The biggest problem behind skill based games is there is always a single template of skills that is most effective for playing and everyone uses that template. If you can figure out how to solve this problem, then a skill based game can work. Until then, level based is a more efficient way to go when developing content.
I've mentioned this before, but it's far easier to define group roles in a class based system. You have a tank/healer/DPS/CC/etc. In a skill based system there are no defined roles so you have nothing to base your content around as far as difficulty is concerned. I also belive it makes player a bit more unique. You can say well maybe I'll take a little of several differnt skills in a skill based system, but you end up being pretty similiar to everyone else in reality. At least with classes each class is differnt from the other. I think sill systems are interesting, but they need more structure to be successful I believe. EQ also had skills by the way. When you leveled up you had to skill up your sword, axe, abjuration, conjuration, or whatever skill was relevant to what you were doing.
Excellent post btw I fully agree but here are some interesting things I want for us to consider------
I agree that most skill based games have that problem but not City of Heroes which is really close to skill based system. It's very loose. Not every Defender heals (support type). some Defenders buff/debuff while others might be infront with Tanks fighting if they chopose too
what city of heroes did was interesting. its loosely class based but you choose your skills for your toon like in skill based game + you can grab many other types of powers. So you can recruit a "healer" but they might not heal. in CoX you have to query each player and ask them do you heal? What is nice you only have to ask a Defender does he heal because thats the healing specialist. however, even a Tank can pickup a general healing power. I know on my Tank I got a support power to free my healers from Immobilizations / mezz if they in trouble. And I choose a self healing power. That's how loose City of heroes is
This can work for a pure skill based game as well. In your LFG portfolio you can have a quote saying, "I'm a healer" or "I do everything" or "I'm an axe DPS warrior", etc. So, we can still have specialization if desired. Or, we can have hybrid teams
Skill based system totally overlaps class based system totally. But it takes a good Looking For Group interface like City of Heroes has in which allows players to say in their 'portfolio' what their specialization is. It works just fine in City of Heroes both expansions are in the top 10. They call it the 'Archetype' system and it works just fine.
Pure Skill based systems can work- but we must learn from City of Heroes. Also, we need to define the skill based systems we're discussing. theres many different forms. How bout a hybrid system like Guild Wars where I have loosely defefined Specializations that have thousands of possibilities. You can recruit a Monk/Warrior in Guild Wars and he might not be a healer. I've seen it./ but before you do a mission- you request for the Monk to bring healing or protection spells
Or go Fury route whereas I can grab any skill I want but I cant be good at everything
Or go City of Heroes where we have a generic base template the merely defines how strong certain powers I use might be. You have Tanker, Defender, Blaster, etc. And it works okay because in my LFG decription for my hero I say 'yes I'm a healer!', etc
Or are we talking bout EVE which is pure skill based whereas I can have a ton of skills all at once. but even then- its impossible to be good at all things cause they say it takes up to 40+ years to have all skills. So we still have specializatrion
In a skill based system you can allow players to build templates that focus on being specialized or they can build generic and be good at a lot of different things.
Skill based games are here in various different forms. I suggest for players to experiment with City of Heroes, guild wars, Fury, etc
In very short conclusion what's different between level and skill based games as my opinion.
Level based games are very linear and simple, with start and end.
- Levels cause hard gridding and seperation to players characters, items, content, zones.
- Easy to controll and balance by game developers.
Skill based games are more like virtual world simulation, without end.
- Skills provide a lot more realistic and complex game system.
- Harder to control and balance by game developers.
How You know when game is level game or skill game?
Basicly that's very easy and it has notting to do if game has skills. Level based games seperates new and veteran characters so that they can never function without some special cases togather. They have different zones, enemies, items and content for different level of characters. City of Heroes, Everquest I & II, Saga of Ryzom, Lorto, DDO, Horizons, GE, WoW are level based games. Skill based is Ultima Online. (Sorry, haven't played so many to say what are what?)
I like "hidden" skill base like back when UO first came out.
You never knew how strong another player was until they started casting or dealing damage.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
levels and a skill based system is the exact same thing in the end. The difference is one is progression throughout the entire time, and levels is only at each "level". It still takes the same amount of the time, it still ends up with the same cookie cutter builds(tons and tons of copycats of the "leet builds")
What the true comparison you are comparing is the "Grind vs no-grind" argument and the "Freedom vs class" arguments.
In a level system you can still maintain the same freedom by picking up your choices of traits upon each level, the same as a skill based system in that you could end up with the same char freedom and choices.
IN a grind vs no grind, you get the feeling of it being easier to get stronger, rather then more time consuming
IN a freedom vs class argument, you get what your going after in your argument, being able to choose what you want to do vs being stuck into a certain role.
I think all of the choices are fine, but in my opinion i perfer a class & level system for a multitude of reasons, which i will list here.
In a class based system, each character is given it's own abilities and skills. But at the same time(in a good mmo) there is much more individuality between the classes. Sure in a skill based system you get to have more customization, but in the long run you turn out less unique then a class would have otherwise. A prime example is UO, albeit the game had freedom in raising your abilities, before they added all the ninjas and samurais etc the game had very very few actual differing combat choices. And don't say "but you had to balance between crafting and fighting".... everyone who played the game long enough had a combat char and slews of craft alts, the only people who truely used the system to balance out crafting and combat were the people who originally started the game before learning alot about the game.
Then you take a look at a class based game that truely used the system to it's fullest, I'll use DAoC for my example. There are a wide variety of "pet" classes, which you can say is all the same as a tamer in a skill based game. But i'd argue against that. While there is a wide variety of pet classes similar to being able to tame a wide amount of animals, the core gameplay of a tamer were very similar to each other, whereas in daoc the play between say a necromancer a theurgist, a animist, and a bonedancer are very very different, as well as having a variety of options and playstyles within the class depending on your spec.
In a skill based game you have to be much more generic with all of the abilities while maintaining a decent amount of options, so while you can create a melee/fire mage in a skill based game, there is generally already a option similar in a level based game, be it a reaver in daoc, or a valewalker. Sure it may not be the element you want, but it is the same concept and a similar playstyle. But while you get to be the fire/melee character you lose a large amount of uniqueness in the playstyle of the class. since you melee just like a melee character, and cast like a caster, even if a bit less effective of each. Yet in a class based system, since all the abilities and styles are contained within itself a valewalker won't play like a pure caster, and at the same time it won't play like the other melee characters.
Yet when you allow the options to be combined in any way, you can't offer as much uniqueness because the pet abilties have to balanced for melee and casters. The melee has to be balanced around having taken a certain overpowered combo, like say two handed sword and death magic, both of these can stand on their own effectively, yet when taken together it creates a overpowered character, and they have to be balanced around if they were taken. So the people who don't go 2hs/death but rather 2h/fire or death/healing all get effected and possibly become ineffective on their own because of the change. This makes the skill based developers take far less risks and options in the different abilities.
So to sum it up, skill=more "customization"(which could really be saying you just choosing your class) and classes=more "uniqueness". And as i said earlier leveling being skill up procs vs levels up, end with the same results, and can be treated with the same respec options(ie guild wars). It's what goes along with the system that makes it seem that way.
Ah I agreee with point above that Class can promote more uniqueness but only if its married with skill based (like Guild Wars). pure skill based can end up not being unique.
Unless we speak of EvE- whereas it impossible to have all skills. Then thats inifinite like hybrid systems like GW / Fury
I'm a proponent of skill based + templates like Fury / Guild Wars. promotes infinite creeativity. Giving players the power to create their own Classes gives a lot of replayability
Not having to reroll to experiment with different combos is very fun and healthy for pvp. Never know what enemy guild will bring. as long as skills are balanced you'll have good pvp like GW
In very short conclusion what's different between level and skill based games as my opinion.
Level based games are very linear and simple, with start and end.
- Levels cause hard gridding and seperation to players characters, items, content, zones.
- Easy to controll and balance by game developers.
Skill based games are more like virtual world simulation, without end.
- Skills provide a lot more realistic and complex game system.
- Harder to control and balance by game developers.
How You know when game is level game or skill game?
Basicly that's very easy and it has notting to do if game has skills. Level based games seperates new and veteran characters so that they can never function without some special cases togather. They have different zones, enemies, items and content for different level of characters. City of Heroes, Everquest I & II, Saga of Ryzom, Lorto, DDO, Horizons, GE, WoW are level based games. Skill based is Ultima Online. (Sorry, haven't played so many to say what are what?)
yeah this is correct I fully agree but i think it goes deeper
CoX is full level ladder with restrictions but the Classes are generic and many powers are freely choosen & shared between types. so in reference to the post i was replying to CoX is applicable. i agree its linear but it also has traits from skill based game.
so i agree in conclusion but just saying it suffers from skill based traits thus i was proposing a pure skill based game can counter the problem like CoX whereas in my LFG portfolio I clear state my specialization
Would it be incorrect to call Guild Wars a hybrid? How do we define Guild Wars and CoX whereas we have loosely defined roles?
I prefer systems akin to GW for pvp in which encourage exploration. And I like the idea of skilll based for rich, open world pvp whereas newbs dont get manhandled by vets
so going back to the point that skill based there is not clearly defined roles for teams I was suggesting perhaps the game engine can examine the player and perhaps assign them a generic name in their portfolio. Like if they have strong healing give them a 'green' icon by their name in the LFG interface. not as clear as class based but at least it communicates what powers i might have to fellow teammates
In pvp i like the idea of hiding the skills that way each fight is unique and dynamic. I ahve no diea what skills the other has. but no matter what I know pvp in GW is very dynamic
levels and a skill based system is the exact same thing in the end. The difference is one is progression throughout the entire time, and levels is only at each "level". It still takes the same amount of the time, it still ends up with the same cookie cutter builds(tons and tons of copycats of the "leet builds")
What the true comparison you are comparing is the "Grind vs no-grind" argument and the "Freedom vs class" arguments.
In a level system you can still maintain the same freedom by picking up your choices of traits upon each level, the same as a skill based system in that you could end up with the same char freedom and choices.
IN a grind vs no grind, you get the feeling of it being easier to get stronger, rather then more time consuming
IN a freedom vs class argument, you get what your going after in your argument, being able to choose what you want to do vs being stuck into a certain role.
I think all of the choices are fine, but in my opinion i perfer a class & level system for a multitude of reasons, which i will list here.
In a class based system, each character is given it's own abilities and skills. But at the same time(in a good mmo) there is much more individuality between the classes. Sure in a skill based system you get to have more customization, but in the long run you turn out less unique then a class would have otherwise. A prime example is UO, albeit the game had freedom in raising your abilities, before they added all the ninjas and samurais etc the game had very very few actual differing combat choices. And don't say "but you had to balance between crafting and fighting".... everyone who played the game long enough had a combat char and slews of craft alts, the only people who truely used the system to balance out crafting and combat were the people who originally started the game before learning alot about the game.
Then you take a look at a class based game that truely used the system to it's fullest, I'll use DAoC for my example. There are a wide variety of "pet" classes, which you can say is all the same as a tamer in a skill based game. But i'd argue against that. While there is a wide variety of pet classes similar to being able to tame a wide amount of animals, the core gameplay of a tamer were very similar to each other, whereas in daoc the play between say a necromancer a theurgist, a animist, and a bonedancer are very very different, as well as having a variety of options and playstyles within the class depending on your spec.
In a skill based game you have to be much more generic with all of the abilities while maintaining a decent amount of options, so while you can create a melee/fire mage in a skill based game, there is generally already a option similar in a level based game, be it a reaver in daoc, or a valewalker. Sure it may not be the element you want, but it is the same concept and a similar playstyle. But while you get to be the fire/melee character you lose a large amount of uniqueness in the playstyle of the class. since you melee just like a melee character, and cast like a caster, even if a bit less effective of each. Yet in a class based system, since all the abilities and styles are contained within itself a valewalker won't play like a pure caster, and at the same time it won't play like the other melee characters.
Yet when you allow the options to be combined in any way, you can't offer as much uniqueness because the pet abilties have to balanced for melee and casters. The melee has to be balanced around having taken a certain overpowered combo, like say two handed sword and death magic, both of these can stand on their own effectively, yet when taken together it creates a overpowered character, and they have to be balanced around if they were taken. So the people who don't go 2hs/death but rather 2h/fire or death/healing all get effected and possibly become ineffective on their own because of the change. This makes the skill based developers take far less risks and options in the different abilities.
So to sum it up, skill=more "customization"(which could really be saying you just choosing your class) and classes=more "uniqueness". And as i said earlier leveling being skill up procs vs levels up, end with the same results, and can be treated with the same respec options(ie guild wars). It's what goes along with the system that makes it seem that way.
Hmm, Bladin. Many of the points you made are true, but only in a specific way of making the system. In a more general class/level system, you will not have the "uniqueness" that you say a class system would have. (Since everyone who choose the same class will have the same skills, you lose the "uniqueness" of it unless it is include a small skill-tree which can be use to make the player "unique"). This is same for the individuality in class system, that it only exist in a specific system.
Also, about the "leet build" for skill-tree base? It is true only because most of the skills weren't balance right or isn't working as they were made to do. If the system was truly tested and balanced right, then you shouldn't see that many "leet build" or FOTM builds around. This can be done with limitations build in for the system.
Yes, in the end, class/level system and skill-based system are all the same, but it's the choices that makes people prefer skill-based more than class/level system. I do prefer a sort of a hybrid system of the two, but I would wish it will be make with a great detail and the right type of balance.
Hmm, Bladin. Many of the points you made are true, but only in a specific way of making the system. In a more general class/level system, you will not have the "uniqueness" that you say a class system would have. (Since everyone who choose the same class will have the same skills, you lose the "uniqueness" of it unless it is include a small skill-tree which can be use to make the player "unique"). This is same for the individuality in class system, that it only exist in a specific system.
Also, about the "leet build" for skill-tree base? It is true only because most of the skills weren't balance right or isn't working as they were made to do. If the system was truly tested and balanced right, then you shouldn't see that many "leet build" or FOTM builds around. This can be done with limitations build in for the system.
Yes, in the end, class/level system and skill-based system are all the same, but it's the choices that makes people prefer skill-based more than class/level system. I do prefer a sort of a hybrid system of the two, but I would wish it will be make with a great detail and the right type of balance.
But see i am comparing systems, while using examples from games that have them. Again DAoC is a example of one of the ways to do it "right" as is guild wars. DAoC in a more "spread out" option where there are massive amounts of classes each with it's share of builds, each with their own style. Guild wars with the smaller class list(even after the 4 additional gw classes are added it's still less then daoc by a large margin) but with alot of variety in the class. If you were to use both systems to create a large number of classes with a decent amount of options to progress in a path then it's alot more freedom.
And the leet builds will allways exist. It is impossible to balance things fully in ANY situation, and the hardcore will always discover the "best" build available for ganking, the "best" build for group pvp, and "best" build for pve. And it will spread and people will take it and be it. Even if things were to be balanced the "best" builds would shine in the various roles the player would be trying to achieve. Which is why your first character in a game like this is generally garbage. you go for what you want to play but other players who are specialized in their roles will kick your butt handidly. Try playing astonia, you spend the exp you gain when you gain it on your choice of skills, don't look up any builds, don't ask people for advice, or read what people suggest others to raise, and make the char the way you want to. and see how effective he is vs someone who is optimized for it. Theres no comparison. This is how it will always be.
And really the only reason why people perfer skill based, is that since daoc, there hasn't been a GOOD class based system implemented in a mmo(guildwars is iffy, the game itself is designed for a specific playstyle that it can't be taken as a class defining game) What i'd like to see is about a 30-40 class game, each with at least 10 ways to play that class. you may think "wow thats alot of work" The problem is... developers don't try to use the system to it's fullest, WoW for example, they put the bare bones in and say, well thats good enough for us!. Same goes for skill based games. They offer a few options say make your char, and in the long run are you really that different? then the hundreds of others who wanted a similar spec? no your not.
levels and a skill based system is the exact same thing in the end. The difference is one is progression throughout the entire time, and levels is only at each "level". It still takes the same amount of the time, it still ends up with the same cookie cutter builds(tons and tons of copycats of the "leet builds")
You have some good points there, but this one I would like to comment. Level and skill based aren't same at all. There is one HUGE different. As for time consume yes and gridding little bit, but not as much, but that's not the the major difference what they have. Nor like You sayed ability end up cookie cutter builds.
Major difference in skill vs level games is that new character can function fine with veteran character in skill based games. In level based it's like mouse and giant, where player characters game play has been separated by levels. Also hole content of the level based games are build for step by step for leveling. In skill based games, the content is a lot smoother as gray area. This is why skill based games are more like virtual worlds and level based games feels more linear and simple.
As example, there is 1000 player in server.
In pure skill based You can choose from 1000 of player to team up. In level based game, where often have like example 10 level max difference between levels in teams and max level is example 50 levels. You have 1000 * (10 / 50) possibilities to team up with players, what would be 200 players. That's 5 time less than skill based game with same population servers. Of cause some level based games have tryed to solve this problem, by creating sidekicks and examplars, where player character are temporary lowered or raised up in levels, so that character can function in teams. Some level games doesn't have it. So more people You can be with, more alive the servers feel to be.
So level based games major problem is the separation. It's in character game play, in items, in content, in zones and so on..
My ideal exp system would be one like Dragonrealms (yes the text-based game) But it gives you absolute freedom in the development of the character. And it gives a sense of accomplishment during every but of time that you play. You're constantly seeing your skill evolve as opposed to just plugging away gaining exp points. Additionally, you can do a skill for a while, loading up your learning pool, then go and do something completely different. So its constantly keeping you doing different things. Anyway... thats my rant on it, I'd like to hear others thoughts and see if maybe I'm the only person longing for a game like that.
Yes and as you get higher and higher you spend hours ,and hours grinding away for just one rank.
Though it is a good example.
I think UO as worthless as it was had something similar.
Id like to see an MMO with a system like the spellforce rts/rpg game (spellforce 1 that is,they changed it for spellforce 2 ) .Choosing a base template character and building it into what you want by finding or buying scrolls to learn new spells and having a very diverse set of focus lines to spend points in.
I've mentioned this before, but it's far easier to define group roles in a class based system. You have a tank/healer/DPS/CC/etc. In a skill based system there are no defined roles so you have nothing to base your content around as far as difficulty is concerned. I also belive it makes player a bit more unique. You can say well maybe I'll take a little of several differnt skills in a skill based system, but you end up being pretty similiar to everyone else in reality. At least with classes each class is differnt from the other. I think sill systems are interesting, but they need more structure to be successful I believe. EQ also had skills by the way. When you leveled up you had to skill up your sword, axe, abjuration, conjuration, or whatever skill was relevant to what you were doing.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it seems that you are suggesting that people are too stupid to group in MMO's without the developers clearly defining their roles for them. I think players deserve some more credit than that.
It is up to the developers to create a system of varied and valuable skills so that players do not end up all taking the same ones. There have been so few skill based games that it is unfair to link all of them with the cookie cutter template problem.
Lastly, the existence of skills, trainable or not, is not to be confused with skill based systems. WoW has some skills but they like everything else, are capped at your level. So WoW is really a level (or XP) based game. A skill-BASED game is one where there is no XP or levels.
I've mentioned this before, but it's far easier to define group roles in a class based system. You have a tank/healer/DPS/CC/etc. In a skill based system there are no defined roles so you have nothing to base your content around as far as difficulty is concerned. I also belive it makes player a bit more unique. You can say well maybe I'll take a little of several differnt skills in a skill based system, but you end up being pretty similiar to everyone else in reality. At least with classes each class is differnt from the other. I think sill systems are interesting, but they need more structure to be successful I believe. EQ also had skills by the way. When you leveled up you had to skill up your sword, axe, abjuration, conjuration, or whatever skill was relevant to what you were doing.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it seems that you are suggesting that people are too stupid to group in MMO's without the developers clearly defining their roles for them. I think players deserve some more credit than that.
It is up to the developers to create a system of varied and valuable skills so that players do not end up all taking the same ones. There have been so few skill based games that it is unfair to link all of them with the cookie cutter template problem.
Lastly, the existence of skills, trainable or not, is not to be confused with skill based systems. WoW has some skills but they like everything else, are capped at your level. So WoW is really a level (or XP) based game. A skill-BASED game is one where there is no XP or levels.
I'm not saying that people are to stupid to do that though some may be.
In level based games as has been pointed out by many it's far easier to define group roles and base content around those roles, skills, and how they work together in a group. Basically it's based around the tank/healer/dds/cc concept. It's easier for the developers to create challenging content for people this way.
I've played games like SWG Pre-CU and Ultima Online and there was no structure or roles for the people in the groups in general. People just went and did what they wanted to do. There weren't any clear roles for the players. Thats why I like class games. I like to have those defined roles.
In a class based system you have a larger variety of skills since each class has their own unique skills to use. For instance you might have a hybrid shaman like in WoW which gets all it's own unique skills. A hybrid in a skill based game will be using the same exact skills as the person who specializes in the skill set. In conclusion I don't believe it offers more variety.
I believe part of the problem with level based system can be fixed by not having such a large increase in power each level up. Perhaps just give 1 to stats instead of increasing hp/mp by large portions as well as giving a bonus for frighting against lower level players.
Originally posted by Flyte27 I'm not saying that people are to stupid to do that though some may be.
In level based games as has been pointed out by many it's far easier to define group roles and base content around those roles, skills, and how they work together in a group. Basically it's based around the tank/healer/dds/cc concept. It's easier for the developers to create challenging content for people this way.
So what you are saying is that you like simpler games because simple games are easier to design well than more complicated ones. Fair enough.
I've played games like SWG Pre-CU and Ultima Online and there was no structure or rolse for the people in the groups in general. People just went and did what they wanted to do. There weren't any clear roles for the players. Thats why I like class games. I like to have those defined roles.
I would go so far as to say that those games had no clear objective. In the typical level-based PvE game the objective is to build your toon. There is not such an obvious focus in skill-based games. Designers need to implement in other objectives to replace the void.
In a class based system you have a larger variety of skills since each class has their own unique skills to use. For instance you might have a hybrid shaman like in WoW which gets all it's own unique skills. A hybrid in a skill based game will be using the same exact skills as the person who specializes in the skill set. In conclusion I don't believe it offers more variety.
Not really. The amount of variety is totally dependent on the design of the game(s) in question. You could have a class game with 1000 classes that has more variety vs a skill game with 3 skills or vice versa. You are just exemplifying the one subset that supports your position.
I believe part of the problem with level based system can be fixed by not having such a large increase in power each level up. Perhaps just give 1 to stats instead of increasing hp/mp by large portions as well as giving a bonus for frighting against lower level players. Sure that could help. Devs could do a lot with the skill based model as well. Regardless I think that level and skill based games are fundamentaly different. Players should not expect to be able to substitute one for the other and get the same experience. One is not better than the other, it comes down to player preference.
But see i am comparing systems, while using examples from games that have them. Again DAoC is a example of one of the ways to do it "right" as is guild wars. DAoC in a more "spread out" option where there are massive amounts of classes each with it's share of builds, each with their own style. Guild wars with the smaller class list(even after the 4 additional gw classes are added it's still less then daoc by a large margin) but with alot of variety in the class. If you were to use both systems to create a large number of classes with a decent amount of options to progress in a path then it's alot more freedom.
And the leet builds will allways exist. It is impossible to balance things fully in ANY situation, and the hardcore will always discover the "best" build available for ganking, the "best" build for group pvp, and "best" build for pve. And it will spread and people will take it and be it. Even if things were to be balanced the "best" builds would shine in the various roles the player would be trying to achieve. Which is why your first character in a game like this is generally garbage. you go for what you want to play but other players who are specialized in their roles will kick your butt handidly. Try playing astonia, you spend the exp you gain when you gain it on your choice of skills, don't look up any builds, don't ask people for advice, or read what people suggest others to raise, and make the char the way you want to. and see how effective he is vs someone who is optimized for it. Theres no comparison. This is how it will always be.
But why compare? Some people aren't competitive and wanted to play the game their way, so should the developers only develop games with optimization in their mind? Like I said, choice should be the underlying design for the character development system, since you give the players the choice to play it their way, they will not feel bored that easy. I'm not saying that there won't be a "best" build, but like the class system, these "best/leet" build are in fact the definitive roles that exist for group or solo. With the right type of limiter in the system, there shouldn't be jack-of-all-trade that's as powerful as someone who specialize, nor there should be such thing exist.
In essence, I think what people need to understand that there are all types of gamers, and not everyone wanted to be "effective" when the "effective" way of playing doesn't suit his/her style.
And really the only reason why people perfer skill based, is that since daoc, there hasn't been a GOOD class based system implemented in a mmo(guildwars is iffy, the game itself is designed for a specific playstyle that it can't be taken as a class defining game) What i'd like to see is about a 30-40 class game, each with at least 10 ways to play that class. you may think "wow thats alot of work" The problem is... developers don't try to use the system to it's fullest, WoW for example, they put the bare bones in and say, well thats good enough for us!. Same goes for skill based games. They offer a few options say make your char, and in the long run are you really that different? then the hundreds of others who wanted a similar spec? no your not.
But are you so much different than hundreds of those who are the same class as you? nope. So the diversity isn't there either. By the way, the idea of 30 - 40 class in a game? it is a good idea that in itself it offer a great deal of choices (hopefully gamers can find a class that suits their own style). But when you say "at least 10 ways to play that class", you will meet the same thing as the skill-based where "best/leet" build exist. Since there must be a "best" way to play the class.
Balance, a big issue, yet in reality it isn't as big as what everyone think. Because I actually post something on balance before, such as the idea of balance that exist in PvE and PvP. In the end, when you bring balance into the picture, the system will be a lot more complicated (that goes for both Class/level system and skill-based system). In most situation, when you balance one, you affect the other side (PvE and PvP), and you will have players unsatisfied with both system in the end. So I'll leave it out for another discussion.
As for people who follow those "best/leet" builds? Not everyone wants to follow the builds (I myself have never done that in SWG, where there were FOTM/leet builds exist, I just play the way I wanted. Do I get into groups? yes, because it isn't about how effective you are, it's about the fun you have with others.) It should focus on fun instead of the "effectiveness" of any character. I understand that some people like to min/max, and be effective and optimized for different things in game, and that is fine, as long as the system doesn't penalize the players when they are NOT doing so. You get people follow the builds because the system would sometimes penalize the players when they are not specialized. So the system (may it be class/level or skill-based) need to be re-think and re-design.
You said that you are comparing system, but Instead of compare what existed, I choose to take the good/bad of the existing system, and think of ways to improve it or find new ways to design a system that won't penalize players (either by system default or by community pressure) when the players play the way they want.
Originally posted by Flyte27 I'm not saying that people are to stupid to do that though some may be.
In level based games as has been pointed out by many it's far easier to define group roles and base content around those roles, skills, and how they work together in a group. Basically it's based around the tank/healer/dds/cc concept. It's easier for the developers to create challenging content for people this way.
So what you are saying is that you like simpler games because simple games are easier to design well than more complicated ones. Fair enough. Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying in class based game it's easier for the "Developers" to create "challenging" content for the players. It is actually more difficult for people because they have to learn a role and how to do it well instead of just doing whatever they want to do.
I've played games like SWG Pre-CU and Ultima Online and there was no structure or rolse for the people in the groups in general. People just went and did what they wanted to do. There weren't any clear roles for the players. Thats why I like class games. I like to have those defined roles.
I would go so far as to say that those games had no clear objective. In the typical level-based PvE game the objective is to build your toon. There is not such an obvious focus in skill-based games. Designers need to implement in other objectives to replace the void. Most games are focused around combat of some form. It's whats exciting and draws the largest amount of people. You can't adventure and be a hero in real life and this is allowing you to do that. Most skill based games do have other objectives which are generally pretty commenplace things that doesn't draw much of a crowd. It's okay, but it's more like the SIMs where you are trying to play an everyday role in life. In a class based system you have a larger variety of skills since each class has their own unique skills to use. For instance you might have a hybrid shaman like in WoW which gets all it's own unique skills. A hybrid in a skill based game will be using the same exact skills as the person who specializes in the skill set. In conclusion I don't believe it offers more variety.
Not really. The amount of variety is totally dependent on the design of the game(s) in question. You could have a class game with 1000 classes that has more variety vs a skill game with 3 skills or vice versa. You are just exemplifying the one subset that supports your position. I disagree there. As I said each class has it's own unique abilities. In WoW each class can actually specialize in differnt areas via the talent system. In a skill based game you could still have the tank/healer/dps/cc, but the hybrids would all have the same exact abilities as the parent classes. The tank/mage would have all the low level abilities of both classes. That would not be the case with the Shaman or Druid in WoW as I pointed out. Yes you draw from differnt a larger variety of skills dabling a little here and a little there, but thats doesn't really make it have more variety. It just means you can have a few skills from this class and a few skills from that class. It also destroys any form of cohesive group content IMO. I believe part of the problem with level based system can be fixed by not having such a large increase in power each level up. Perhaps just give 1 to stats instead of increasing hp/mp by large portions as well as giving a bonus for frighting against lower level players. Sure that could help. Devs could do a lot with the skill based model as well. Regardless I think that level and skill based games are fundamentaly different. Players should not expect to be able to substitute one for the other and get the same experience. One is not better than the other, it comes down to player preference.
I agree with you there. I was merely pointing out why class based games are so popular and used by a lot of game developers.
In a class based system you have a larger variety of skills since each class has their own unique skills to use. For instance you might have a hybrid shaman like in WoW which gets all it's own unique skills. A hybrid in a skill based game will be using the same exact skills as the person who specializes in the skill set. In conclusion I don't believe it offers more variety. I believe part of the problem with level based system can be fixed by not having such a large increase in power each level up. Perhaps just give 1 to stats instead of increasing hp/mp by large portions as well as giving a bonus for frighting against lower level players.
First of all, I think there are 2 types of "unique/variety" group that we are discussing here.
1) The uniqueness in role (Class)
2) The uniqueness in character (Skill)
Class/level offers the uniqueness in role, and is designed as such. The idea of uniqueness in role is good, but for some gamers, such system doesn't have the uniqueness in character (i.e. Your warrior is same as everyone else's warrior under the general class system, unless you have some hybrid system where the class skill diversifies).
Skill-based offers the uniqueness in character. This is done by the players themselves picking up the skills they wanted and design their own character as such. But there lies the idea where many wanted multiple abilities which makes them similar to others (some may argue that this system isn't "unique", but even with the similarities in skill, there will always be skills that this person takes and that person don't.) There is the uniqueness in character, but no the role, since most can fulfill the same role.
So before we go around pointing fingers about which system offers uniqueness, think about this and then we can then focus on how to make a system where it can offer both the uniqueness in role and character.
Actually, if you want to see what was actually a pretty good merging of class/level and skill based characters, look at Shadowbane. Look past the PvP issues and look at the character developement itself. There were 'elite' builds, but for every elite build, there was some other build that could take it out.
I know at one point, I had 7 different crusaders (6 on test, one on live) to work on different builds to find one I wanted and every one of them was different in some fundamental way.
If they had removed levels from that game, it would have been a near perfect game
The REAL difference between pure level vs pure skill games is the health/power equation. With each level, you advance so many health and so many power... This is a hold over from a game that was obsolete in the early 80's (AD&D). There are far better systems out there now to model a gaming system after (World of Darkness and Torg are good examples of PnP pure skill based games, as is Gurps)
It is this 'tiering' effect that makes gaming unfun for newbies in an established game as they can't get in and have any fun because noone else is in their 'level range' for grouping. This can lead to a games downfall, because without new players, a game WILL die.
levels and a skill based system is the exact same thing in the end. The difference is one is progression throughout the entire time, and levels is only at each "level". It still takes the same amount of the time, it still ends up with the same cookie cutter builds(tons and tons of copycats of the "leet builds")
You have some good points there, but this one I would like to comment. Level and skill based aren't same at all. There is one HUGE different. As for time consume yes and gridding little bit, but not as much, but that's not the the major difference what they have. Nor like You sayed ability end up cookie cutter builds.
Major difference in skill vs level games is that new character can function fine with veteran character in skill based games. In level based it's like mouse and giant, where player characters game play has been separated by levels. Also hole content of the level based games are build for step by step for leveling. In skill based games, the content is a lot smoother as gray area. This is why skill based games are more like virtual worlds and level based games feels more linear and simple.
As example, there is 1000 player in server.
In pure skill based You can choose from 1000 of player to team up. In level based game, where often have like example 10 level max difference between levels in teams and max level is example 50 levels. You have 1000 * (10 / 50) possibilities to team up with players, what would be 200 players. That's 5 time less than skill based game with same population servers. Of cause some level based games have tryed to solve this problem, by creating sidekicks and examplars, where player character are temporary lowered or raised up in levels, so that character can function in teams. Some level games doesn't have it. So more people You can be with, more alive the servers feel to be.
So level based games major problem is the separation. It's in character game play, in items, in content, in zones and so on..
But see heres the issue, what your comparing is how a game uses the system, in a skill based game, whos to say that it won't take 400 hours to max your skills, and each 5-10 skill points is just as effective as a level? it's how the system is used. There's also games like guild wars, where you level quickly and can play with pretty much anyone.
Assuming in a skill system that a new player can compete with a "end game" player is all just subjective and your idea of what the system should be on how the system is possibly used. I think a good example is saga of ryzom. it's basically a skill game, the more you use stuff the better you get at it. But theres still a real progression in it. And even with skill based, theres no rule against having equal level gear, whos to say the gear won't be a big buff to players?
And also in your "everyones equal" system, content is generally much less implemented, leaving a more heres mobs heres area, now go pvp all night and it's a game. Assuming a new player could play with a end game player, means people will skip almost all of the game in favor of pvp, or just rushing up skill. What's the point in killing mobs and exploring areas if theres no real benefit. roleplaying, and open pvp are really the only thing that benefits, the game itself is much more shallow.
-editting in-
comments to the guy with the robo avatar or w/e.
I'm not against a skill based system, and if done right it would be fun and everyone has a right to enjoy their games, i'm just stating my way opinion on the systems.
What your saying about people being less unique to people of their own class... sure that's true, but compare it to the other classes, theres a big difference in that.
Yet in a skill based game, everyone is almost always identical regardless of their abilities. they add melee weapons, and spells and say go at it, the spells are the same regardless of who chooses them, and the melee is the same regardless of who chooses them. It's just a perception that your more unique, in that you chose the skills. But at the same time other people choose those same skills all the time. See thats the big issue here, people assume skill based is this uber unique making experience, whereas it's the same thing as a class based game, you still pick the skills you want, and then you can AND WILL meet people who are so vastly similar to yourself that you would feel less unique yourself. Yet that point is ignored by advocates of the skill system.
And when i say 10 ways to play i don't mean 10 flushed out full paths, thats unrealistic, i simply meant playstyles available in the class, consider 3-5 specs, and then various ways to mash them up. Sure you will be similar to people in your class, but by no means moreso then people who choose the same skill sets in a skill based system. This is something that's always overlooked by advocates of skill based. They tote it being total uniqueness and individuality, yet at the same time i can go to any skill based game in existance and within 10 minutes have at least 20 people with similar builds who don't follow a build on purpose. It's not THAT rare.
No leveling time =/= skill based
Totally uniqueness =/= skill based
No gear dependancy =/= skill based
All this depends on the game's system, not the skill system inherently.
Comments
Fury will present an interesting counter to this.
Excellent post btw I fully agree but here are some interesting things I want for us to consider------
I agree that most skill based games have that problem but not City of Heroes which is really close to skill based system. It's very loose. Not every Defender heals (support type). some Defenders buff/debuff while others might be infront with Tanks fighting if they chopose too
what city of heroes did was interesting. its loosely class based but you choose your skills for your toon like in skill based game + you can grab many other types of powers. So you can recruit a "healer" but they might not heal. in CoX you have to query each player and ask them do you heal? What is nice you only have to ask a Defender does he heal because thats the healing specialist. however, even a Tank can pickup a general healing power. I know on my Tank I got a support power to free my healers from Immobilizations / mezz if they in trouble. And I choose a self healing power. That's how loose City of heroes is
This can work for a pure skill based game as well. In your LFG portfolio you can have a quote saying, "I'm a healer" or "I do everything" or "I'm an axe DPS warrior", etc. So, we can still have specialization if desired. Or, we can have hybrid teams
Skill based system totally overlaps class based system totally. But it takes a good Looking For Group interface like City of Heroes has in which allows players to say in their 'portfolio' what their specialization is. It works just fine in City of Heroes both expansions are in the top 10. They call it the 'Archetype' system and it works just fine.
Pure Skill based systems can work- but we must learn from City of Heroes. Also, we need to define the skill based systems we're discussing. theres many different forms. How bout a hybrid system like Guild Wars where I have loosely defefined Specializations that have thousands of possibilities. You can recruit a Monk/Warrior in Guild Wars and he might not be a healer. I've seen it./ but before you do a mission- you request for the Monk to bring healing or protection spells
Or go Fury route whereas I can grab any skill I want but I cant be good at everything
Or go City of Heroes where we have a generic base template the merely defines how strong certain powers I use might be. You have Tanker, Defender, Blaster, etc. And it works okay because in my LFG decription for my hero I say 'yes I'm a healer!', etc
Or are we talking bout EVE which is pure skill based whereas I can have a ton of skills all at once. but even then- its impossible to be good at all things cause they say it takes up to 40+ years to have all skills. So we still have specializatrion
In a skill based system you can allow players to build templates that focus on being specialized or they can build generic and be good at a lot of different things.
Skill based games are here in various different forms. I suggest for players to experiment with City of Heroes, guild wars, Fury, etc
Level based games are very linear and simple, with start and end.
- Levels cause hard gridding and seperation to players characters, items, content, zones.
- Easy to controll and balance by game developers.
Skill based games are more like virtual world simulation, without end.
- Skills provide a lot more realistic and complex game system.
- Harder to control and balance by game developers.
How You know when game is level game or skill game?
Basicly that's very easy and it has notting to do if game has skills. Level based games seperates new and veteran characters so that they can never function without some special cases togather. They have different zones, enemies, items and content for different level of characters. City of Heroes, Everquest I & II, Saga of Ryzom, Lorto, DDO, Horizons, GE, WoW are level based games. Skill based is Ultima Online. (Sorry, haven't played so many to say what are what?)
MMORPG.COM has worst forum editor ever exists
You never knew how strong another player was until they started casting or dealing damage.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Skill based games are fun.
But they should be about choice, which one of these five skills do I train at the expense of the other four.
Not which one of these five skills should I train first and what order should I train the other four.
Skills trees are good, the ability to climb every way up the tree is not.
You should have to make a choice about what you want. Sacrfice the ability to wield any weapon you want for the ability to be a Sword Saint.
The skill training system in Eve is a good idea badly done.
What the true comparison you are comparing is the "Grind vs no-grind" argument and the "Freedom vs class" arguments.
In a level system you can still maintain the same freedom by picking up your choices of traits upon each level, the same as a skill based system in that you could end up with the same char freedom and choices.
IN a grind vs no grind, you get the feeling of it being easier to get stronger, rather then more time consuming
IN a freedom vs class argument, you get what your going after in your argument, being able to choose what you want to do vs being stuck into a certain role.
I think all of the choices are fine, but in my opinion i perfer a class & level system for a multitude of reasons, which i will list here.
In a class based system, each character is given it's own abilities and skills. But at the same time(in a good mmo) there is much more individuality between the classes. Sure in a skill based system you get to have more customization, but in the long run you turn out less unique then a class would have otherwise. A prime example is UO, albeit the game had freedom in raising your abilities, before they added all the ninjas and samurais etc the game had very very few actual differing combat choices. And don't say "but you had to balance between crafting and fighting".... everyone who played the game long enough had a combat char and slews of craft alts, the only people who truely used the system to balance out crafting and combat were the people who originally started the game before learning alot about the game.
Then you take a look at a class based game that truely used the system to it's fullest, I'll use DAoC for my example. There are a wide variety of "pet" classes, which you can say is all the same as a tamer in a skill based game. But i'd argue against that. While there is a wide variety of pet classes similar to being able to tame a wide amount of animals, the core gameplay of a tamer were very similar to each other, whereas in daoc the play between say a necromancer a theurgist, a animist, and a bonedancer are very very different, as well as having a variety of options and playstyles within the class depending on your spec.
In a skill based game you have to be much more generic with all of the abilities while maintaining a decent amount of options, so while you can create a melee/fire mage in a skill based game, there is generally already a option similar in a level based game, be it a reaver in daoc, or a valewalker. Sure it may not be the element you want, but it is the same concept and a similar playstyle. But while you get to be the fire/melee character you lose a large amount of uniqueness in the playstyle of the class. since you melee just like a melee character, and cast like a caster, even if a bit less effective of each. Yet in a class based system, since all the abilities and styles are contained within itself a valewalker won't play like a pure caster, and at the same time it won't play like the other melee characters.
Yet when you allow the options to be combined in any way, you can't offer as much uniqueness because the pet abilties have to balanced for melee and casters. The melee has to be balanced around having taken a certain overpowered combo, like say two handed sword and death magic, both of these can stand on their own effectively, yet when taken together it creates a overpowered character, and they have to be balanced around if they were taken. So the people who don't go 2hs/death but rather 2h/fire or death/healing all get effected and possibly become ineffective on their own because of the change. This makes the skill based developers take far less risks and options in the different abilities.
So to sum it up, skill=more "customization"(which could really be saying you just choosing your class) and classes=more "uniqueness". And as i said earlier leveling being skill up procs vs levels up, end with the same results, and can be treated with the same respec options(ie guild wars). It's what goes along with the system that makes it seem that way.
Ah I agreee with point above that Class can promote more uniqueness but only if its married with skill based (like Guild Wars). pure skill based can end up not being unique.
Unless we speak of EvE- whereas it impossible to have all skills. Then thats inifinite like hybrid systems like GW / Fury
I'm a proponent of skill based + templates like Fury / Guild Wars. promotes infinite creeativity. Giving players the power to create their own Classes gives a lot of replayability
Not having to reroll to experiment with different combos is very fun and healthy for pvp. Never know what enemy guild will bring. as long as skills are balanced you'll have good pvp like GW
yeah this is correct I fully agree but i think it goes deeper
CoX is full level ladder with restrictions but the Classes are generic and many powers are freely choosen & shared between types. so in reference to the post i was replying to CoX is applicable. i agree its linear but it also has traits from skill based game.
so i agree in conclusion but just saying it suffers from skill based traits thus i was proposing a pure skill based game can counter the problem like CoX whereas in my LFG portfolio I clear state my specialization
Would it be incorrect to call Guild Wars a hybrid? How do we define Guild Wars and CoX whereas we have loosely defined roles?
I prefer systems akin to GW for pvp in which encourage exploration. And I like the idea of skilll based for rich, open world pvp whereas newbs dont get manhandled by vets
so going back to the point that skill based there is not clearly defined roles for teams I was suggesting perhaps the game engine can examine the player and perhaps assign them a generic name in their portfolio. Like if they have strong healing give them a 'green' icon by their name in the LFG interface. not as clear as class based but at least it communicates what powers i might have to fellow teammates
In pvp i like the idea of hiding the skills that way each fight is unique and dynamic. I ahve no diea what skills the other has. but no matter what I know pvp in GW is very dynamic
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
Also, about the "leet build" for skill-tree base? It is true only because most of the skills weren't balance right or isn't working as they were made to do. If the system was truly tested and balanced right, then you shouldn't see that many "leet build" or FOTM builds around. This can be done with limitations build in for the system.
Yes, in the end, class/level system and skill-based system are all the same, but it's the choices that makes people prefer skill-based more than class/level system. I do prefer a sort of a hybrid system of the two, but I would wish it will be make with a great detail and the right type of balance.
Current MMO: FFXIV:ARR
Past MMO: Way too many (P2P and F2P)
Thank you. There is still hope...
Also, about the "leet build" for skill-tree base? It is true only because most of the skills weren't balance right or isn't working as they were made to do. If the system was truly tested and balanced right, then you shouldn't see that many "leet build" or FOTM builds around. This can be done with limitations build in for the system.
Yes, in the end, class/level system and skill-based system are all the same, but it's the choices that makes people prefer skill-based more than class/level system. I do prefer a sort of a hybrid system of the two, but I would wish it will be make with a great detail and the right type of balance.
But see i am comparing systems, while using examples from games that have them. Again DAoC is a example of one of the ways to do it "right" as is guild wars. DAoC in a more "spread out" option where there are massive amounts of classes each with it's share of builds, each with their own style. Guild wars with the smaller class list(even after the 4 additional gw classes are added it's still less then daoc by a large margin) but with alot of variety in the class. If you were to use both systems to create a large number of classes with a decent amount of options to progress in a path then it's alot more freedom.
And the leet builds will allways exist. It is impossible to balance things fully in ANY situation, and the hardcore will always discover the "best" build available for ganking, the "best" build for group pvp, and "best" build for pve. And it will spread and people will take it and be it. Even if things were to be balanced the "best" builds would shine in the various roles the player would be trying to achieve. Which is why your first character in a game like this is generally garbage. you go for what you want to play but other players who are specialized in their roles will kick your butt handidly. Try playing astonia, you spend the exp you gain when you gain it on your choice of skills, don't look up any builds, don't ask people for advice, or read what people suggest others to raise, and make the char the way you want to. and see how effective he is vs someone who is optimized for it. Theres no comparison. This is how it will always be.
And really the only reason why people perfer skill based, is that since daoc, there hasn't been a GOOD class based system implemented in a mmo(guildwars is iffy, the game itself is designed for a specific playstyle that it can't be taken as a class defining game) What i'd like to see is about a 30-40 class game, each with at least 10 ways to play that class. you may think "wow thats alot of work" The problem is... developers don't try to use the system to it's fullest, WoW for example, they put the bare bones in and say, well thats good enough for us!. Same goes for skill based games. They offer a few options say make your char, and in the long run are you really that different? then the hundreds of others who wanted a similar spec? no your not.
Major difference in skill vs level games is that new character can function fine with veteran character in skill based games. In level based it's like mouse and giant, where player characters game play has been separated by levels. Also hole content of the level based games are build for step by step for leveling. In skill based games, the content is a lot smoother as gray area. This is why skill based games are more like virtual worlds and level based games feels more linear and simple.
As example, there is 1000 player in server.
In pure skill based You can choose from 1000 of player to team up. In level based game, where often have like example 10 level max difference between levels in teams and max level is example 50 levels. You have 1000 * (10 / 50) possibilities to team up with players, what would be 200 players. That's 5 time less than skill based game with same population servers. Of cause some level based games have tryed to solve this problem, by creating sidekicks and examplars, where player character are temporary lowered or raised up in levels, so that character can function in teams. Some level games doesn't have it. So more people You can be with, more alive the servers feel to be.
So level based games major problem is the separation. It's in character game play, in items, in content, in zones and so on..
MMORPG.COM has worst forum editor ever exists
Though it is a good example.
I think UO as worthless as it was had something similar.
Raven
Id like to see an MMO with a system like the spellforce rts/rpg game (spellforce 1 that is,they changed it for spellforce 2
) .Choosing a base template character and building it into what you want by finding or buying scrolls to learn new spells and having a very diverse set of focus lines to spend points in.
It is up to the developers to create a system of varied and valuable skills so that players do not end up all taking the same ones. There have been so few skill based games that it is unfair to link all of them with the cookie cutter template problem.
Lastly, the existence of skills, trainable or not, is not to be confused with skill based systems. WoW has some skills but they like everything else, are capped at your level. So WoW is really a level (or XP) based game. A skill-BASED game is one where there is no XP or levels.
It is up to the developers to create a system of varied and valuable skills so that players do not end up all taking the same ones. There have been so few skill based games that it is unfair to link all of them with the cookie cutter template problem.
Lastly, the existence of skills, trainable or not, is not to be confused with skill based systems. WoW has some skills but they like everything else, are capped at your level. So WoW is really a level (or XP) based game. A skill-BASED game is one where there is no XP or levels.
I'm not saying that people are to stupid to do that though some may be.
In level based games as has been pointed out by many it's far easier to define group roles and base content around those roles, skills, and how they work together in a group. Basically it's based around the tank/healer/dds/cc concept. It's easier for the developers to create challenging content for people this way.
I've played games like SWG Pre-CU and Ultima Online and there was no structure or roles for the people in the groups in general. People just went and did what they wanted to do. There weren't any clear roles for the players. Thats why I like class games. I like to have those defined roles.
In a class based system you have a larger variety of skills since each class has their own unique skills to use. For instance you might have a hybrid shaman like in WoW which gets all it's own unique skills. A hybrid in a skill based game will be using the same exact skills as the person who specializes in the skill set. In conclusion I don't believe it offers more variety.
I believe part of the problem with level based system can be fixed by not having such a large increase in power each level up. Perhaps just give 1 to stats instead of increasing hp/mp by large portions as well as giving a bonus for frighting against lower level players.
As for people who follow those "best/leet" builds? Not everyone wants to follow the builds (I myself have never done that in SWG, where there were FOTM/leet builds exist, I just play the way I wanted. Do I get into groups? yes, because it isn't about how effective you are, it's about the fun you have with others.) It should focus on fun instead of the "effectiveness" of any character. I understand that some people like to min/max, and be effective and optimized for different things in game, and that is fine, as long as the system doesn't penalize the players when they are NOT doing so. You get people follow the builds because the system would sometimes penalize the players when they are not specialized. So the system (may it be class/level or skill-based) need to be re-think and re-design.
You said that you are comparing system, but Instead of compare what existed, I choose to take the good/bad of the existing system, and think of ways to improve it or find new ways to design a system that won't penalize players (either by system default or by community pressure) when the players play the way they want.
Current MMO: FFXIV:ARR
Past MMO: Way too many (P2P and F2P)
1) The uniqueness in role (Class)
2) The uniqueness in character (Skill)
Class/level offers the uniqueness in role, and is designed as such. The idea of uniqueness in role is good, but for some gamers, such system doesn't have the uniqueness in character (i.e. Your warrior is same as everyone else's warrior under the general class system, unless you have some hybrid system where the class skill diversifies).
Skill-based offers the uniqueness in character. This is done by the players themselves picking up the skills they wanted and design their own character as such. But there lies the idea where many wanted multiple abilities which makes them similar to others (some may argue that this system isn't "unique", but even with the similarities in skill, there will always be skills that this person takes and that person don't.) There is the uniqueness in character, but no the role, since most can fulfill the same role.
So before we go around pointing fingers about which system offers uniqueness, think about this and then we can then focus on how to make a system where it can offer both the uniqueness in role and character.
Current MMO: FFXIV:ARR
Past MMO: Way too many (P2P and F2P)
Actually, if you want to see what was actually a pretty good merging of class/level and skill based characters, look at Shadowbane. Look past the PvP issues and look at the character developement itself. There were 'elite' builds, but for every elite build, there was some other build that could take it out.
I know at one point, I had 7 different crusaders (6 on test, one on live) to work on different builds to find one I wanted and every one of them was different in some fundamental way.
If they had removed levels from that game, it would have been a near perfect game
The REAL difference between pure level vs pure skill games is the health/power equation. With each level, you advance so many health and so many power... This is a hold over from a game that was obsolete in the early 80's (AD&D). There are far better systems out there now to model a gaming system after (World of Darkness and Torg are good examples of PnP pure skill based games, as is Gurps)
It is this 'tiering' effect that makes gaming unfun for newbies in an established game as they can't get in and have any fun because noone else is in their 'level range' for grouping. This can lead to a games downfall, because without new players, a game WILL die.
You still get more hitpoints and take less damage as you progress in either a skill or level based system.
You still do more damge as you progress, things are easier to hit.
Your access to spells increases in both.
Any system is fine by me. They all play the same.
No need to split hairs on my account. Please include whichever system you know how to program best.
Major difference in skill vs level games is that new character can function fine with veteran character in skill based games. In level based it's like mouse and giant, where player characters game play has been separated by levels. Also hole content of the level based games are build for step by step for leveling. In skill based games, the content is a lot smoother as gray area. This is why skill based games are more like virtual worlds and level based games feels more linear and simple.
As example, there is 1000 player in server.
In pure skill based You can choose from 1000 of player to team up. In level based game, where often have like example 10 level max difference between levels in teams and max level is example 50 levels. You have 1000 * (10 / 50) possibilities to team up with players, what would be 200 players. That's 5 time less than skill based game with same population servers. Of cause some level based games have tryed to solve this problem, by creating sidekicks and examplars, where player character are temporary lowered or raised up in levels, so that character can function in teams. Some level games doesn't have it. So more people You can be with, more alive the servers feel to be.
So level based games major problem is the separation. It's in character game play, in items, in content, in zones and so on..
But see heres the issue, what your comparing is how a game uses the system, in a skill based game, whos to say that it won't take 400 hours to max your skills, and each 5-10 skill points is just as effective as a level? it's how the system is used. There's also games like guild wars, where you level quickly and can play with pretty much anyone.
Assuming in a skill system that a new player can compete with a "end game" player is all just subjective and your idea of what the system should be on how the system is possibly used. I think a good example is saga of ryzom. it's basically a skill game, the more you use stuff the better you get at it. But theres still a real progression in it. And even with skill based, theres no rule against having equal level gear, whos to say the gear won't be a big buff to players?
And also in your "everyones equal" system, content is generally much less implemented, leaving a more heres mobs heres area, now go pvp all night and it's a game. Assuming a new player could play with a end game player, means people will skip almost all of the game in favor of pvp, or just rushing up skill. What's the point in killing mobs and exploring areas if theres no real benefit. roleplaying, and open pvp are really the only thing that benefits, the game itself is much more shallow.
-editting in-
comments to the guy with the robo avatar or w/e.
I'm not against a skill based system, and if done right it would be fun and everyone has a right to enjoy their games, i'm just stating my way opinion on the systems.
What your saying about people being less unique to people of their own class... sure that's true, but compare it to the other classes, theres a big difference in that.
Yet in a skill based game, everyone is almost always identical regardless of their abilities. they add melee weapons, and spells and say go at it, the spells are the same regardless of who chooses them, and the melee is the same regardless of who chooses them. It's just a perception that your more unique, in that you chose the skills. But at the same time other people choose those same skills all the time. See thats the big issue here, people assume skill based is this uber unique making experience, whereas it's the same thing as a class based game, you still pick the skills you want, and then you can AND WILL meet people who are so vastly similar to yourself that you would feel less unique yourself. Yet that point is ignored by advocates of the skill system.
And when i say 10 ways to play i don't mean 10 flushed out full paths, thats unrealistic, i simply meant playstyles available in the class, consider 3-5 specs, and then various ways to mash them up. Sure you will be similar to people in your class, but by no means moreso then people who choose the same skill sets in a skill based system. This is something that's always overlooked by advocates of skill based. They tote it being total uniqueness and individuality, yet at the same time i can go to any skill based game in existance and within 10 minutes have at least 20 people with similar builds who don't follow a build on purpose. It's not THAT rare.
No leveling time =/= skill based
Totally uniqueness =/= skill based
No gear dependancy =/= skill based
All this depends on the game's system, not the skill system inherently.