "pull", creating a huge responsibility, even though wearing full plate and whacking things with sword and sheild may apply. Returning to the original dungeons and dragons, the "classes" were never as scripted as they are now. You can have a D&D warrior with 18 charisma and heal skill if you want to - sure that may be "sub-optimal" from a powergamers point of view, but it can be great from a role-playing point of view.
Speaking of power-gamers, a fundamental mistake in RPGs is to try to make all classes "balanced". Vanguard is a good example, they are doing a huge amount of work trying to "balance" their 15 existing classes, but honestly I really do not care - I like the style of the Blood Mage class, so that is what I play (although I would love to have the option to take sword skill instead of staff). Another good example is Blood Elf paladins in WoW - they are hardly "balanced" at low level PvP, but the point is no-one really cares that much that they are unbalanced, you either make one too or not. The eternal pursuit of "balance" is in my view a gigantic failure of power-gamer orientated designers to remember that roleplaying is meant to be about style and individuality too. By focusing on the class model, distinct roles are enforced, and with or without skill options players are inevitably pressured to take the skills that enable them to meet those eforced roles. That kills off individuality, especially where clothing is armour, so reagardless of whether that EQ2 guild reward dress looks great or not you better put your armour back on before pulling the MOB or else!
If I want narrow classes and scripted gameplay I will buy an online FPS game with team PvP combat. In an MMO I want to be able to express my individuality, and the class system fundamentally limts that by imposing "requirements" to meet the imposed roles that come with the classes. A question to ask devs - did you ever roleplay D&D as four rouges, or four merchants? I bet almost none ever did, always going for "balanced" parties in adventures that pre-assumed combat. Some of the most enjoyable roleplaying I have had was when our fearless warrior bought a cartload of cheese spending much of the party's funds, which we then struggled to make a profit on. The GM had written the adventure to be our party attacking a bandit camp, we did get to that the next week, but for a while it was all about peddling cheese, which was so bizarre and unexpected that it was just great fun. You typically don't get warriors in online games who have meaningful merchant and haggling skills, except to date in EVE.
So overall, class centered games tend to lead to scripted, predictable encounters that end up being dreary and repetitive. Skill based games mean that you actually have to talk to people to know what they offer to a group, and in my view it really does not matter whether particular skills are "balanced" or not - as long as they are fun, who cares if dancing is not going to kill the Bounty Hunter? Dancing with a lightsabre had style
Flute.
I posted the majority of the beginning of my own response to this at my blog (http://damianov.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/classes-vs-skills, if anyone is interested), but I thought I'd just highlight a few of the points already made by others that I think really get to the heart of the matter.
First, as has been noted earlier, which system (classes or skills) works best is highly dependent upon the rest of your system, and also what you are trying to accomplish. Classes are very effective in most existing games because they are highly combat-centric. A class can very efficiently define your role and ability in that single dominant activity with a minimum of fuss. If, on the other hand, you are attempting to create a game where other activities have importance as well, especially if you want players to be able to move back and forth between them as they wish, then a simple class system becomes more problematic. Multi-classing, class/skill hybrids, talent trees... these are all attempts to finesse the issue, and combine some of the advantages of both "extremes".
Many implementations of Skills often can be viewed as "mini-classes". Conversely, many implementations of Classes are simply "a group of related skills".
There are a host of alternatives for defining "advancement" that step completely outside classes and skills. Social advancement in particular has been mentioned a few times. None of these are necessarily an "all-or-nothing" proposition... how heavily you weight them in your design is the real question.
Just some additional random thoughts...
Blogging semi-regularly at http://damianov.wordpress.com
To answer your question, I think atrribute points are neccessary, as long as they are done right. No game that I can recall except for UO has done this right. There were only 3 attributes, and I cant remember the max, but let's say it was 250. So you could have 100 strength, 100 dexterity, yet only 50 intelligence. This is the kind of attribute system games of the future need.
Take the focus off of maximizing your stats, getting better gear with +strength or +stamina or +intellect... instead, you have to choose what to focus on and what to neglect.. Your stats rose and fell based off of what skills you were using, but with limits on what the character was capable of. You could "lock" the attributes in place once they got to a certain point. It was pretty ingenius.
As I'm big on interconnectivity, that all game systems are related and need to be balanced to each other, the attribute system in UO only worked so well because of how the skill system and health/mana worked.
Everyone had the same health, the same amount of mana. That's the way to do it. Let skills/attributes effect that. Maximize your strength and wear heavy armor and your life pool will last longer, you'll take less damage. Maximize your intelligence and skill up your Magery skills and you'll use less mana per spell, it'll regenerate quicker... The skill system was the same way.
You could only have so many total skill points, I think it was 700 total. That's 7 skills at maximum. You could raise and lower them or lock them in place once you reached the cap. Some skills complimented each other, like Anatomy and any Melee damage skill. Or Inscription and Magery I think it was..
It was simple, yes, but it worked SO well.
I'm talking old school UO. As old school UO was the Shizbam. I'm interested in the new UO with the big graphical upgrade, see if it can help recapture some of the magic that was the original UO.
Is this some EU vs US thing? Or maybe Sweden vs US, because of the over 20 different Pen & Paper RPG systems I have played only 1 was class/level based and that system mostly sucked (Swedish version of the Lord of the Rings PnP RPG).
And if I take it one more step and include PnP RPGs that I have heard of the only major which is class/level based is AD&D. Is AD&D the only PnP RPG played in the US or something?
This whole idea that current MMORPGs are class/level based is because PnP RPGs are so just seems wrong to me, because it does not fit with my experience at all.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Alot of the older PnP games are all Class based. The d20 system (d20 Star Wars, d20 D&D, ect.) is based on Class, feats, skills.
I've played in old school D&D campaigns, d20 D&D campaigns, and d20 Star Wars campaigns. I've also DMed a d20 STar Wars campaign.
I'm very partial to the d20 system. If it was implemented into an MMORPG, I'd play it. Knights of the Old Republic was based off the d20 Star Wars PnP game. It was fun and engaging.
I still hold the opinion that a skill based system would be much more fun and engaging in an online environment though.
But yeah it is a weak agruement to say that MMORPGs should be class based because PnP games are. This isn't true. Yeah you pick a class, but in every PnP game you can multiclass, choose from a multitude of skills and feats. This ends up leaving you with the kind of charcater you want. It boils down to choosing the skills you want to use that will inturn make up who your charcater is.
As I touched on in the other IMGDC thread, I'm all for whichever method allows for the most grouping oppotunities. Skills systems tend to be more flexible in this regard, as many have pointed out with Star Wars Galaxies. You could group with anyone in SWG, and contribute. You may not be contributing as much as someone with higher skills, but what you did had an effect. But as with City of Heroes sidekicking system, level based games can afford this as well. Its vital to the well-being of mmorpgs themselves that new players have the ability to play with more advanced players and their characters. I've been in games where most of the player base has had some time to advance and I was just starting out new. Feeling alone in a newb zone you are stuck in is not conducive to player retention. Not having anyone to group with has made me abandon more than one game in the past.
I am talking much older games than that, I started with PnP RPGs around 20 years ago. The d20 systems is a new system (2000, by then I had almost stopped playing PnP RPGS) that was released after the initial MMORPG wave. I would even go so far to say the the modern d20 systems are inspired by MMORPGs and not the other way around.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
It's not a US v EU thing... more just a matter of when you started (and perhaps stopped) playing. Most of the earliest games, back when I started gaming back in the mid-1970s, were an eclectic mix of systems... there were class-based, skill-based, hybrid, and some that were kind of tough to classify even now (Traveller?)
Classes and class-like systems became a bit more common over time, being the simpler of the two strategies to implement, and fed by the popularity of D+D, of course. Even the White Wolf games, (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, etc.) when they were the hottest property going, had classes of a sort, in form of the various Families, Schools, etc. Skill-based and hybrid systems are still quite easily found, tho... Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, and ICE Rolemaster (which is more of a hybrid) being some titles anyone interested in the genre might have run across over time.
The D20 system's rebirth as an "open source" system (a genius stroke of marketing there, I have to admit) has gotten a lot of play and attention this decade in the US, which is why you will see some people holding it up as the be-all-end-all. The pendulum swings, and then it swings back...
Blogging semi-regularly at http://damianov.wordpress.com
Definitely prefer skill-based, and I have ever since UO. UO and SWG are the two games I've enjoyed most because of being mostly/entirely driven by individual skills rather than pre-defined classes. It's nice being able to change your character's abilities completely, or sample several skills/abilities at a time without having to create a new character each time you want to do it.
When SWG first came out I made my char as a pistoleer, doctor and architect. I have fighting, healing, and crafting all in one character. I liked the 250-point cap because it meant I couldn't master all three professions. This keeps the person from racing to max out their char in all available skills (I mention this because there have been multiple posts about unending skill-gain possibilities). I had to choose what was most important to me and what was secondary. I changed my guy several times throughout my playtime and ended up being a combination bounty hunter/creature handler and had a lot of fun with it - and didn't have to create a new character from scratch to do so.
Character restriction is necessary to some degree, but I feel class-based games are way too defined.
I also think class games are more focused on items and gear than player skill. WoW is the worst about this. Doing level 60 battlegrounds (pre-BC) was worthless for some because they would often be clad in quest- and "normal"-instance gear vs someone decked out in full epics. It's hopeless if you're fighting someone whose weapon does 50% more damage and who has 50% more stats than you simply because they have better clothes on and their sword's name is written in purple instead of blue. A player's RL skill takes a backseat to who can devote more time in raids.
PVP is better with skill-based games. I remember a guildmate in UO who was about 2.5X GM who could easily kill 3- or 4X GM characters due to plain old-fashioned player talent. I know non-UOers may not understand that lingo but basically someone who had used 250 out of 700 max skill points was able to regularly defeat players with 300 or 400 skill points. They had the same gear, they had access to the same skill choices to focus on - the first player was just better at the game. PvP should never be dominated by levels/classes. If you don't agree, pit your Level 30 Mage vs my Level 45 Warrior and see who wins.
Class systems are currently better then the skills systems
The class systems promote comunity and group play, this is a problem i found with the skill systems. Players make builds normally around solo abality or end game play. With the skill system i found that when in a party i leveled slower and even got less item and gold reward then solo simple because other players did not have good builds or personal skill.
Over all the playing experence and community i found to be far to lacking in the skill based systems.
The Class systems can be far to much railed and tend to require gear to be better to reach the achevments of the skill based system
Ideally what i would like to see is a class based system with more collectablity in the character
Example:
base skills, bonuses, ablities - freely earned sololy on lv
common skills, bonuses, ablities - easily earn through exploration and quests or kills
uncommon skills, bonuses, ablities - less common with like chance earned
rare skills, bonuses, ablities - few players would likely have these
the base and common ones would give the most benifit where the uncommon or rare would be a small bonus to the point where its nice to have but by itself not major example: .1 of a stat or +1 hp
The other problem i have with the class based system is when you lv up you instantly gain a bunch of bonuses and some times major damage increases
I personally would rather see all those bonuses split up and paid for one at a time this allows for faster return on time spend
example you grind for an intire week end and gain 1 or 2 lvs, rather you could have it when the players are every few mins gain a bonus
This think would lead to far better game play and collectablity of the character
So the idea is use the class based system and make the characters more collectable
What skill based game have you played... ?
Eve is a 100% skill based game, SWG was not. Nor was FFXI.
There are very few pure skill based games out there, and for good reason too.
Personally i think every game out there should have ..... BOTH . OMGZ what ?
SWG had a combination of class and skill, so did FFXI , and many others. DAOC did , you had your base class then you trained your ability points into various different skills.
I prefer this type of system more becuase while it does lock a character into certain range of abilities, it also differs game plan and add diversity. In EvE flyign my drake i fly somethign that looks 95% what others usign drake do. Sure i can pick a myrmi but i am 85% like others, etc. You could say thats not bad .. well that could be true but when i look at my play time in SWG, i see that my TKM was nothing like my comabt medic. See limitatiosn can also make a game better. Lets look at doac , if i could just skill anything then well i sould be able to wear high abs armor whield a 2 handed sword and cast super power pure caster magic and everyoen would do thsi .... why not. Now instead look at a real use of what i am talkign about DDO, in ddo everythign is skill base minus hp and mana. as a caster you can wear heavy armor , etc. However, limitations come into play , your going to outright fail/fizzle many of your spells. The game is class base but your abilities are skill base. Certain class get skills automaticly becuase of their class, but everythign you do is based on skills. This is how characters should be a combination of both, and i rather prefer more open or effect skill system then DDO has ... it has been crafted to make classes stronger at doign what they already do good.
It remains that in all daoc, swg, FFXI, and DDO palyers have more diversity than in pure skill games. So skill is not greater than class , and class is not greater than skill , becuase you should have both. And the combinations should create diversity and abilities, play style, and experince.
except that in swg, you could have skills from bounty hunter, ranger and animal tamer all rolled into one (or similar combinations). you didn't choose a "class" and then that's all your character ever was. unless you're talking about non pre-cu swg, which doesn't really count for anything other than laughs.
so, how was swg a hybrid if, at any time, i could drop every skill from my chosen "class" and pick a completely different "class" to be? it's just skill sets with pre-reqs. just like eve skills have prereqs. or how ryzom has classes, but you can skill up in every classes' skills that ryzom offers. so that's not so much a class system, since you can be EVERYTHING. UO is skill based.
i don't see how you can define a game as a class-based game, if you can either be EVERYTHING in the game, or you can completely unlearn/relearn at will.
please don't define it as saying something inane like, "well it has classes". if that's as far as someone can go in this discussion, please gbtw. mmmkay?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I do not enjoy being told what kind of character i am playing. I do not believe this supports the ideals of an MMORPG in any way. I also do not enjoy being told what my role and story within the game are... which further leads away from both the MMO and the RPG aspects.
If i want a story/plot and/or a role dictated to me.. i'll play a single player game and allow the direction of that story to go where ever..because then atleast i know that the content is made SPECIFICALLY for that character and game. MMORPGs are not made for one person..they are made for many..so turning the many into several builds... let's say even 50 builds.. 200 builds.. what ever you want to say something like WoW has in a feasible manner, that's not at all near the quantity of the games population..and still..within those builds..you can only choose a certain amount dependant on your class. I don't want to be told my warrior is useless unless he wears platemail and focuses on either defense or dps to make up for his lack of ability to utilize combat situations in a more tactical way. This problem doesn't merely stim from skill vs calss though..it also stems from the whole rolled combat idea i nthe first place.
I've been a DM and part of a chat rp D 20 system before. There is little wrong with it i nthat sense..because truthfully..there is more freedom and thinking involved than any graphical game, as the GUI for it is really your mind, thus pretty limitless to interpretation. However, when you add that to a 3d game..you end up restricting the players and bogging them down with the fact that their character is too dumb to do what you yourself know is possible in the situation. The game tells you that your character missed..when you clearly hit them..and possibly timed the attack well... it matters not..because the game didn't roll in your favor. I don't enjoy when a game decides i wasn't lucky enough to hit... instead of my circumstances/skills/ability as a player determining my weakness or advantages in battle.
Class based systems are notorious for taking this to the extreme though..even with the limited choises you get..it's still your stats vs another persons stats. Yes... you can find ways to manipulate the system and make things favorable for you (note that i did not say cheating), but largely, this was not how the game was designed. Though you may come out on top.. it's only because you found a way around the system to benefit your situation more. Some consider this skill,and to the degree that the games allow you to express skill, this may be try, but for the most part.. it's merely manipulation of a hard coded system.
Skill based games unfortuantely also are usually rolled..but the difference here is, you individualize your characters and thus literally paly with YOUR strengths and weaknesses, nto your characters...so much. Yes there are still limited amounts of options..but the limit is much more expanded and profound than the dictation of a class system. I don't play a Role playing game to be told my Role. in fact, the only reason i've played WoW is because my friends do... i don't go into an MMORPG to find internet friends to paly with, it's not me. I've palyed this sort of game far..far...far too long and it does not surprise me and barely entertained me.. i nthe begining (beta/stress test phase). I had hope that it would bring some Warcraft flavor to MMo's ...but it doesn't seem to do that until Burning Crusade and i'm not gonna suffer through it until i get to what i paid for. Any how back on point. With a skill based system, you are atleast given the option to say "I am a swordsmen of minor fire that prefers to evade an attack than take it and also is proficient in medical skills" ... instead of the class based system of "I am a swordsmen that has tweaked his character slightly to allow a better dodge rate..though i am predestined to forever be a tank and not pick up many if any other skills that are contrary to this generalized mindset".
To summarize....
1. I don't enjoy being told who and what my character is.
2. I don't enjoy being told what my story is and how i rise to the exact same level and palce i nthe world as every other character of my class. (linear gameplay)
3. A role playing game can be played 2 ways... you play a given role..or you play a role and grow with it. If i'm palying with thousands/millions of other players... why in the world would i want to play a given role?
4. tired of the same old lack of choices (though, because of the Linearity post, i was able to find out about Ryzom..so i'm happy about that).
An online world should be defined by the efforts of it's palyers... not statically dictated by the devs. The devs, are like the "creators" of the universe (literally and metaphorically), and we the palyers are the beings that were made i nthat wake... to be told our destinies to any extent..and be given little choice i nthe matter..brings basically no meaning to our existance. You may as well just have a millions of super computers randomly dishing out numbers and seeing which predefined name gets to "70" first. You dont' EARN anything by getting to maximum level in most games like this..you are predestined to as long as you follow your nice little path al lthe way through. If i wanted to read a book i would. When i want to play a game, i want to be in control of my experience to a large degree and make myself known as "bad" "good" ugly" without being a carbon copy of everyone else.
Just a bit further... i've seen some of you mentino that class systems build community? Farthest thing fro mthe truth i've ever heard. It builds a good, balanced team of players..but nto at all a community. You don't need to know alot of people if most of them are almost exactly the same character wise. What builds a community is the differences within the community, and how that works for or against you. Having 200 crafters that are known through the game for their quality products when their making the same things is pointless other than it's more widespread. Having 200 crafters that have mastered diferent crafting skills AND techniques is a completely different beast. peopel from SWG know what i am talking about. You can't create a brand name when you make the exact same thing as everyone else.
Hardship is part of the journey... and individually climbing above hardship into the good times is part of what makes those adventure stories alot of us read and are inspired by. Having the hardship mapped out makes it so that all you have to do is read about it and how to get through it... there is no adventure in a quest with all the answers. It's not even about RP.. it's a sense of pride and accomplishment in this completely fabricated reality of gaming. It's nto real..and nothing really happens or is effected by it..but you can still have stories and be happy that "one time i accidently found this dragons lair..and i tried to quietly pass it but the dam nthing woke up and tried to kill me. Well .. luckily unlike most warriors i had a bit of skill with the flute..and i put the sucker back to sleep with "lullaby 5" ". You can't get that when your told your not able to wield that case warriors are too stupid or just uninterested in musical theory.
Not in the same line of thinking. Class based systems, and largely, skill based systems, are still missing something that they have tried to artificially include, but usually ends up not acctualy ybeing at all important in the end. That is character talent.
Usually, a character is "talented" if they have a couple of extra poitns added to a skill, or if they are able to learn it quicker than tohers. That is not talent however, that is merely a tangible and calcuable alteration of that characters progress. Talent isn't so easy to define, and the only real way i can think of having talent truly previlant in a game is without a rolled system. HOWEVER there are games like Eve and in SWG (skill based times) when you would see people use skills that..yeah..everyone could use..but nto everyone was good at. I had heard of something where you had to place these sensors and then somehow use them to triangulate ships positions in EVE. This was said to be very hard and nto often used, but those who did use it and were known for it were extremely celebrated and desired. They ended up 'fixing" it to make it easier on people..and those trade secrets and reknowned players ended up losing their niche..for the same of ease of everyone.
Basically, their talents were stiffled because peopel complained aobut not being able to do it, probably because they were being trumped by the people who could. Talent i have always believed is a factor that needs to have a palce in a community driven game. Without talent..and without choices..what's the point of playing other than a slightly more entertaining interactive chatroom?
I raelly disagree on that, as in my experience class systems also inherently require a level system, and that shatters the community. My level 41 cleric (yeah, I'm a goddess at levelling in WoW, it's only been about 6 months!) simply cannot hunt with anyone not level 38-46, either they get no xp or I get killed instantly if a critter notices my micro-heals, and I cannot respectably PvP until I get to at least 46. That's not community enhancing in any way - sure I have a role in a group, but only people in my level band can effectively play together with me, and aobut 80%+ of people are not in my level band (they level out to the 50s pretty efficiently). In contrast SW:G (pre NGE) a newly made medic who has been given a factory crate of stimpack B's could play a pivotal role in free-flow group PvP, and have a lot fo fun. Sure the very carefully composed max skillset and armour combination characters would defeat that player one on one, but the point is with a skill based game they could still play together.
Vanguard is actually doing quite well in adding skill diversity into a class system, by having +skill lockskill and -skill sliders for skills within certain areas of the class professions. They could still do better, such as a mechanic to acquire out of class skills and abilities to add more diversity, btu at least they are trying. A warrior designed around agility and fast weapons is not going to play the same way as a warrior built entirely around being a tank, and as you have quite a lot of flexibility over stats and stances it is not simply down to who has the better equipment, although if they "balance" things too much more that may happen yet.
Lastly although it may seem im plugging swg (woohoo) I spent 2 years or more with swg and only seven months with wow, less with gw and well vanguard isnt worth mentioning. I think everyone enjoys new skills, and its easier to level skill sets like swg and then changing, than leveling a 60+ Character and then doing the same again on an alt.
Rymdkejsaren i agree.
Well written Flute, great piece.
Intresting post DamianoV. Very thorough. That website looks great.
"It was simple, yes, but it worked SO well." - Heerobya
Amen. I wonder what its like now. UO was a great game with its own flaws. I heard about the paladin skillset. Hopefully its not gone class based : /. I might try it out again.
I was thinking about what realy kills the enjoyment in a game for me. I realised it was mainly to do with arrested or impeeded developement. Basically having the developement of my character delayed so that i would need to pay more money to get my character to a point where i could start doing what i wanted. Actually thats 2 things.
Delayed developement.
&
Predetermined ending/ success. How boring.