Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Customizing your character through abilities and stats...
avedias
Member Posts: 118
I think this is the thing I miss most about the days of playing asherons call - everyones character was different(yes, people followed builds but wasn't necessary by any means). I'm pretty sure asherons call was the only game that i played that let you invest experience points into stats(strength, coord, quickness, health, mana etc...) which in turn raised your skills levels, and also let you invest experience in those skills as well.
Only recently when trying out Fallen Earth have I found this same concept and this is probably my biggest draw. However, the gameplay is seeming a little slow and I don't know if I'd want to invest a lot of time in a game that's environment is mostly desert. My question is, are there any other mmos that let you customize your characters as deeply as asherons call or fallen earth let you do?
Comments
I dunno. The advancement system was fantastic, but the abilities themselves weren't all that great. And there was something a bit off about everyone basically being hybrid classes in the end. Strong roles didn't really seem to exist. But I suppose I only got 2-3 months into playing it.
I'd like to see a game combine AC1's advancement system with Guild War's superb ability design, and enhanced role-tracks players can go down (so fewer players are tempted into the lackluster hybrid builds that tended to populate AC1.) Mostly I'm curious whether combat can remain interesting with that much player freedom over ability choice. Just about every advancement system I've played with freeform advancement has had weak combat (and freeform advancement is typically the biggest culprit responsible, because players end up not having a particularly deep mix of abilities.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I was thinking about using the AC1 advancement system but somehow limiting players to how many abilities they can take with them into the field like GW did. But somehow I still think everybody's just going to pick the same few skills.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
That's one glaring issue I've always ran into with sandbox-style play: everyone ends up being self-sufficient (and thus, relatively the same overall). Themepark (for the most part) has clearly defined roles via classes. It's left to be discussed how much variance each has internally, but amongst a larger base at least there is variance- forced sadly, but still present. (I recognize both statements are entirely relative).
I've always been greatly intrigued by systems that would allow a usage of 'skill points' (or whatever other currency is used for becoming more experienced inside of a game) across more than just a statistical option- to abilities, skills, stats etc. Perhaps I've just not been playing the right games? The idea has promise.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Personally, I consider this to be sloppy designs. There is no reason why you need to min/max, there is no reason why everyone ends up with preset builds to the single point precision (see Shadowbane for clarity), and there is no reason why this skill shouldn't be viable in some aspect of a person's game play. Everything should be useful and there should be many different viable combinations that are useful. Otherwise, it's just sloppy and uninspired game designing.
The problem is that everyone is trying to design games where every player is a hero. If everyone wasn't a hero, then it would allow for many many different combinations of skills and abilities to be used effectively, because everyone should be completely unique and just an everyday person.
I just wrote a blog similar to what I just wrote. Here.
Like Trading Card Games? Click Here.
Personally, I consider this to be sloppy designs. There is no reason why you need to min/max, there is no reason why everyone ends up with preset builds to the single point precision (see Shadowbane for clarity), and there is no reason why this skill shouldn't be viable in some aspect of a person's game play. Everything should be useful and there should be many different viable combinations that are viable. Otherwise, it's just sloppy and uninspired game designing.
The problem is that everyone is trying to design games where every player is a hero. If everyone wasn't a hero, then it would allow for many many different combinations of skills and abilities to be used effectively, because everyone should be completely unique and just an everyday person.
I just wrote a blog similar to what I just wrote. Here.
I completely agree with this statement. Give me less heroes and instead a system driven the same way our world is.
More crafters, all "professions" depend on someone else in some way, an awesome economical simulation with workers, merchants and outlaws.
I dunno Hatter, the entire premise of your blog falls short when you claim multiplayer games are somehow a worse place for players to be heroes than singleplayer games, when multiplayer games have those "others" to "regard" the player as a hero or not.
People want to be special. Napoleon Bonaparte knew it, "A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." Game makers know it too. It shouldn't have to be explained and clarified, it's a trait of humanity.
The premise probably wouldn't have failed so hard if you'd hit upon the reasons multiplayer games have more trouble making the player heroic -- primarily in non-instanced games where your actions to clear the dragon from the cave lack permanency ("Wait, what do you mean you're on the quest to kill the dragon? I did that last week! He's back!?")
Back on topic a little min/maxing is the result of challenges. In a game with no challenges, there's no min/maxing. In a game where death is a more real possibility, min/maxing is one of your weapons to stave off death.
If a "maxed" character has 100 total points to split between Sword and Blacksmithing skills, and the toughest mob in the game only requires 5 sword skill to beat, you're free to choose anywhere from 0-95 blacksmithing skill. If the toughest mob requires 100 sword skill, then any points in blacksmithing will prevent you from beating that mob. Tough challenges cause min/maxing.
Min/maxing isn't bad though. Every aspect of our lives is suffused by it and we're constantly (sometimes subconsciously) searching for the most efficient solutions to the problems we face. That's why it's such a familiar game mechanic, and one we enjoy: our brains are wired for it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The combat wasn't weak unless it was melee vs melee. It was more interesting than just spamming the same skills over and over again. Consider that you had to dodge spells which would cut half your health off in combat and that you had to manage your vitals. Actually I think that was the best part of Asheron Call's combat. Being able to heal at any time made the player a huge factor in the outcome of a fight.
Despite Asheron's Call's free-form character creation system, you still had players that fit into the usual role of melee, mage, and archer. It was much more effective to work with players who had different skills than your own. Consider for example the monster called the Mukkir. It hit hard as fuck, a mage couldn't handle them for long (unless he had melee defense at a really high skill level which would cause him to give up something else that's important), but if he worked with a melee or an archer, he would have more success, they would die faster, and he wouldn't die as quickly. He could debuff the monsters and heal the melee/archer.
The thing that really prevented a player from being everything at once was the stats. Strength, Coordination, Quickness, Endurance, Focus, Willpower. Every skill was affected by one or more of these stats. However, you had 270 points you could put into them. Everything started at 10, so if you went with 100 endurance, 100 focus, and 100 willpower, your strength and coordination would be low and you would be unable to become very effective with melee weapons unless you were against someone who had no melee defense. Even then you'd do less damage than most players.
Actually ironically this system created very specific roles. For example, there were melees who had sword skill + 100 strength (for maximum damage), and specialized in magic defense with 100 focus and self (the attributes that helped magic defense) which allowed them to tank against magic casters and resist their spells a lot and take less damage. The downside to this was they had 10 endurance which left them with much less health and they had 10 coordination and quickness which were the stats for melee defense and missile defense which meant they were incapable of evading missile and melee attacks effectively. Other people would compromise the stats, going with 100 focus, 100 strength, and 100 coordination, allowing them to max out their melee attack skill while getting them halfway between maxed magic defense and missile/melee defense.
The problem you speak of with everyone being self sufficient is a problem of games with completely unrestricted character development where you have no limits to what skills you can gain.