Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Skills vs Level - Which do you prefer?
iceseraph
Member Posts: 202
In games like AC and UO, they used a skill/attribute based system to develop your character. Even as early as char creation, you decided what skills and level of attributes your character would be based on. As you gained experience, you also decided where to invest that xp to build the char further whether it was to raise attributes such as health and strength or skills like archery or cooking. There were no limitations based on class as to what skill you could or couldn't train. Only the limitation of skill points and where you wanted to use them.
Many MMOs seem to be adopting a level-based package system - you choose a class such as warrior, mage, etc. and you get a basic set of skills for that class. If you are a mage, for example, you start out the exact same as any other mage, you have the same health, the same spells, etc. As you gain levels you get a set number of additional health, etc and maybe the choice of advancing different spell paths. But basically you are the same as many others in your class other than your ability to control the character.
I personally preferred the style of skills-based, I think it made the game much more strategic. While there could be 50 archers or mages, etc. in a guild, it was unlikely that any of them had identical abilities. It allowed for hybrid characters, which depending on your playing skill could be an incredible combination or an utter failure. It made rolling new characters interesting if only to see how well you could develop them. I just don't understand why so many of the new mmos have abandoned this style of character development.
Edit: perhaps I should elaborate on my definition of "level based". While I realize in skills based development the xp is earned as you level as are skill points, the 'level based' systems automatically increase attributes or simply allow a newer skill to be used in a "Cooke cutter" style as is described by another poster.
Comments
I completly agree with the original poster on this...
having cookie cutter characters forced on you just sux
One of my favorite chars in an old-school game called the realm was a....
Giant Wizard !! heheh that char just rocked !
Have Fun
I absolutely loved the attribute/skills system in AC1 - and have never seen anything close to it in another MMORPG.
Not only could you "design" any type character you wanted (including bad ones!) you also had the attribute vs. skills consideration (e.g. You could either raise Sword Skill directly, or the attributes that determined Sword Skill. The attributes were often more expensive - but benefited other skills as well).
I have no idea why Turbine left this skills system behind when they went to AC2. If I had to guess it would have been balance issues. Complete flexibility means a balancing of thousands of classes rather than 16 or so. Shrug... in a skills based system I don't really care about balance that much.
Some of the level based ORPG now add Talents or Skills that provide a minimal amount of customization - but nothing like AC1 did.
Really, a shame.
I gather UO was even heavier in "skills" based development.
I like having a skill improve with use - it just makes sense. But I also like raising them via earned XP. While losing skills from disuse makes a kind of sense... it doesn't add to the fun IMO.
The only downside I ever saw to the system in AC1 was crafting: your character had to sacrifice combat skills in order to raise them. Still, it makes sense that a fighter who only worked on combat would be somewhat better than a part-time crafter / part-time fighter.
I have played both AC and UO. Eventhough it is a skill based game it still is measured as per level based. Otherwords you gain exp to a point of leveling and you can contribute the points to whatever skills you like, however in AC you can't add them to any you want. Only what is trained. Which I do like the skill based, especially in TES II & III, where your skills go up with use and not based on leveling like AC or UO. In TES you gain exp into your skills and from there it pusses up your levels instead of the other way around.
However my favorite type of level/skill based game I like is D&D, like NwN where you level and not focus so much on large scale changes with the attributes being directly affective to skills. So you choose a very large list of feats and skills which you can increase as you level and expand onto new ones.
Most RPG's are all level based and always will be. Leveling really is just a marker to measure your progress. However as with the skill based is more interesting than some RPG's or MMORPG's out there that are item based games
(not going to say any names, I would see a flame war start REAL fast 
). However at the bottom line IHT all FRPG are level based, but they in detail are either skill based or item based. If there are other different based games out there, well I wouldn't know except for UO which is futher from leveling and a few others which they are true skill based games, but you really cant say skill or level based since a lot of skill based games use leveling to measure progress. However I so far only see as the opposite of skill is item based.
Anyone want to add to this or bring this into a more depth understanding. I think this topic is very interesting.
Oh and BTW as with the D&D there is no cookie cutter ones and most are misleaded since they are able to make chars with very general specs. However it is the feats and skills that take the cookie cutter from the D&D chars.
The absolute worst, IMO, for level-based characters was DAoC.
A level 50 mage, with no melee skills at all, could lie down and go to sleep with a level 25 Warrior attacking them. The melee would never connect.
Not realistic, not fun - just a "reward" for having leveled. Blech!
I would have to say that UO was largely on the whole more skill-based than AC1 even though AC1 had a wider selection and variety. Only due to the mechanics of the two games. It is incorrect to say that "leveling" had any factor at all in UO except to say that as you raise higher in skill it became harder and longer to raise which should be obvious. AC1 actually monitored exp per kill and skill usage resulting in a hybrid system. You also "leveled" officially in the AC1 system.
Not to judge either game, I merely wish to correct that remark.
Personally, I would gladly take a skill system over a level system because a player's raw skill is inevitably more impactful in a skill system. Levels create artificial barriers between players and monsters, thus locking your ability to that of the technical coded make-up of your character. Skill based systems offer more flexibility in game playing ability. That is to say, a player can find himself more capable within a skill system due to his natural gaming ability.
A lot of people shy away from such a system due to a deficency in such "skills."
I like a little of both mixed together. An overall level is nice, so you can rate players aginst each other, and maybe have a small skill set that is affected by level. But then have some good meaningful skills that you get to choose from and raise as you choose.
Personally I loved the AC1 system. It was the best I ever played. Although UO was a good system as well, raise by use, etc. But I played AC1 for 2 1/2 years so I have more expertise with that game.
It made for interesting combo's, a group of people who based how they developed their characters at creation and when they grew based by the people they would group with, would be alot more powerful then a group of 5 rag-tag adventurers that just met.
Perfect example was when i'd go on PvP raids with my brother. I'd been playing on the darktide server since release, and then he joined the same server and we created two characters that were a perfect combination like a completed puzzle. Alone we were pretty poor characters, but when the two characters were together it was like an invincable fighting machine.
I provided the slaughtering with the axe, and he provided the buffs and backup with magic. We were able to kill multiple characters 30+ levels higher. And when you got to level 60-70, those 30 levels were alot.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
I think perhaps one of the reasons games have turned away from skill based character development is the emphasis that seems to be placed on groups/teams in MMOs. Making characters dependent on one another increases the need for grouping/teaming .
Very few new games allow for char advance through pure soloing. Through not being able to select your own set of skills and attributes - your ability to be self sufficient is sacrificed.
In most level/class based games, you are interdependent on other class chars to have maximum efficiency when hunting/questing etc. A good example of this is AO. While AO appears to be a skill/attribute based system, you are limited to your abilities by the class you choose. As an example, in AO if you are an Enforcer and need a boost to your overall nano (magic) skills, you have to seek out a meta-physist to buff them for you. Every class is AO has skills that are necessary to the other classes. While this is no problem if you are in a large guild with a diverse character population or there are many playing classes with the buffs you desire, you have no option to be self-sufficient.
And isnt that a large part of the fun of your character? The feeling of superiority, greatness, lol..or if you prefer "uberness"of the character you created?! How uber can you be if you are reduced to begging for the buffs necessary to complete your character or give you an added edge?
Yes, a terrible shame. DF and MW seem like they had incredible potential for MP or MMO versions.
Gah! As much time as I spent in DF - I spent twice as much time telling/reading tales of our adventures in Usenet.
Mark of a stellar game is whether you play it even when you aren't "playing" it!
yeahhh, do it morrowind style!!
Ive seen quite a few posts on this in the past and well skills are better.
----ITS A TRAP!!!----
----ITS A TRAP!!!----
---------------------------------------------
Darkage of Camelot | Since Day 1 |
Seabasz 50 Hero | Lancelot / Hib
Seabas 50 Enchanter | Lancelot / Hib
Vlyden 50 Bezerker | Guinevere / Mid
Vydien 50 Armsman | Bors / Alb
Hellzpyro 45 Wizard | Merlin / Alb
Oceany 45 BM | Mordred / Mid
Seabasy 48 Bard | Mordred / Hib
---------------------------------------------
Darkage of Camelot
Seabasz 50 Hero | Lancelot / Hib
Seabas 50 Enchanter | Lancelot / Hib
Vlyden 50 Bezerker | Guinevere / Mid
Vydien 50 Armsman | Bors / Alb
Hellzpyro 50 Wizard | Merlin / Alb
Oceany 45 BM | Mordred / Mid
Seabasy 48 Bard | Mordred / Hib
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
I like skill systems, but I also like level systems. And Asheron's Call had both which I loved. it was fun making an item/life magic archer or OG Archer's as they were dubbed. At level 30 I would alrdy be doing level 7 spells and kicking major ass.
---------------------------------
UO - 4 years
AC - 2 years
AC2 - 6 months
DAoC - 1 month
FFXI - 7 months
Diablo2 - 9 months
Shadowbane - Beta Tested
Lineage2 - Beta Tested
Saga of Ryzom - Beta Tested
Risk Your Life - Beta Tested
World of Warcraft - Beta Testing
mmoRPG'er since October 1997
---------------------------------
UO - 4 years
AC - 2 years
AC2 - 6 months
DAoC - 1 month
FFXI - 7 months
Diablo2 - 9 months
Shadowbane - Beta Tested
Lineage2 - Beta Tested
Saga of Ryzom - Beta Tested
Risk Your Life - Beta Tested
World of Warcraft - Currently Playing
mmoRPG'er since October 1997
Thats like asking why almost every MMORPG is a lame cookie-cutter EQ clone piece of crap.
Bah - unrelated entirely. Many skill based systems were in place before EQ saw the light of day. No matter how I look at it - your statement is simply baffling in it's illogic.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
I wouldn't be surprised if Lewis said it (along with millions of other people)... but the quote is from Baudelaire, not C.S. Lewis.
I like the level system. SWG used skill base system and I did not like that at all.
When grouping I like to be able to look for party members based on Lv 60 Cle or Lv 60 War and know the skill set I am getting. I do not like to look for players based on a varity of skills at various levels and then half the time a player joins and due to miss comunication the skill set is off.
Thanks
Morlife
Thanks
Morlife
Some players do prefer a predictable game environment. Valid enough point.
I personally think predictability makes makes a game less strategic and therfore simplistic.
Reality is for people who can't handle fantasy.
Both systems and even combinations of them all work just fine. It comes down to preference i think. I prefer skill-based advancement, but I have enjoyed some level-based games as well.
It all comes down to how well the system is implemented and balanced in a particular game.
__________________________
Malianea
personally I feel you need a good system that utilizes both aspects. Like my personal favorite level up system was from Anarchy Online.. You have a skill (stat) tree and when you level you get XXXX points to put into those skills... you keep increasing the number into each possible stat and all your equiptment is based on points .. like you need 40 agility and 35 strength to equipt this one type of armor. What their system did was give players FREE rain on how they want to level up their characters.. so you could get 10 people all level 60 and each one is unique in their own way w/ stats and thus everyones equiptment is different to a certain degree.
I hated the level system of FFXI!! There was nothing other than a could variety's of equiptment that would make you stand out over someone else of your same level and job class.
I did NOT like SWG's level system at all but I'd probably say between SWG and FFXI they are on oposite sides and anarchy online / city of hero's are smack dab in the middle... thus the good ratings on them w/ less complaints.
SWG = good for some, and lots of complaints
FFXI = good for some, and lots of complaints
AO = good for some, not too many complaints
COH = good for some, not too many complaints
I thought about this a bit and decided I'd rather have a skill-centric game. But I want to think outloud a bit first.
Advantages to skill-based:
Advantages to class-based:
The main thing to capitalize on all these advantages is to make levels based on skill, not the other way around. As the character improves a subset of skills, the agglomerate of those skill improvements lead to a level gain. Depending on the skills specialized in, the character becomes known as a level xx Warrior, Ranger, Mage, Rogue, or whatever else.
Balancing is controlled by an archetype "wheel" of sorts. All skills belong to an archetype. Archetypes are distributed around a virtual wheel. Thos that are opposite of each other on the wheel are complements and their skills cannot be brought up at the same time. Increasing one will actually atrophy the other to a point. Perhaps multiple archetype wheels would better accommodate the multitude of skills and broaden the dimensions of possibilities.