Originally posted by Hrimnir I refuse to believe that my post was so full of win that nobody deigned to respond. No trolls, flames, nothing? something is off here.
I am extremely disappointed (but entirely NOT surprised) by the response to your OP.
You are 100% correct. I firmly believe that anyone who doesn't realize this is a fact, not an opinion, is not intelligent enough to understand the variables and mechanics that form "player skill" as one puts it.
I actually almost missed this thread, but the title caught my eye, as I have been thinking about this very concept for the past week, and had come to the exact same conclusion. It was actually quite inspiring to read the OP because of the endless frustration of stupidity, ignorance, and blind arrogance people have online-- especially in relation to competitive (PvP) topics.
Funny...because I typically am able to form this opinion BECAUSE of how good I am at video games. In FPS games, the only people that are 10x faster than me are cheaters, because a normal human can only be equally as fast or slightly faster (2x maximum? I'm incredibly fast and accurate.) In PvP, I top charts within a day of playing and form my own OP builds which are never FotM but always totally faceroll FotM builds.
Then it occurs to me: Why I win so easily and why I lose so readily.
In GW2, typically the only reason I lose is because I am zerged in a very unfair fight. Typically a 1v3 or if the players are very good a 1v2. My extremely tanky build makes for me winning 99.99% of 1v1's with the losses taking several full minutes (if not longer) to decide a very close victor. My OP exploitable mechanics (Quickness anyone?) cause that very near-invincible 1v1 build to instantly kill all but the most tanky of players. Yet although I often have the #1 score in tournaments and sPvP, I get facerolled constantly by either good (not great) players of a superior build/class (Mesmer anyone?) or because it's a ridiculous 1v4 (even if I have teammates there, sometimes it is still a 1v4 due to how newbie they are or my mistake in thinking I should revive them instead of dodge roll...how many times have I gotten some newb to 99% revive and he teleports away from me only to be zerged immediately or executed while I had suffered 20% damage which isnt bad except that I'm in a 1v4 and need that to survive).
I know this NOT because it is my opinion, but because it is repeated evidence. I have talked to, messaged, and befriended many people who are good enough to kill me. If I suffer a 1v1 loss to a mesmer, I can pop on my mesmer and they get facerolled. I have gotten my opponents to use the exact same build (usually me using theirs) and I win by a large advantage. I have never met another warrior that could beat me, except one other warrior who went with me 2:2 due to the deciding factor being mostly luck (roll of the dice or crit chance getting lucky).
There are better players than me, but they aren't the people I play against. Yet I lose constantly 1v2, 1v3, 1v4, or 1v1 fresh after a fight with a tough (or multiple) opponents.
If you don't believe me, you can always PM me and I will 1v1 you, faceroll you, and help you to adopt my build. I've also received messages from random strangers who have "heard I was the best warrior around" which totally flattered and surprised me.
Of course, I constantly am dueling people or even winning 1v2 fights (or killing someone and dying in the 1v2 with the 2nd person at 10% life almost winning) and still having their massive ego claim superior "player skill" over me for the sole reason they fail to grasp the OP's factual information.
It is not just my experience which proves the OP is 100% correct, but my REPEATED experiences. I am not saying any of this to brag: I am stating this to show everyone that the OP is correct. Those who don't know he is correct are just proving his point...you only THINK you have player skill.
I will be the first to admit that 99% of my "player skill" is NOT choosing the gimp weapon/build/spec.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer Arguing over which MMO requires more skills is like trying to argue that a tricycle is harder to ride than a Big Wheel.
I'm vote Big Wheel.
It's got a lower center of gravity and fatter wheels on the back though - that makes it easier to do a powerslide than on a trike. Takes far more skill to do a slide on a trike, c'mon...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Originally posted by Spool1 You scrubs don't know what skill in an MMO is until you have played Darkfall, you need skill there, because if you don't I kill you, and take all your gear =]
Darkfall is more about level and gear than skill.
If you don't believe me, try putting a player with a PLAYER rating of 80 (very good) naked with starter weapon and a 0 in all skills, against a player rating of 60 (pretty good) with the best of the best, max skills.
I am excellent at FPS games or any video game really. I should be, I've done it long enough hardcore.
Darkfall isn't horribly unbalanced, but if you're a newbie with low skills, you're going to lose to players worse than you with higher skills.
The reason people think they have "player skill" or that argument is false is because they always assume the argument deals with Pro vs. Newb. A Pro can do 1 dmg vs a Noob that does 100 dmg with both players having 100 hit points, and the pro will win.
No, what I am talking about is Pro vs. Adequately skilled not-a-retard player that at least is competant enough not to be braindead. Pro will lose.
The simplest test is the "Playing Against Yourself" test.
Clone yourself.
Give your second self better gear. Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a better build (more optimized for PvP than PvE). Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a different class in most games. Your second self wins, eh?
If you're able to find any advantage to give to your second self... you've found that the game may not be as skill based as you thought. After all, you can't argue otherwise - your second self is as skilled as you are.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
The simplest test is the "Playing Against Yourself" test.
Clone yourself.
Give your second self better gear. Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a better build (more optimized for PvP than PvE). Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a different class in most games. Your second self wins, eh?
If you're able to find any advantage to give to your second self... you've found that the game may not be as skill based as you thought. After all, you can't argue otherwise - your second self is as skilled as you are.
Or you can get two players, one being the superior gamer and the other being adequate but not as good.
Put them in duels 1v1, with the exact same classes characters and builds. With the winner always being the superior gamer. (Otherwise, find a new pair until you have confirmed one player being better at gaming than the other.) Both players need to be competant though. No newbs, no tards.
Now pair them off with different builds, OP vs gimp, etc. Then switch roles.
Superior player will win ever fair fight, and every fight he has an advantage in.
Inferior player will win any fight where the Superior player' character is gimp and inferior player character is OP.
You will easily prove that despite player skill, there are other factors which contribute to victory.
Worst warrior ever considering a properly built Warrior can hit 108% crit chance with +63% to crit damage.
My warrior merely takes key spamming of attack skills to melt any necromancer i've ever come across within seconds.
Necromancer is currently the MOST underpowered class ever in GW2 currently, and Warrior is the easiest & most powerful both in PVP & PvE
Necromancer is far from underpowered, you seem really misinformed. That's cool that you've trounced a few scrubs with HB/Frenzy, but all that really proves is that the opponents you're facing are terrible. Any competent player can predict and evade the HB, mitigating tne damage entirely, and continue the fight.
"Properly built" Warriors don't roll with GS anyway, they roll with Axe/Axe and Axe/Shield for Double Eviscerate. The strongest Warrior build in the game with the most flexibility and least cooldown dependancy.
A Tournament or sPvP offensively built Warrior cannot get anywhere near 108% crit, you're speaking from a PVE perspective there, yet you're applying it as a factor of your argument while discussing PvP.
You definitely are not very knowledgable regarding this game, and what little knowledge you do possess seems to be horribly inaccurate.
^ what he said - dual axe is more damage than greatsword.
I've seen other viable warrior build built defensively using makes and shields.
Also cc heavy builds with hammer then dual maces, however hammer builds take very good timing
Also buff / heal specs
Even got a warrior in my guild uses longbow on a switch which according to conventional wisdom is "bad for pvp". Uses it to fire the fire field and cc then switches to dual axe to combo the spin attack for even more damage.
Necros are masters for point holding and also in groups for setting up combos.
Originally posted by VirusDancer The simplest test is the "Playing Against Yourself" test.Clone yourself.Give your second self better gear. Your second self wins, eh?Give your second self a better build (more optimized for PvP than PvE). Your second self wins, eh?Give your second self a different class in most games. Your second self wins, eh?If you're able to find any advantage to give to your second self... you've found that the game may not be as skill based as you thought. After all, you can't argue otherwise - your second self is as skilled as you are.
That's just silly. Everyone knows that each successive generation of clones comes out a little bit dumber than the last. Your clone would need the extra gear or a better build just to keep up.
However, if we assume that ideal cloning exists, all you've done is changed the type of skill that is necessary to play the game well. The necessary skill becomes minimal at the point of execution, but increases in the planning and preparation stages. It's arguable how much skill is actually required in the planning and preparation stages, and it's a discussion point as to what kind of skill is actually used in those stages, but it doesn't eliminate "skill" from the equation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If there was a game where nothing the player did mattered, and everything was resolved by behind the scenes dice rolls...then I don't think it would be very popular. This game, would be a game where skill didn't matter at all.
So clearly...player skill matters to people. No one wants to essentially just watch a cinematic that tells them if they won or lost.
Now it's true that the type of skill required that players enjoy varies between player to player. Some players like twitchy games, others like tactical games, others like puzzle games...but all these games have one thing in common. SOME kind of skill is required to play it well.
Saying that MMO's, or any game for that matter, should not require skill is well...stupid.
Originally posted by VirusDancer The simplest test is the "Playing Against Yourself" test.
Clone yourself.
Give your second self better gear. Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a better build (more optimized for PvP than PvE). Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a different class in most games. Your second self wins, eh?
If you're able to find any advantage to give to your second self... you've found that the game may not be as skill based as you thought. After all, you can't argue otherwise - your second self is as skilled as you are.
That's just silly. Everyone knows that each successive generation of clones comes out a little bit dumber than the last. Your clone would need the extra gear or a better build just to keep up.
However, if we assume that ideal cloning exists, all you've done is changed the type of skill that is necessary to play the game well. The necessary skill becomes minimal at the point of execution, but increases in the planning and preparation stages. It's arguable how much skill is actually required in the planning and preparation stages, and it's a discussion point as to what kind of skill is actually used in those stages, but it doesn't eliminate "skill" from the equation.
Have you been talking with Michael Keaton again?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
This is something i've been needing to post ever since GW2 releases. I'm going to show you why the entire argument of being rewarded for "skill" is a total load of crap in MMO's.
OP's first paragraph had all I needed to state my opinion here.
But then... I don't have a problem getting beaten by someone more skillful than me and my team. We actually get to learn something instead of a useless (nothing to learn) OW gank from some permahidden, stunlocking twinked rogue.
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!! (repeat ad infinitum)
Originally posted by ShakyMo Err AC isn't a sandbox, its a very open ended themepark.
LOL best joke of the day !
100% skill based
no classes
100% random loot no 2 items are the same ( best loot system i have ever seen )
no hold my hand quest
huge open world with NO instances, or zones.
pvp server is pvp on the entire map NO safe zones not even in town, oh and NO instance to hide in.
crafting that actually improves your items, not just craft 100 leather boots and dump them into a vendor to level up your crafting.
pvp actually takes skill, no CC or stealth for noobs to use as a crutch. allowing you to fight and beat multiple players at once. i have seen great pvpers fight 5+ people at once and kill them all. and not because of facerolling geared out crap like in thempark pvp.
i will just stop now because obviously you either never played AC or maybe you tried it and it was to hard for you to stick with.
Ah...good ole AC. My first MMO love. All the hours I spent camping chests and taking turns opening them on the "honor" system... the good old days.
Btw... my GM back then was named Darkwolf... you didn't go from "dark" to "drunK" did you?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by ShakyMo Err AC isn't a sandbox, its a very open ended themepark.
LOL best joke of the day !
100% skill based
no classes
100% random loot no 2 items are the same ( best loot system i have ever seen )
no hold my hand quest
huge open world with NO instances, or zones.
pvp server is pvp on the entire map NO safe zones not even in town, oh and NO instance to hide in.
crafting that actually improves your items, not just craft 100 leather boots and dump them into a vendor to level up your crafting.
pvp actually takes skill, no CC or stealth for noobs to use as a crutch. allowing you to fight and beat multiple players at once. i have seen great pvpers fight 5+ people at once and kill them all. and not because of facerolling geared out crap like in thempark pvp.
i will just stop now because obviously you either never played AC or maybe you tried it and it was to hard for you to stick with.
sounds like Darkfall, and Darkfall is open ended themepark as well.
AC1 more sandbox like, AC2 more Hybrid like, AC3 aka LoTRO total themepark. Turbine saw it long before WoW was even thought of.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I consider DF a sandbox. Some people think it isn't because everything is focused around pvp crafting, skills, cities... But then again, so is Eve.
no I dont consider it a sandbox because its basically WoW's TBC PvP zone concept, with WoTLK/Cata's PvP zone concepts made on a large global-scale. Not sandbox like at all about that. WoW does it, just not to DF's scale.
thats the only thing that people bring up about the game being sandbox. the PvE is nothing more than a openended themepark like Elder Scrolls.
nothing sandbox about the PvE. same thing done in a WoW game.
cant build or change the world at all beyond the pre-staged areas. again WoW has this concept, just not on same scale
Originally posted by VirusDancer The simplest test is the "Playing Against Yourself" test.
Clone yourself.
Give your second self better gear. Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a better build (more optimized for PvP than PvE). Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a different class in most games. Your second self wins, eh?
If you're able to find any advantage to give to your second self... you've found that the game may not be as skill based as you thought. After all, you can't argue otherwise - your second self is as skilled as you are.
That's just silly. Everyone knows that each successive generation of clones comes out a little bit dumber than the last. Your clone would need the extra gear or a better build just to keep up.
However, if we assume that ideal cloning exists, all you've done is changed the type of skill that is necessary to play the game well. The necessary skill becomes minimal at the point of execution, but increases in the planning and preparation stages. It's arguable how much skill is actually required in the planning and preparation stages, and it's a discussion point as to what kind of skill is actually used in those stages, but it doesn't eliminate "skill" from the equation.
It's pretty straightforward how it eliminates the skill if you consider the clone to be an exact copy. The skill becomes baseline. It's even. There is no discrepancy. You Version A is as skilled as You Version B. Anything A is going to do, B would do as well.
I do not limit skill to mere physical skill. All skill would be elimiinated. Everything that A does, B can do just as well. Everything A knows, B knows just as well. Everything A would do going into the fight, B would do going into the fight.
So then when you give A a better weapon, A did not beat B because of skill - the skill is equal. A won because of the weapon. A gear advantage. The same goes with builds, classes, etc, etc, etc.
With that in place, then you realize there are only two ways to make a claim of having superior skill to another player:
Neither side has any other advantage and one is able to defeat the other.
One side does not have any other advantage and that side is able to beat the other side with some other advantage.
If you have some non-skill advantage and you beat somebody without it, well...you had an advantage. How can you claim that it was skill? And again, I do not limit skill to manual dexterity or the like. It's a package deal.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Originally posted by VirusDancer The simplest test is the "Playing Against Yourself" test.
Clone yourself.
Give your second self better gear. Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a better build (more optimized for PvP than PvE). Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a different class in most games. Your second self wins, eh?
If you're able to find any advantage to give to your second self... you've found that the game may not be as skill based as you thought. After all, you can't argue otherwise - your second self is as skilled as you are.
That's just silly. Everyone knows that each successive generation of clones comes out a little bit dumber than the last. Your clone would need the extra gear or a better build just to keep up.
However, if we assume that ideal cloning exists, all you've done is changed the type of skill that is necessary to play the game well. The necessary skill becomes minimal at the point of execution, but increases in the planning and preparation stages. It's arguable how much skill is actually required in the planning and preparation stages, and it's a discussion point as to what kind of skill is actually used in those stages, but it doesn't eliminate "skill" from the equation.
It's pretty straightforward how it eliminates the skill if you consider the clone to be an exact copy. The skill becomes baseline. It's even. There is no discrepancy. You Version A is as skilled as You Version B. Anything A is going to do, B would do as well.
I do not limit skill to mere physical skill. All skill would be elimiinated. Everything that A does, B can do just as well. Everything A knows, B knows just as well. Everything A would do going into the fight, B would do going into the fight.
So then when you give A a better weapon, A did not beat B because of skill - the skill is equal. A won because of the weapon. A gear advantage. The same goes with builds, classes, etc, etc, etc.
With that in place, then you realize there are only two ways to make a claim of having superior skill to another player:
Neither side has any other advantage and one is able to defeat the other.
One side does not have any other advantage and that side is able to beat the other side with some other advantage.
If you have some non-skill advantage and you beat somebody without it, well...you had an advantage. How can you claim that it was skill? And again, I do not limit skill to manual dexterity or the like. It's a package deal.
I'll just chime in and say that even though zerging is considered a strategy (and a very effective one at that) it is not a measurement of skill..
And one on one "skill" can only be determined if all the controlled variables are the same, meaning the victory could only come from the actual inputs of the user (sort of like 2 snipers in an FPS and one headshotting the other before he can react).
Too many times I have seen people rub their groins with pride after finishing their zerg runs and daring a lone warrior to challenge them.. Only a fool would rush headfirst into a zerg and expect to live, no matter his "skill" level..
Originally posted by VirusDancer The simplest test is the "Playing Against Yourself" test.
Clone yourself.
Give your second self better gear. Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a better build (more optimized for PvP than PvE). Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a different class in most games. Your second self wins, eh?
If you're able to find any advantage to give to your second self... you've found that the game may not be as skill based as you thought. After all, you can't argue otherwise - your second self is as skilled as you are.
That's just silly. Everyone knows that each successive generation of clones comes out a little bit dumber than the last. Your clone would need the extra gear or a better build just to keep up.
However, if we assume that ideal cloning exists, all you've done is changed the type of skill that is necessary to play the game well. The necessary skill becomes minimal at the point of execution, but increases in the planning and preparation stages. It's arguable how much skill is actually required in the planning and preparation stages, and it's a discussion point as to what kind of skill is actually used in those stages, but it doesn't eliminate "skill" from the equation.
It's pretty straightforward how it eliminates the skill if you consider the clone to be an exact copy. The skill becomes baseline. It's even. There is no discrepancy. You Version A is as skilled as You Version B. Anything A is going to do, B would do as well.
I do not limit skill to mere physical skill. All skill would be elimiinated. Everything that A does, B can do just as well. Everything A knows, B knows just as well. Everything A would do going into the fight, B would do going into the fight.
So then when you give A a better weapon, A did not beat B because of skill - the skill is equal. A won because of the weapon. A gear advantage. The same goes with builds, classes, etc, etc, etc.
With that in place, then you realize there are only two ways to make a claim of having superior skill to another player:
Neither side has any other advantage and one is able to defeat the other.
One side does not have any other advantage and that side is able to beat the other side with some other advantage.
If you have some non-skill advantage and you beat somebody without it, well...you had an advantage. How can you claim that it was skill? And again, I do not limit skill to manual dexterity or the like. It's a package deal.
Did you ever hear of asymetrical balancing?
I account for differences in classes. The advantages that I speak of in regard to different classes assumes an imbalance even with the classes being different. Imbalance is imbalance, regardless of how one is attempting to balance.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
No, there will never be a 100% equal field in a MMO but you are saying that since balance is impossible we should just ignore it altogether.
Not a good idea. Being forced to grind 100%s of hours to become "good" is not really fun and having a too large gap between noobs and vets just leads to harder to find groups for people and that you cant play together with your friends.
Sure, we could have a MMO with some kind of handicap system similar to the one in golf, that would work a lot better than current system where you get rewarded for luck and time spent.
I would say the opposite of OP and state that GW2 was not far enough. We need to get rid of levels, lessen the gap between new and old players, and between vendortrash and top gear.
This is something i've been needing to post ever since GW2 releases. I'm going to show you why the entire argument of being rewarded for "skill" is a total load of crap in MMO's.
OP's first paragraph had all I needed to state my opinion here.
But then... I don't have a problem getting beaten by someone more skillful than me and my team. We actually get to learn something instead of a useless (nothing to learn) OW gank from some permahidden, stunlocking twinked rogue.
Yeah, took out the gear part and the rest of its still there. Even without a gear variable, there isn't such thing as class balance, and people will cry OP for stuff on different classes.
This is something i've been needing to post ever since GW2 releases. I'm going to show you why the entire argument of being rewarded for "skill" is a total load of crap in MMO's.
First and foremost. I do understand the desire to remove the "gear" variable from the equation. The problem is all these people act like thats the only variable and that as long as everyone is on level playing ground as far as gear goes, then all of sudden it makes for this super skill based competitive environment.
Here is why thats a load of shit:
1. All classes are not created equal and class balance is a myth.
2. You almost never encounter 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc, situations in RvR or Instanced Battleground style PVP.
3. People who complain about gear in game, are the same people who will buy G15 keyboard and program the living hell out of it so they can do 1 button press combos and things that are not normally intended by the game.
Elaborations:
1. The only time you can make a claim that you beat someone on pure skill is if you happened to encounter someone who has equal gear, levels, and is the same class, with the exact same build as you. This literally almost never happens. If you do get the rare 1v1 scenario is almost always a different class, and the way MMO's are always set up are with a quasi rock paper scissors method. Certain classes are always better against others. For example, in vanilla wow, a good warlock will almost always get handled by even a mediocre rogue. Thats just an example off the top of my head. But it holds true in every MMO that has PVP.
2. This somewhat ties into point 1, but you rarely encounter where you and your 2 buddies come around a corner and encounter 3 people. Which again, theoretically for it to be fair they would have to have the same group makeup as yours too. SO, usually its either 2v3 or 3v4, 5v2 etc.
3. The point here is basically people are full of shit. They say they want to have a level playing ground, but what they really mean is they want to make sure they have the advantage and not the other guy. And since they may not be able to invest the time or effort to get the better PVP gear, they want to make sure that other people can't as well, so the advantage shifts in their favor.
The point of the level playing field is having access to the same gear, the same skills and traits, the same builds as the other guy. The point is not having to be molested over and over again to be able to, maybe some day after you've suffered more than your fair share, get enough tokens to get a set of PvP gear that lets you own noobs like there's no tomorrow. It's just not fun for the noobs.
Since you're a person, and thus as per your own words, full of shit, your points pretty much disprove themselves. You can create any class you want for PvP with minimal effort, just do the tutorial and go to the mists. You can chose any build you want, with its strengths and weaknesses, with any gear combination you want. You can chalk it up to whatever you want, but you can't say you suck at PvP because you haven't gathered enough 'expertise' on your gear. Maybe you don't master the class as well as the other guy, maybe your build has major flaws or maybe you just suck. If the latter is the case then you can either accept that and work on getting better, or you can start a rant about how people, such as yourself, are full of shit and want their 'expertise gear' again, because frankly they can't cut it without that.
If you're still not getting that in balanced PvP you're going to win some and lose some then you're probably better off looking up the definition of balanced.
Comments
I am extremely disappointed (but entirely NOT surprised) by the response to your OP.
You are 100% correct. I firmly believe that anyone who doesn't realize this is a fact, not an opinion, is not intelligent enough to understand the variables and mechanics that form "player skill" as one puts it.
I actually almost missed this thread, but the title caught my eye, as I have been thinking about this very concept for the past week, and had come to the exact same conclusion. It was actually quite inspiring to read the OP because of the endless frustration of stupidity, ignorance, and blind arrogance people have online-- especially in relation to competitive (PvP) topics.
Funny...because I typically am able to form this opinion BECAUSE of how good I am at video games. In FPS games, the only people that are 10x faster than me are cheaters, because a normal human can only be equally as fast or slightly faster (2x maximum? I'm incredibly fast and accurate.) In PvP, I top charts within a day of playing and form my own OP builds which are never FotM but always totally faceroll FotM builds.
Then it occurs to me: Why I win so easily and why I lose so readily.
In GW2, typically the only reason I lose is because I am zerged in a very unfair fight. Typically a 1v3 or if the players are very good a 1v2. My extremely tanky build makes for me winning 99.99% of 1v1's with the losses taking several full minutes (if not longer) to decide a very close victor. My OP exploitable mechanics (Quickness anyone?) cause that very near-invincible 1v1 build to instantly kill all but the most tanky of players. Yet although I often have the #1 score in tournaments and sPvP, I get facerolled constantly by either good (not great) players of a superior build/class (Mesmer anyone?) or because it's a ridiculous 1v4 (even if I have teammates there, sometimes it is still a 1v4 due to how newbie they are or my mistake in thinking I should revive them instead of dodge roll...how many times have I gotten some newb to 99% revive and he teleports away from me only to be zerged immediately or executed while I had suffered 20% damage which isnt bad except that I'm in a 1v4 and need that to survive).
I know this NOT because it is my opinion, but because it is repeated evidence. I have talked to, messaged, and befriended many people who are good enough to kill me. If I suffer a 1v1 loss to a mesmer, I can pop on my mesmer and they get facerolled. I have gotten my opponents to use the exact same build (usually me using theirs) and I win by a large advantage. I have never met another warrior that could beat me, except one other warrior who went with me 2:2 due to the deciding factor being mostly luck (roll of the dice or crit chance getting lucky).
There are better players than me, but they aren't the people I play against. Yet I lose constantly 1v2, 1v3, 1v4, or 1v1 fresh after a fight with a tough (or multiple) opponents.
If you don't believe me, you can always PM me and I will 1v1 you, faceroll you, and help you to adopt my build. I've also received messages from random strangers who have "heard I was the best warrior around" which totally flattered and surprised me.
Of course, I constantly am dueling people or even winning 1v2 fights (or killing someone and dying in the 1v2 with the 2nd person at 10% life almost winning) and still having their massive ego claim superior "player skill" over me for the sole reason they fail to grasp the OP's factual information.
It is not just my experience which proves the OP is 100% correct, but my REPEATED experiences. I am not saying any of this to brag: I am stating this to show everyone that the OP is correct. Those who don't know he is correct are just proving his point...you only THINK you have player skill.
I will be the first to admit that 99% of my "player skill" is NOT choosing the gimp weapon/build/spec.
It's got a lower center of gravity and fatter wheels on the back though - that makes it easier to do a powerslide than on a trike. Takes far more skill to do a slide on a trike, c'mon...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Darkfall is more about level and gear than skill.
If you don't believe me, try putting a player with a PLAYER rating of 80 (very good) naked with starter weapon and a 0 in all skills, against a player rating of 60 (pretty good) with the best of the best, max skills.
I am excellent at FPS games or any video game really. I should be, I've done it long enough hardcore.
Darkfall isn't horribly unbalanced, but if you're a newbie with low skills, you're going to lose to players worse than you with higher skills.
The reason people think they have "player skill" or that argument is false is because they always assume the argument deals with Pro vs. Newb. A Pro can do 1 dmg vs a Noob that does 100 dmg with both players having 100 hit points, and the pro will win.
No, what I am talking about is Pro vs. Adequately skilled not-a-retard player that at least is competant enough not to be braindead. Pro will lose.
The simplest test is the "Playing Against Yourself" test.
Clone yourself.
Give your second self better gear. Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a better build (more optimized for PvP than PvE). Your second self wins, eh?
Give your second self a different class in most games. Your second self wins, eh?
If you're able to find any advantage to give to your second self... you've found that the game may not be as skill based as you thought. After all, you can't argue otherwise - your second self is as skilled as you are.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Or you can get two players, one being the superior gamer and the other being adequate but not as good.
Put them in duels 1v1, with the exact same classes characters and builds. With the winner always being the superior gamer. (Otherwise, find a new pair until you have confirmed one player being better at gaming than the other.) Both players need to be competant though. No newbs, no tards.
Now pair them off with different builds, OP vs gimp, etc. Then switch roles.
Superior player will win ever fair fight, and every fight he has an advantage in.
Inferior player will win any fight where the Superior player' character is gimp and inferior player character is OP.
You will easily prove that despite player skill, there are other factors which contribute to victory.
Necromancer is far from underpowered, you seem really misinformed. That's cool that you've trounced a few scrubs with HB/Frenzy, but all that really proves is that the opponents you're facing are terrible. Any competent player can predict and evade the HB, mitigating tne damage entirely, and continue the fight.
"Properly built" Warriors don't roll with GS anyway, they roll with Axe/Axe and Axe/Shield for Double Eviscerate. The strongest Warrior build in the game with the most flexibility and least cooldown dependancy.
A Tournament or sPvP offensively built Warrior cannot get anywhere near 108% crit, you're speaking from a PVE perspective there, yet you're applying it as a factor of your argument while discussing PvP.
You definitely are not very knowledgable regarding this game, and what little knowledge you do possess seems to be horribly inaccurate.
An example of a good Necro:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7nTcjTg5fg&noredirect=1
I've seen other viable warrior build built defensively using makes and shields.
Also cc heavy builds with hammer then dual maces, however hammer builds take very good timing
Also buff / heal specs
Even got a warrior in my guild uses longbow on a switch which according to conventional wisdom is "bad for pvp". Uses it to fire the fire field and cc then switches to dual axe to combo the spin attack for even more damage.
Necros are masters for point holding and also in groups for setting up combos.
That's just silly. Everyone knows that each successive generation of clones comes out a little bit dumber than the last. Your clone would need the extra gear or a better build just to keep up.
However, if we assume that ideal cloning exists, all you've done is changed the type of skill that is necessary to play the game well. The necessary skill becomes minimal at the point of execution, but increases in the planning and preparation stages. It's arguable how much skill is actually required in the planning and preparation stages, and it's a discussion point as to what kind of skill is actually used in those stages, but it doesn't eliminate "skill" from the equation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Let's put it this way...
If there was a game where nothing the player did mattered, and everything was resolved by behind the scenes dice rolls...then I don't think it would be very popular. This game, would be a game where skill didn't matter at all.
So clearly...player skill matters to people. No one wants to essentially just watch a cinematic that tells them if they won or lost.
Now it's true that the type of skill required that players enjoy varies between player to player. Some players like twitchy games, others like tactical games, others like puzzle games...but all these games have one thing in common. SOME kind of skill is required to play it well.
Saying that MMO's, or any game for that matter, should not require skill is well...stupid.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Have you been talking with Michael Keaton again?
OP's first paragraph had all I needed to state my opinion here.
But then... I don't have a problem getting beaten by someone more skillful than me and my team. We actually get to learn something instead of a useless (nothing to learn) OW gank from some permahidden, stunlocking twinked rogue.
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
(repeat ad infinitum)
Ah...good ole AC. My first MMO love. All the hours I spent camping chests and taking turns opening them on the "honor" system... the good old days.
Btw... my GM back then was named Darkwolf... you didn't go from "dark" to "drunK" did you?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
sounds like Darkfall, and Darkfall is open ended themepark as well.
AC1 more sandbox like, AC2 more Hybrid like, AC3 aka LoTRO total themepark. Turbine saw it long before WoW was even thought of.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
no I dont consider it a sandbox because its basically WoW's TBC PvP zone concept, with WoTLK/Cata's PvP zone concepts made on a large global-scale. Not sandbox like at all about that. WoW does it, just not to DF's scale.
thats the only thing that people bring up about the game being sandbox. the PvE is nothing more than a openended themepark like Elder Scrolls.
nothing sandbox about the PvE. same thing done in a WoW game.
cant build or change the world at all beyond the pre-staged areas. again WoW has this concept, just not on same scale
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
It's pretty straightforward how it eliminates the skill if you consider the clone to be an exact copy. The skill becomes baseline. It's even. There is no discrepancy. You Version A is as skilled as You Version B. Anything A is going to do, B would do as well.
I do not limit skill to mere physical skill. All skill would be elimiinated. Everything that A does, B can do just as well. Everything A knows, B knows just as well. Everything A would do going into the fight, B would do going into the fight.
So then when you give A a better weapon, A did not beat B because of skill - the skill is equal. A won because of the weapon. A gear advantage. The same goes with builds, classes, etc, etc, etc.
With that in place, then you realize there are only two ways to make a claim of having superior skill to another player:
If you have some non-skill advantage and you beat somebody without it, well...you had an advantage. How can you claim that it was skill? And again, I do not limit skill to manual dexterity or the like. It's a package deal.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Did you ever hear of asymetrical balancing?
I'll just chime in and say that even though zerging is considered a strategy (and a very effective one at that) it is not a measurement of skill..
And one on one "skill" can only be determined if all the controlled variables are the same, meaning the victory could only come from the actual inputs of the user (sort of like 2 snipers in an FPS and one headshotting the other before he can react).
Too many times I have seen people rub their groins with pride after finishing their zerg runs and daring a lone warrior to challenge them.. Only a fool would rush headfirst into a zerg and expect to live, no matter his "skill" level..
I account for differences in classes. The advantages that I speak of in regard to different classes assumes an imbalance even with the classes being different. Imbalance is imbalance, regardless of how one is attempting to balance.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No, there will never be a 100% equal field in a MMO but you are saying that since balance is impossible we should just ignore it altogether.
Not a good idea. Being forced to grind 100%s of hours to become "good" is not really fun and having a too large gap between noobs and vets just leads to harder to find groups for people and that you cant play together with your friends.
Sure, we could have a MMO with some kind of handicap system similar to the one in golf, that would work a lot better than current system where you get rewarded for luck and time spent.
I would say the opposite of OP and state that GW2 was not far enough. We need to get rid of levels, lessen the gap between new and old players, and between vendortrash and top gear.
Yeah, took out the gear part and the rest of its still there.
Even without a gear variable, there isn't such thing as class balance, and people will cry OP for stuff on different classes.
The point of the level playing field is having access to the same gear, the same skills and traits, the same builds as the other guy. The point is not having to be molested over and over again to be able to, maybe some day after you've suffered more than your fair share, get enough tokens to get a set of PvP gear that lets you own noobs like there's no tomorrow. It's just not fun for the noobs.
Since you're a person, and thus as per your own words, full of shit, your points pretty much disprove themselves. You can create any class you want for PvP with minimal effort, just do the tutorial and go to the mists. You can chose any build you want, with its strengths and weaknesses, with any gear combination you want. You can chalk it up to whatever you want, but you can't say you suck at PvP because you haven't gathered enough 'expertise' on your gear. Maybe you don't master the class as well as the other guy, maybe your build has major flaws or maybe you just suck. If the latter is the case then you can either accept that and work on getting better, or you can start a rant about how people, such as yourself, are full of shit and want their 'expertise gear' again, because frankly they can't cut it without that.
If you're still not getting that in balanced PvP you're going to win some and lose some then you're probably better off looking up the definition of balanced.