ESO is a hybrid with a class system that can be totally ignored if you want.
There is no true class-based game where a Templar, DK, NB, etc,. can all have the exact same build with the exact same active skills and exact same passives.
So I stopped reading there...
Almost, but not quite. In ESO you MUST pick a class. And once you do, you won't be able to use skills from other classes. So it's a class-based game. There is a pool of skills available to all classes, but no class can use skills from another class. The definition of class.
edit: CoH is a class-based game with a lot of pool powers. You can certainly play the game only using pool powers. Still a class-based game though.
So do hybrids exist in your gaming world view?
Besides you're just circling back to the same argument that you are the class they say you are, even when you can 100% ignore class skills and that user-made skill bundles don't define a class and you have no business naming those because you're not the dev.
Just more of the same silliness.
Hybrids exist regardless of anyone's gaming world view.
For example, D&D Paladins have aspects of Fighters and Clerics along with several abilities unique only to them. It's a hybrid class.
You can choose to ignore the abilities of your class in an ESO build. You can't choose to incorporate the abilities of other classes in your ESO build, because the game is class based and those abilities are restricted by class.
The only thing silly here is continued argument of the incontestable.
The root meaning of "class" is a subset of items based on some attribute. The verb "classify" is to sort items according to some attribute. A "class" of ships defines certain common characteristics, such as aircraft carrier, destroyer, etc.
Class therefore means a subset, a group based on some characteristic.
If the game has subsets of skills, then it is class-based. If the game makes you pick a class, and that limits you to a subset of skills, it is class-based.
ESO and CoH are both class-based, and they both have a subset of skills that are common to all players. Still, once you pick a class, you have limited what skills you have available. If you only used the common skills, you are still limited to what skills you can use based on the class you picked. I guess you could call that a hybrid playstyle.
In my earlier post that you said you didn't read, I also make the point that a skill-based system like UO, where you have all the skills to pick from, but are limited to a certain number, is still a class-based system. Just without pre-defined classes.
The only truly classless games that I know of are NMS and Ryzom. NMS doesn't have skills at all. Or levels. Ryzom has skills, but you have them all, all the time. So, not class-based.
You can't get away from your class in CoH entirely, as there are still inherent abilities to each and modifiers based on class. Pool power builds are pretty meh anyway.
Suggesting that skill based system with a cap are effectively class based is an interesting take, but I disagree with premise as the skills taken need not approximate what would be typically considered a class in the context of MMORPGs or RPGs.
Project:Gorgon also doesn't have a cap, with the limiter there being the time it would take to raise everything up.
You can choose to ignore the abilities of your class in an ESO build. You can't choose to incorporate the abilities of other classes in your ESO build, because the game is class based and those abilities are restricted by class.
And that is totally irrelevant to what class you built and are playing. Neither what a class designation gives you nor what it prevents you from having matters. All that matters is what you build and are playing.
In strict class systems, you have no choice other than to pick a class and use what they give you, in absolutely no developer-designated class systems you have all the choices and in a hybrid class/open system you have some choice. But you are what you build. Period. End of story.
And I wasn't talking about hybrid classes, I'm talking about hybrid systems.
"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
You can choose to ignore the abilities of your class in an ESO build. You can't choose to incorporate the abilities of other classes in your ESO build, because the game is class based and those abilities are restricted by class.
And that is totally irrelevant to what class you built and are playing. Neither what a class designation gives you nor what it prevents you from having matters. All that matters is what you build and are playing.
In strict class systems, you have no choice other than to pick a class and use what they give you, in absolutely no developer-designated class systems you have all the choices and in a hybrid class/open system you have some choice. But you are what you build. Period. End of story.
And I wasn't talking about hybrid classes, I'm talking about hybrid systems.
No, your class is not irrelevant to your class.
In ESO, your class can be irrelevant to your build.
That is because ESO has enough non-class based abilities so that a build can created without using any class based ones.
Being able to voluntarily ignore the unique benefits of your class does not change that you are still of that class.
You can't opt your way out of the prohibition of taking abilities of classes other than your own. It is impossible to entirely escape the class related aspects of ESO. There is no way around that despite the frequency and fervour of denial.
You build is what it can be, but your class is what you chose. Period. End of story.
You're not the only one talking, and I did bring up hybrid classes.
I'll wade in for a second just to keep things stirred up.
ESO
is a class based game. When you pick a certain class, you restrict the
skills you have to choose from. That is the definition of a class. It is
a subset of the available skills.
A
skill-based system where you have a limited number of skill points to
spend, is still a class type system. It might not have pre-defined
classes, but you are still creating a class in effect by picking what
skills you will use.
A game with all skills
available, and no limit on skill points, like Ryzom, does not have
classes. At all. You are everything, all the time. No subset of skills
to pick from.
If you decided in Ryzom to play
as a healer and only level healing skills, you are still not a healer
class. You have all the other skills available. In ESO, if you pick a
class like healer, you won't be able to use skills from other classes.
(I didn't play UO). In UO, I understand you have open ended skills to
pick from, but can only pick a limited number of them. To use a
different one, you have to give up one. That is basically still a class
system, without pre-defined class limitations.
Don't really follow there on the budget makes a system "class type".
The system does not inherently dictate combination of skills, only that you cannot cap all of them at once. You can tailor that to a particular class, or flub about with some errant combination that doesn't fit a traditional role.
I'd also extend a counterpoint.
Ryzom may let you cap all skills, but you still ultimately have to choose which skills you are going to line up on your hotbar to use. That takes whatever expanse of skills you've attained and narrows it down. Does that suddenly mean the limitation of skill slots makes it "class type"?
I don't think that really works rationally.
I'd also extend in the case of ESO. Not going to dispute it being a class based system, but I will use it as a demonstrative point on how soft classes can be as a concept here. Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
This is something ESO is pretty fudgey with, because any class, through combination of class skills and common pool, can fulfill any mechanic role within a party. What does picking a sorcerer mean if you can be a tank, DPS, healer, or even focus yourself on something like CC skills?
Ultimately it's only got the same limitation as Ryzom guiding your choice of role on that end. The limitation of what skills to chose to line up and use.
I'll wade in for a second just to keep things stirred up.
ESO
is a class based game. When you pick a certain class, you restrict the
skills you have to choose from. That is the definition of a class. It is
a subset of the available skills.
A
skill-based system where you have a limited number of skill points to
spend, is still a class type system. It might not have pre-defined
classes, but you are still creating a class in effect by picking what
skills you will use.
A game with all skills
available, and no limit on skill points, like Ryzom, does not have
classes. At all. You are everything, all the time. No subset of skills
to pick from.
If you decided in Ryzom to play
as a healer and only level healing skills, you are still not a healer
class. You have all the other skills available. In ESO, if you pick a
class like healer, you won't be able to use skills from other classes.
(I didn't play UO). In UO, I understand you have open ended skills to
pick from, but can only pick a limited number of them. To use a
different one, you have to give up one. That is basically still a class
system, without pre-defined class limitations.
Don't really follow there on the budget makes a system "class type".
The system does not inherently dictate combination of skills, only that you cannot cap all of them at once. You can tailor that to a particular class, or flub about with some errant combination that doesn't fit a traditional role.
I'd also extend a counterpoint.
Ryzom may let you cap all skills, but you still ultimately have to choose which skills you are going to line up on your hotbar to use. That takes whatever expanse of skills you've attained and narrows it down. Does that suddenly mean the limitation of skill slots makes it "class type"?
I don't think that really works rationally.
Actually, no, Ryzom doesn't work like that. Skills don't come with pre-made actions, or abilities. You have to create them. Do you want a short-range high damage action? Create it. Or a long range medium damage but low cost ability? Or a super high dmg action with long recharge?
Ryzom is old school, so you can have lots of abilities on the hotbars.
People do carry around different sets of armor for different situations. That's for a role, but not a class. "I'm going to start tanking now, lvl 68" is not a class.
I'll wade in for a second just to keep things stirred up.
ESO
is a class based game. When you pick a certain class, you restrict the
skills you have to choose from. That is the definition of a class. It is
a subset of the available skills.
A
skill-based system where you have a limited number of skill points to
spend, is still a class type system. It might not have pre-defined
classes, but you are still creating a class in effect by picking what
skills you will use.
A game with all skills
available, and no limit on skill points, like Ryzom, does not have
classes. At all. You are everything, all the time. No subset of skills
to pick from.
If you decided in Ryzom to play
as a healer and only level healing skills, you are still not a healer
class. You have all the other skills available. In ESO, if you pick a
class like healer, you won't be able to use skills from other classes.
(I didn't play UO). In UO, I understand you have open ended skills to
pick from, but can only pick a limited number of them. To use a
different one, you have to give up one. That is basically still a class
system, without pre-defined class limitations.
Don't really follow there on the budget makes a system "class type".
The system does not inherently dictate combination of skills, only that you cannot cap all of them at once. You can tailor that to a particular class, or flub about with some errant combination that doesn't fit a traditional role.
I'd also extend a counterpoint.
Ryzom may let you cap all skills, but you still ultimately have to choose which skills you are going to line up on your hotbar to use. That takes whatever expanse of skills you've attained and narrows it down. Does that suddenly mean the limitation of skill slots makes it "class type"?
I don't think that really works rationally.
I don't think that really works rationally.
I'd also extend in the case of ESO. Not going to dispute it being a class based system, but I will use it as a demonstrative point on how soft classes can be as a concept here. Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
This is something ESO is pretty fudgey with, because any class, through combination of class skills and common pool, can fulfill any mechanic role within a party. What does picking a sorcerer mean if you can be a tank, DPS, healer, or even focus yourself on something like CC skills?
Ultimately it's only got the same limitation as Ryzom guiding your choice of role on that end. The limitation of what skills to chose to line up and use.
Actually, no, Ryzom doesn't work like that. Skills don't come with pre-made actions, or abilities. You have to create them. Do you want a short-range high damage action? Create it. Or a long range medium damage but low cost ability? Or a super high dmg action with long recharge?
Ryzom is old school, so you can have lots of abilities on the hotbars.
People do carry around different sets of armor for different situations. That's for a role, but not a class. "I'm going to start tanking now, lvl 68" is not a class.
That...doesn't address what I'd stated. How you create actions does not correlate to how many you have set up to use. Don't conflate capping skills as in skill trees, and skills as in usable actions. There is no "actually, no" to correct there. People cap skill trees to advance proficiency. You can build a skill (action) with affliction, but if your affliction skill tree is untrained you're not going to produce as good a skill (action).
Aside from that, it remains that capping skill trees does not translate to a change in the size of your hotbars and subsequently your assigned skills.
The "lots of abilities on hotbars" speaks to the point better in saying you can just dump skills until you have one for every possible scenario.
But then you're just self-inflicting skill bloat and it easily passes practicality. How much are your skills focused on DPS? How many are you actively using in the middle of combat, and how many action skills are you focused on using? Are you slapping your way through ever main, Alt, Ctrl, Shift, Etc combo of hotbar or maintaining a curated list on the most easily usable ones?
And you kind of glossed over the counterpoint already provided on that last part.
Hence the question; "Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?"
Along with; "What does picking a sorcerer mean if you can be a tank, DPS, healer, or even focus yourself on something like CC skills?"
Both from the section you removed for some reason. Added it back in for context.
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
I don't understand what kind of skill-based system you're looking for?
In DAOC, if you were a nightshade you had, Critical strike abilities were: PA set up - Perforated Artery, follow up with creeping death, followed up by stunning stab, BS setup - Back Stab, followed up by Eviscerate, followed up by kidney rupture. Piercing abilities were: Pierce setup - Dragonfly, followed up with hornet, followed up with wasp's sting, followed up with Hornet's sting...etc... etc... Magic abilities were: Stealth Damage over time spells instant damage spells damage spells Poisons and Buffs.
In COD you have: Guns Grenades A knife Radar
You want old school MMO setups, or new age button mashing the same skill over and over again?
Or do you want chatgtp to real time change or randomize your skills as you engage in real time pvp matches? I don't know how you would ever strategize that fast or adapt that fast even, but I don't even think you could think that fast.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
That's mostly just a case of having different game mechanics to leverage. Not really a bound function of skill or class systems unto it's own.
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
That's mostly just a case of having different game mechanics to leverage. Not really a bound function of skill or class systems unto it's own.
One of the key differences is in how a character advances. In a Skill Based system, you advance by using the Skill. In a Class Based system, you advance by gaining XP, and in all of your Skills in said Class.
But that's not the only difference. If in a Class Based system, if your character advances only in one Skill (of the set), by using said Skill, then it functions like a Skill Based system in that way. But you are also locked into the Class's predefined set of Skills, which is another difference in the systems.
If anyone has any comments on this statement, I have my ears open because this is just off the top of my head. Just spit balling.
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
That's mostly just a case of having different game mechanics to leverage. Not really a bound function of skill or class systems unto it's own.
One of the key differences is in how a character advances. In a Skill Based system, you advance by using the Skill. In a Class Based system, you advance by gaining XP, and in all of your Skills in said Class.
But that's not the only difference. If in a Class Based system, if your character advances only in one Skill (of the set), by using said Skill, then it functions like a Skill Based system in that way. But you are also locked into the Class's predefined set of Skills, which is another difference in the systems.
If anyone has any comments on this statement, I have my ears open because this is just off the top of my head. Just spit balling.
Yeah that kinda speaks to how fudgey the whole argument of class vs skill systems is in general.
The point on Class systems being a more "gain xp, rank up set of skills tied to class" as opposed to a more direct focus on individual skills does ring as a more consistent distinction.
Does still lead me to ponder my earlier questions, as the distinction of a class system when a class can be mushed into any role then what is the argument for a class in the first place.
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
Why, yes, yes, yes.
In a skillbased system you can focus on skillset A, B, or C, and ignore the other two. With A, B, C usually being warrior, rogue, mage skills.
Or you can define D, E, F which is some mix.
Thats not what I said though.
By very design your character always works the same in a skillbased system.
Thats exactly what you can change in a classbased system.
Also I didnt say all classbased systems actually do want I demand in this regard. If all your class does is defining a different set of skills and maybe throw in more or less hitpoints per level and such, the core gaming experience is NOT different on different classes.
By the way some skillbased systems, namely Skyrim, actually attempt at doing what I ask for. In Skyrim when you hit 25, 50, 75 or 100 in a skill, you can pick feats and over time that changes the gameplay enough that you really get a fundamentally different character to play. Mind I never played Skyrim myself, since I boycot Steam and until recently Skyrim wasnt available on GoG. But I examined the Skyrim system and thats the first skillbased system I might actually like to play.
Again I'm looking for an actually fundamentally changed experience.
So when in Vanguard I played my Cleric, I played a very straightforward healer. I had lots of attack options but none did much in regards to damage. I had my buffs and my heals. Specifically on a Cleric one would have the best healing over time spell, the best group heal and the best single target spell, able to heal a tank from near death to full health as an instant spell with short recast. All straightforward, like it would be on a skillbased system.
Would I switch to my Disciple, also a healer, everything works different. I needed to regularily use specific lines of attacks to put up special buffs I couldnt put up otherwise. I had to manage Chi, the points I would spent on specific abilities. My buffs would be very few and many of my heals would actually be Chi based. This allows the Disciple to still heal while silenced or mana drained. Whats the problem on a Disciple is the massive aggro pull you get from all the healing you're doing.
This is a complete different experience than a Cleric. Granted, Shaman was pretty close to Cleric, except you got other buffs and your heals would be all different and you would have a ton of debuffs. But it was still fundamentally a straightforward healer. Blood Mage, the fourth option, was however again wildly different from the other three options.
Thats what I'm looking for, especially in a MMORPG, but also in offline games that want to offer replayability.
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
That's mostly just a case of having different game mechanics to leverage. Not really a bound function of skill or class systems unto it's own.
One of the key differences is in how a character advances. In a Skill Based system, you advance by using the Skill. In a Class Based system, you advance by gaining XP, and in all of your Skills in said Class.
But that's not the only difference. If in a Class Based system, if your character advances only in one Skill (of the set), by using said Skill, then it functions like a Skill Based system in that way. But you are also locked into the Class's predefined set of Skills, which is another difference in the systems.
If anyone has any comments on this statement, I have my ears open because this is just off the top of my head. Just spit balling.
Yeah that kinda speaks to how fudgey the whole argument of class vs skill systems is in general.
The point on Class systems being a more "gain xp, rank up set of skills tied to class" as opposed to a more direct focus on individual skills does ring as a more consistent distinction.
Does still lead me to ponder my earlier questions, as the distinction of a class system when a class can be mushed into any role then what is the argument for a class in the first place.
Ironically, skill based system works exactly the same.
In UO for ex..Skill based
Use Archery to kill orcs each kill skill gains experience at X numerical value skill lvls unlocking specialmoves enhancements/advantages .
In EQ2 skill based ..
You use your class to kill orcs , each kill gains exp at X numerical value. Your class levels unlocking special moves/enhancements/advantages.
In some games you level your Class that will define your Skills.
In some games you level your Skills that will define your Class.
The journey may be a bit different ,but the endgame result is the same .
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
That's mostly just a case of having different game mechanics to leverage. Not really a bound function of skill or class systems unto it's own.
One of the key differences is in how a character advances. In a Skill Based system, you advance by using the Skill. In a Class Based system, you advance by gaining XP, and in all of your Skills in said Class.
But that's not the only difference. If in a Class Based system, if your character advances only in one Skill (of the set), by using said Skill, then it functions like a Skill Based system in that way. But you are also locked into the Class's predefined set of Skills, which is another difference in the systems.
If anyone has any comments on this statement, I have my ears open because this is just off the top of my head. Just spit balling.
Yeah that kinda speaks to how fudgey the whole argument of class vs skill systems is in general.
The point on Class systems being a more "gain xp, rank up set of skills tied to class" as opposed to a more direct focus on individual skills does ring as a more consistent distinction.
Does still lead me to ponder my earlier questions, as the distinction of a class system when a class can be mushed into any role then what is the argument for a class in the first place.
What I'm pondering right now is the arguments some good folks are giving you. They don't make sense. A sign of the times, I guess.
As far as your point that a character can be any role, I agree. That's another thing that doesn't make sense to me. Why even have said "Classes" by name only?
Identity is a big thing in character based games. Some players like to be Fighters, others Mages or Thieves, and others a variety of other things. Players like to look the part of whatever they "are." Players like definition to the characters they create. They like to be known for what they can do with each character. They like the image it presents.
This is served better in a Skill Based game due to customization, and relies on other players knowing you. This might or might not be desirable to a player for a particular character. Some want that mysterious sort of character that can do the unexpected. But a Class Based game gives this identity instant recognition by definition. Every player can choose their own way in a Skill Based game if that game has some indication that the character is "a fighter", for example. Titles work well for that. Gear works even better.
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
That's mostly just a case of having different game mechanics to leverage. Not really a bound function of skill or class systems unto it's own.
One of the key differences is in how a character advances. In a Skill Based system, you advance by using the Skill. In a Class Based system, you advance by gaining XP, and in all of your Skills in said Class.
But that's not the only difference. If in a Class Based system, if your character advances only in one Skill (of the set), by using said Skill, then it functions like a Skill Based system in that way. But you are also locked into the Class's predefined set of Skills, which is another difference in the systems.
If anyone has any comments on this statement, I have my ears open because this is just off the top of my head. Just spit balling.
Yeah that kinda speaks to how fudgey the whole argument of class vs skill systems is in general.
The point on Class systems being a more "gain xp, rank up set of skills tied to class" as opposed to a more direct focus on individual skills does ring as a more consistent distinction.
Does still lead me to ponder my earlier questions, as the distinction of a class system when a class can be mushed into any role then what is the argument for a class in the first place.
Ironically, skill based system works exactly the same.
In UO for ex..Skill based
Use Archery to kill orcs each kill skill gains experience at X numerical value skill lvls unlocking specialmoves enhancements/advantages .
In EQ2 skill based ..
You use your class to kill orcs , each kill gains exp at X numerical value. Your class levels unlocking special moves/enhancements/advantages.
In some games you level your Class that will define your Skills.
In some games you level your Skills that will define your Class.
The journey may be a bit different ,but the endgame result is the same .
I don't know anything about EQ2, but as far as that UO Archer, are you talking about one that's also effective at:
- Swords? --- Lumberjack? (Adds to Axe damage, a Swords based Skill. as well as lumber harvesting. - Maces? - Fencing? - Magery? - Stealth? (Requires both Hide and Stealth skills) - Poisoning? (requires both Poison and Alchemy skills) - Resisting Magic? - Detecting Hidden? - Tracking? - Removing Traps? - Lockpicking? - Stealing? - Blacksmithing? - Tailoring? - Bowcraft? - Carpentry? - Masonry? - Tinkering? - Mining? - Cartography and Treasure Map play? - Healing with bandages? - The Bardic Skills? (There are 4 of them) - Taming? - Etc., there's some that I left off because they give bonuses to the above list or seem too redundant.
So you see, you are talking about one specific point, but ignoring the real thing that separates Skill Based from Class Based. They are not the same, when you look at the rest of the story.
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
That's mostly just a case of having different game mechanics to leverage. Not really a bound function of skill or class systems unto it's own.
One of the key differences is in how a character advances. In a Skill Based system, you advance by using the Skill. In a Class Based system, you advance by gaining XP, and in all of your Skills in said Class.
But that's not the only difference. If in a Class Based system, if your character advances only in one Skill (of the set), by using said Skill, then it functions like a Skill Based system in that way. But you are also locked into the Class's predefined set of Skills, which is another difference in the systems.
If anyone has any comments on this statement, I have my ears open because this is just off the top of my head. Just spit balling.
Yeah that kinda speaks to how fudgey the whole argument of class vs skill systems is in general.
The point on Class systems being a more "gain xp, rank up set of skills tied to class" as opposed to a more direct focus on individual skills does ring as a more consistent distinction.
Does still lead me to ponder my earlier questions, as the distinction of a class system when a class can be mushed into any role then what is the argument for a class in the first place.
Ironically, skill based system works exactly the same.
In UO for ex..Skill based
Use Archery to kill orcs each kill skill gains experience at X numerical value skill lvls unlocking specialmoves enhancements/advantages .
In EQ2 skill based ..
You use your class to kill orcs , each kill gains exp at X numerical value. Your class levels unlocking special moves/enhancements/advantages.
In some games you level your Class that will define your Skills.
In some games you level your Skills that will define your Class.
The journey may be a bit different ,but the endgame result is the same .
I don't know anything about EQ2, but as far as that UO Archer, are you talking about one that's also effective at:
- Swords? --- Lumberjack? (Adds to Axe damage, a Swords based Skill. as well as lumber harvesting. - Maces? - Fencing? - Magery? - Stealth? (Requires both Hide and Stealth skills) - Poisoning? (requires both Poison and Alchemy skills) - Resisting Magic? - Detecting Hidden? - Tracking? - Removing Traps? - Lockpicking? - Stealing? - Blacksmithing? - Tailoring? - Bowcraft? - Carpentry? - Masonry? - Tinkering? - Mining? - Cartography and Treasure Map play? - Healing with bandages? - The Bardic Skills? (There are 4 of them) - Taming? - Etc., there's some that I left off because they give bonuses to the above list or seem too redundant.
So you see, you are talking about one specific point, but ignoring the real thing that separates Skill Based from Class Based. They are not the same, when you look at the rest of the story.
NO , Archer worthy of endgame content is carrying almost any of the skills you listed .
A UO 7x archer for endgame will generally be , Archery/Tactics/Anatomy/Resist/Healing/ Bushido or Chivalry/Magery or Poisoning (Do not need alchemy with composite bow Serpent sting)
Can switch out a couple if these but for Endgame DPS you will be in that build meta or you wont be raiding.You can get build statues and swap out varying saved builds for different raid encounters.Like some a Mage/Archer may be better suited than a NoxArcher or BushidoArcher , all have benefits for different encounters same as most class systems these days . Varied save builds and gear load outs for varying encounters, UO is no different.
I've been playing UO since its launched , and yes you can make a hybrid Ranger for ex. With Camping /Cooking/Tracking/Leatherworking and have fun with that, but you CANNOT participate in endgame raiding with it ,(matter of fact you cannot participate in much overland solo content with a Hybrid build) you must fulfill a Trinity based Class , Tank/Healer/DPS /Support , or you will not be doing end game anything at all . Unless of course you are a Tamer , but those pets also fulfill Tank or DPS . /end
And exactly why i said " the journey may be a bit different but end game result is the same "
By very design your character always works the same in a skillbased system.
No, it doesn't.
You can have different skills in a skill based system that accomplish the same thing (such as how you heal in your examples) in different ways.
It's easy to design if you want to give depth and nuances to your system. It can just be done more obviously in class-based systems by locking the ability to heal by doing Y instead of X to a class but that is not inherently exclusive to classes.
ESO for example, which has both, a class-based system and a skill-based one, you have the class nuances for healing as you'd expect. You can heal as a Templar, as a Warden, as a Sorcerer, or any class. and the class-based heals all have distinct ways of doing it.
But you also have skill-line based heals which do it in unique ways that are different from how the class heals work.
The Psijic Guild's skill line for example has a toggle skill, Mend Wounds, that turns your basic light and heavy attacks into heals. There are no class healing skills for any class that can heal that way.
One of the PvP skill lines (acquired through PvP but useable in PvE as well) has an Ultimate ability that many healers use instead of or in addition to their class's Ultimate healing ability because it grants a long-lasting and powerful damage absorption barrier to your whole group which, when leveled up, also provides a HOT.
And then there is the Restoration Staff's skill line with a whole set of 6 skills and morphs that heal in ways that are unique to its use.
So no, the nuances of healing you associate with classes do not need to be unique to class design. It can definitely also be done with skill lines in skill-based systems.
The only thing that class systems do differently is that they lock out a set of skills available to one class alone to emphasize a different way of accomplishing the same thing. That does help make games more replayable with alts but I have done alts in skill based systems as well that are very different from each other - especially in systems that make it expensive (and/or a pain in the ass) to re-specialize.
The point on Class systems being a more "gain xp, rank up set of skills tied to class" as opposed to a more direct focus on individual skills does ring as a more consistent distinction.
Even that is not a consistent difference. In ESO for example they went with the individual skill-up approach associated with skill-based systems even for the class skills. There is no general skill advancement on ding for class skills.
Most skills and their associated skill lines level up simply by virtue of being on your active skill bar when you gain experience from any source. For skill lines, progression is also a function of how many skills from that skill line you have slotted in that active bar.
A few skill lines advance a bit differently (not class skill lines though, those all work as I said above) in that advancement and unlocking of higher tier skills requires reaching milestones in the quest line associated with that skill line. This is true for both Soul Magic and the Psijic skill line.
"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
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
That's mostly just a case of having different game mechanics to leverage. Not really a bound function of skill or class systems unto it's own.
One of the key differences is in how a character advances. In a Skill Based system, you advance by using the Skill. In a Class Based system, you advance by gaining XP, and in all of your Skills in said Class.
But that's not the only difference. If in a Class Based system, if your character advances only in one Skill (of the set), by using said Skill, then it functions like a Skill Based system in that way. But you are also locked into the Class's predefined set of Skills, which is another difference in the systems.
If anyone has any comments on this statement, I have my ears open because this is just off the top of my head. Just spit balling.
Yeah that kinda speaks to how fudgey the whole argument of class vs skill systems is in general.
The point on Class systems being a more "gain xp, rank up set of skills tied to class" as opposed to a more direct focus on individual skills does ring as a more consistent distinction.
Does still lead me to ponder my earlier questions, as the distinction of a class system when a class can be mushed into any role then what is the argument for a class in the first place.
Ironically, skill based system works exactly the same.
In UO for ex..Skill based
Use Archery to kill orcs each kill skill gains experience at X numerical value skill lvls unlocking specialmoves enhancements/advantages .
In EQ2 skill based ..
You use your class to kill orcs , each kill gains exp at X numerical value. Your class levels unlocking special moves/enhancements/advantages.
In some games you level your Class that will define your Skills.
In some games you level your Skills that will define your Class.
The journey may be a bit different ,but the endgame result is the same .
I don't know anything about EQ2, but as far as that UO Archer, are you talking about one that's also effective at:
- Swords? --- Lumberjack? (Adds to Axe damage, a Swords based Skill. as well as lumber harvesting. - Maces? - Fencing? - Magery? - Stealth? (Requires both Hide and Stealth skills) - Poisoning? (requires both Poison and Alchemy skills) - Resisting Magic? - Detecting Hidden? - Tracking? - Removing Traps? - Lockpicking? - Stealing? - Blacksmithing? - Tailoring? - Bowcraft? - Carpentry? - Masonry? - Tinkering? - Mining? - Cartography and Treasure Map play? - Healing with bandages? - The Bardic Skills? (There are 4 of them) - Taming? - Etc., there's some that I left off because they give bonuses to the above list or seem too redundant.
So you see, you are talking about one specific point, but ignoring the real thing that separates Skill Based from Class Based. They are not the same, when you look at the rest of the story.
NO , Archer worthy of endgame content is carrying almost any of the skills you listed .
A UO 7x archer for endgame will generally be , Archery/Tactics/Anatomy/Resist/Healing/ Bushido or Chivalry/Magery or Poisoning (Do not need alchemy with composite bow Serpent sting)
Can switch out a couple if these but for Endgame DPS you will be in that build meta or you wont be raiding.You can get build statues and swap out varying saved builds for different raid encounters.Like some a Mage/Archer may be better suited than a NoxArcher or BushidoArcher , all have benefits for different encounters same as most class systems these days . Varied save builds and gear load outs for varying encounters, UO is no different.
I've been playing UO since its launched , and yes you can make a hybrid Ranger for ex. With Camping /Cooking/Tracking/Leatherworking and have fun with that, but you CANNOT participate in endgame raiding with it ,(matter of fact you cannot participate in much overland solo content with a Hybrid build) you must fulfill a Trinity based Class , Tank/Healer/DPS /Support , or you will not be doing end game anything at all . Unless of course you are a Tamer , but those pets also fulfill Tank or DPS . /end
And exactly why i said " the journey may be a bit different but end game result is the same "
Just as reference, I played UO for about the first 13 years.
By "end game" you're talking about those huge PvP battles in the dungeons, right? Where the zergs dominated? Not everyone wants to play that.
And it has nothing to do with the Skill vs. Class systems discussion. You're in effect ignoring everything but your "end game" PvP game play that you like.
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
That's mostly just a case of having different game mechanics to leverage. Not really a bound function of skill or class systems unto it's own.
One of the key differences is in how a character advances. In a Skill Based system, you advance by using the Skill. In a Class Based system, you advance by gaining XP, and in all of your Skills in said Class.
But that's not the only difference. If in a Class Based system, if your character advances only in one Skill (of the set), by using said Skill, then it functions like a Skill Based system in that way. But you are also locked into the Class's predefined set of Skills, which is another difference in the systems.
If anyone has any comments on this statement, I have my ears open because this is just off the top of my head. Just spit balling.
Yeah that kinda speaks to how fudgey the whole argument of class vs skill systems is in general.
The point on Class systems being a more "gain xp, rank up set of skills tied to class" as opposed to a more direct focus on individual skills does ring as a more consistent distinction.
Does still lead me to ponder my earlier questions, as the distinction of a class system when a class can be mushed into any role then what is the argument for a class in the first place.
Ironically, skill based system works exactly the same.
In UO for ex..Skill based
Use Archery to kill orcs each kill skill gains experience at X numerical value skill lvls unlocking specialmoves enhancements/advantages .
In EQ2 skill based ..
You use your class to kill orcs , each kill gains exp at X numerical value. Your class levels unlocking special moves/enhancements/advantages.
In some games you level your Class that will define your Skills.
In some games you level your Skills that will define your Class.
The journey may be a bit different ,but the endgame result is the same .
I don't know anything about EQ2, but as far as that UO Archer, are you talking about one that's also effective at:
- Swords? --- Lumberjack? (Adds to Axe damage, a Swords based Skill. as well as lumber harvesting. - Maces? - Fencing? - Magery? - Stealth? (Requires both Hide and Stealth skills) - Poisoning? (requires both Poison and Alchemy skills) - Resisting Magic? - Detecting Hidden? - Tracking? - Removing Traps? - Lockpicking? - Stealing? - Blacksmithing? - Tailoring? - Bowcraft? - Carpentry? - Masonry? - Tinkering? - Mining? - Cartography and Treasure Map play? - Healing with bandages? - The Bardic Skills? (There are 4 of them) - Taming? - Etc., there's some that I left off because they give bonuses to the above list or seem too redundant.
So you see, you are talking about one specific point, but ignoring the real thing that separates Skill Based from Class Based. They are not the same, when you look at the rest of the story.
NO , Archer worthy of endgame content is carrying almost any of the skills you listed .
A UO 7x archer for endgame will generally be , Archery/Tactics/Anatomy/Resist/Healing/ Bushido or Chivalry/Magery or Poisoning (Do not need alchemy with composite bow Serpent sting)
Can switch out a couple if these but for Endgame DPS you will be in that build meta or you wont be raiding.You can get build statues and swap out varying saved builds for different raid encounters.Like some a Mage/Archer may be better suited than a NoxArcher or BushidoArcher , all have benefits for different encounters same as most class systems these days . Varied save builds and gear load outs for varying encounters, UO is no different.
I've been playing UO since its launched , and yes you can make a hybrid Ranger for ex. With Camping /Cooking/Tracking/Leatherworking and have fun with that, but you CANNOT participate in endgame raiding with it ,(matter of fact you cannot participate in much overland solo content with a Hybrid build) you must fulfill a Trinity based Class , Tank/Healer/DPS /Support , or you will not be doing end game anything at all . Unless of course you are a Tamer , but those pets also fulfill Tank or DPS . /end
And exactly why i said " the journey may be a bit different but end game result is the same "
Just as reference, I played UO for about the first 13 years.
By "end game" you're talking about those huge PvP battles in the dungeons, right? Where the zergs dominated? Not everyone wants to play that.
And it has nothing to do with the Skill vs. Class systems discussion. You're in effect ignoring everything but your "end game" PvP game play that you like.
I don't know anything about EQ2, but as far as that UO Archer, are you talking about one that's also effective at:
- Swords? --- Lumberjack? (Adds to Axe damage, a Swords based Skill. as well as lumber harvesting. - Maces? - Fencing? - Magery? - Stealth? (Requires both Hide and Stealth skills) - Poisoning? (requires both Poison and Alchemy skills) - Resisting Magic? - Detecting Hidden? - Tracking? - Removing Traps? - Lockpicking? - Stealing? - Blacksmithing? - Tailoring? - Bowcraft? - Carpentry? - Masonry? - Tinkering? - Mining? - Cartography and Treasure Map play? - Healing with bandages? - The Bardic Skills? (There are 4 of them) - Taming? - Etc., there's some that I left off because they give bonuses to the above list or seem too redundant.
So you see, you are talking about one specific point, but ignoring the real thing that separates Skill Based from Class Based. They are not the same, when you look at the rest of the story.
NO , Archer worthy of endgame content is carrying almost any of the skills you listed .
A UO 7x archer for endgame will generally be , Archery/Tactics/Anatomy/Resist/Healing/ Bushido or Chivalry/Magery or Poisoning (Do not need alchemy with composite bow Serpent sting)
Can switch out a couple if these but for Endgame DPS you will be in that build meta or you wont be raiding.You can get build statues and swap out varying saved builds for different raid encounters.Like some a Mage/Archer may be better suited than a NoxArcher or BushidoArcher , all have benefits for different encounters same as most class systems these days . Varied save builds and gear load outs for varying encounters, UO is no different.
I've been playing UO since its launched , and yes you can make a hybrid Ranger for ex. With Camping /Cooking/Tracking/Leatherworking and have fun with that, but you CANNOT participate in endgame raiding with it ,(matter of fact you cannot participate in much overland solo content with a Hybrid build) you must fulfill a Trinity based Class , Tank/Healer/DPS /Support , or you will not be doing end game anything at all . Unless of course you are a Tamer , but those pets also fulfill Tank or DPS . /end
And exactly why i said " the journey may be a bit different but end game result is the same "
Just as reference, I played UO for about the first 13 years.
By "end game" you're talking about those huge PvP battles in the dungeons, right? Where the zergs dominated? Not everyone wants to play that.
And it has nothing to do with the Skill vs. Class systems discussion. You're in effect ignoring everything but your "end game" PvP game play that you like.
Completely wrong .
I am referring to endgame PVE content .
What's that then? I saw the summon MOB thing in the wilderness on Trammel. Something different? You did not need those full on PvP builds for what I saw. And it still doesn't have anything to do with the topic. Lots of players had any number of builds like I mentioned. They were doing different things.
Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
I think that classes that are merely defined as sets of skills hardly differ from skillbased systems. Especially if you would just make a class for every possible set of skills you really just have a skillbased system.
To me, classes are supposed to be different gaming experience. I.e. aspects of the game that are important on one character might be gone or different or much less important than on your other class.
A simple example from Vanguard is that some classes (Ranger, Disciple) had the ability for unlocking special effects (selfbuffs in this case) by using a certain sequence of abilities.
That isn't exactly a distinction from a skill system itself either. Someone who focuses on stealth skills, lock picking, traps, etc, is going to build a fundamentally different experience from a player who focuses on dialogue skills, or a player that focuses on traditional combat skills. Something that's been leveraged to great effect in past Fallout titles for example.
Why, yes, yes, yes.
In a skillbased system you can focus on skillset A, B, or C, and ignore the other two. With A, B, C usually being warrior, rogue, mage skills.
Or you can define D, E, F which is some mix.
Thats not what I said though.
By very design your character always works the same in a skillbased system.
Thats exactly what you can change in a classbased system.
Also I didnt say all classbased systems actually do want I demand in this regard. If all your class does is defining a different set of skills and maybe throw in more or less hitpoints per level and such, the core gaming experience is NOT different on different classes.
By the way some skillbased systems, namely Skyrim, actually attempt at doing what I ask for. In Skyrim when you hit 25, 50, 75 or 100 in a skill, you can pick feats and over time that changes the gameplay enough that you really get a fundamentally different character to play. Mind I never played Skyrim myself, since I boycot Steam and until recently Skyrim wasnt available on GoG. But I examined the Skyrim system and thats the first skillbased system I might actually like to play.
Again I'm looking for an actually fundamentally changed experience.
So when in Vanguard I played my Cleric, I played a very straightforward healer. I had lots of attack options but none did much in regards to damage. I had my buffs and my heals. Specifically on a Cleric one would have the best healing over time spell, the best group heal and the best single target spell, able to heal a tank from near death to full health as an instant spell with short recast. All straightforward, like it would be on a skillbased system.
Would I switch to my Disciple, also a healer, everything works different. I needed to regularily use specific lines of attacks to put up special buffs I couldnt put up otherwise. I had to manage Chi, the points I would spent on specific abilities. My buffs would be very few and many of my heals would actually be Chi based. This allows the Disciple to still heal while silenced or mana drained. Whats the problem on a Disciple is the massive aggro pull you get from all the healing you're doing.
This is a complete different experience than a Cleric. Granted, Shaman was pretty close to Cleric, except you got other buffs and your heals would be all different and you would have a ton of debuffs. But it was still fundamentally a straightforward healer. Blood Mage, the fourth option, was however again wildly different from the other three options.
Thats what I'm looking for, especially in a MMORPG, but also in offline games that want to offer replayability.
Not sure I follow where you were going with that. The demonstrative point was of different game choices/experiences based on different skills progressed. Not sure how much more fundamental change you want in an experience from three people having considerably different narrative and gameplay experiences.
This is perhaps a more common feature actually of older RPGs that used skill lines for various game mechanics, as it drove the notion of what available paths a player had in achieving their goals.
Your description of a class system is just breaking out several branching paths for skills that draw in separate principles for different results. Like your class demonstration using combos and building chi to trigger specific abilities. Nothing stops a spiritual/martial skill line from doing the same thing in a skill based system, and I could in fact point back at GURPS for such a concept in action.
You still seem to be speaking to game mechanics that are agnostic to skill or class system, and have more to do with overall game depth/complexity.
By very design your character always works the same in a skillbased system.
No, it doesn't.
I'm starting to get the feeling we talk different languages.
Yes it most certainly does.
In systems like for example D&D, despite being class based, all core mechanisms stay the same, no matter what you do.
For starters thats because in D&D you can mix classes, anyway.
Thats what you're describing.
If you have strict class systems, you can change these core dynamics.
And yes you can support all kinds of things on D&D or skillbased systems, but you cannot completely turn around how the character works on different classes.
And sky is the limit for this, as long as you have pure classes and not mixed classes like D&D, or skillbased systems.
Heck you could even go crazy and for example make one class work completely twitch based, relying in performance on the reflexes of the player, while another could be completely roleplaying based, the performance of the character exclusively depending upon the character values alone.
Comments
Hybrids exist regardless of anyone's gaming world view.
For example, D&D Paladins have aspects of Fighters and Clerics along with several abilities unique only to them. It's a hybrid class.
You can choose to ignore the abilities of your class in an ESO build. You can't choose to incorporate the abilities of other classes in your ESO build, because the game is class based and those abilities are restricted by class.
The only thing silly here is continued argument of the incontestable.
Incorrect. Feel free to be the first to succeed.
You can't get away from your class in CoH entirely, as there are still inherent abilities to each and modifiers based on class. Pool power builds are pretty meh anyway.
Suggesting that skill based system with a cap are effectively class based is an interesting take, but I disagree with premise as the skills taken need not approximate what would be typically considered a class in the context of MMORPGs or RPGs.
Project:Gorgon also doesn't have a cap, with the limiter there being the time it would take to raise everything up.
In strict class systems, you have no choice other than to pick a class and use what they give you, in absolutely no developer-designated class systems you have all the choices and in a hybrid class/open system you have some choice. But you are what you build. Period. End of story.
And I wasn't talking about hybrid classes, I'm talking about hybrid systems.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
No, your class is not irrelevant to your class.
In ESO, your class can be irrelevant to your build.
That is because ESO has enough non-class based abilities so that a build can created without using any class based ones.
Being able to voluntarily ignore the unique benefits of your class does not change that you are still of that class.
You can't opt your way out of the prohibition of taking abilities of classes other than your own. It is impossible to entirely escape the class related aspects of ESO. There is no way around that despite the frequency and fervour of denial.
You build is what it can be, but your class is what you chose. Period. End of story.
You're not the only one talking, and I did bring up hybrid classes.
The system does not inherently dictate combination of skills, only that you cannot cap all of them at once. You can tailor that to a particular class, or flub about with some errant combination that doesn't fit a traditional role.
I'd also extend a counterpoint.
Ryzom may let you cap all skills, but you still ultimately have to choose which skills you are going to line up on your hotbar to use. That takes whatever expanse of skills you've attained and narrows it down. Does that suddenly mean the limitation of skill slots makes it "class type"?
I don't think that really works rationally.
I'd also extend in the case of ESO. Not going to dispute it being a class based system, but I will use it as a demonstrative point on how soft classes can be as a concept here. Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?
This is something ESO is pretty fudgey with, because any class, through combination of class skills and common pool, can fulfill any mechanic role within a party. What does picking a sorcerer mean if you can be a tank, DPS, healer, or even focus yourself on something like CC skills?
Ultimately it's only got the same limitation as Ryzom guiding your choice of role on that end. The limitation of what skills to chose to line up and use.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Aside from that, it remains that capping skill trees does not translate to a change in the size of your hotbars and subsequently your assigned skills.
The "lots of abilities on hotbars" speaks to the point better in saying you can just dump skills until you have one for every possible scenario.
But then you're just self-inflicting skill bloat and it easily passes practicality. How much are your skills focused on DPS? How many are you actively using in the middle of combat, and how many action skills are you focused on using? Are you slapping your way through ever main, Alt, Ctrl, Shift, Etc combo of hotbar or maintaining a curated list on the most easily usable ones?
And you kind of glossed over the counterpoint already provided on that last part.
Hence the question; "Namely in that what is a class supposed to do if not use a limited set of skills to define a role for the character?"
Along with; "What does picking a sorcerer mean if you can be a tank, DPS, healer, or even focus yourself on something like CC skills?"
Both from the section you removed for some reason. Added it back in for context.
In DAOC, if you were a nightshade you had,
Critical strike abilities were:
PA set up - Perforated Artery, follow up with creeping death, followed up by stunning stab,
BS setup - Back Stab, followed up by Eviscerate, followed up by kidney rupture.
Piercing abilities were:
Pierce setup - Dragonfly, followed up with hornet, followed up with wasp's sting, followed up with Hornet's sting...etc... etc...
Magic abilities were:
Stealth
Damage over time spells
instant damage spells
damage spells
Poisons
and Buffs.
In COD you have:
Guns
Grenades
A knife
Radar
You want old school MMO setups, or new age button mashing the same skill over and over again?
Or do you want chatgtp to real time change or randomize your skills as you engage in real time pvp matches? I don't know how you would ever strategize that fast or adapt that fast even, but I don't even think you could think that fast.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
That's mostly just a case of having different game mechanics to leverage. Not really a bound function of skill or class systems unto it's own.
In a Skill Based system, you advance by using the Skill.
In a Class Based system, you advance by gaining XP, and in all of your Skills in said Class.
But that's not the only difference.
If in a Class Based system, if your character advances only in one Skill (of the set), by using said Skill, then it functions like a Skill Based system in that way. But you are also locked into the Class's predefined set of Skills, which is another difference in the systems.
If anyone has any comments on this statement, I have my ears open because this is just off the top of my head. Just spit balling.
Once upon a time....
The point on Class systems being a more "gain xp, rank up set of skills tied to class" as opposed to a more direct focus on individual skills does ring as a more consistent distinction.
Does still lead me to ponder my earlier questions, as the distinction of a class system when a class can be mushed into any role then what is the argument for a class in the first place.
In UO for ex..Skill based
Use Archery to kill orcs each kill skill gains experience at X numerical value skill lvls unlocking specialmoves enhancements/advantages .
In EQ2 skill based ..
You use your class to kill orcs , each kill gains exp at X numerical value. Your class levels unlocking special moves/enhancements/advantages.
In some games you level your Class that will define your Skills.
In some games you level your Skills that will define your Class.
The journey may be a bit different ,but the endgame result is the same .
As far as your point that a character can be any role, I agree. That's another thing that doesn't make sense to me. Why even have said "Classes" by name only?
Identity is a big thing in character based games. Some players like to be Fighters, others Mages or Thieves, and others a variety of other things. Players like to look the part of whatever they "are." Players like definition to the characters they create. They like to be known for what they can do with each character. They like the image it presents.
This is served better in a Skill Based game due to customization, and relies on other players knowing you. This might or might not be desirable to a player for a particular character. Some want that mysterious sort of character that can do the unexpected. But a Class Based game gives this identity instant recognition by definition. Every player can choose their own way in a Skill Based game if that game has some indication that the character is "a fighter", for example. Titles work well for that. Gear works even better.
Once upon a time....
- Swords?
--- Lumberjack? (Adds to Axe damage, a Swords based Skill. as well as lumber harvesting.
- Maces?
- Fencing?
- Magery?
- Stealth? (Requires both Hide and Stealth skills)
- Poisoning? (requires both Poison and Alchemy skills)
- Resisting Magic?
- Detecting Hidden?
- Tracking?
- Removing Traps?
- Lockpicking?
- Stealing?
- Blacksmithing?
- Tailoring?
- Bowcraft?
- Carpentry?
- Masonry?
- Tinkering?
- Mining?
- Cartography and Treasure Map play?
- Healing with bandages?
- The Bardic Skills? (There are 4 of them)
- Taming?
- Etc., there's some that I left off because they give bonuses to the above list or seem too redundant.
So you see, you are talking about one specific point, but ignoring the real thing that separates Skill Based from Class Based.
They are not the same, when you look at the rest of the story.
Once upon a time....
A UO 7x archer for endgame will generally be , Archery/Tactics/Anatomy/Resist/Healing/ Bushido or Chivalry/Magery or Poisoning (Do not need alchemy with composite bow Serpent sting)
Can switch out a couple if these but for Endgame DPS you will be in that build meta or you wont be raiding.You can get build statues and swap out varying saved builds for different raid encounters.Like some a Mage/Archer may be better suited than a NoxArcher or BushidoArcher , all have benefits for different encounters same as most class systems these days . Varied save builds and gear load outs for varying encounters, UO is no different.
I've been playing UO since its launched , and yes you can make a hybrid Ranger for ex. With Camping /Cooking/Tracking/Leatherworking and have fun with that, but you CANNOT participate in endgame raiding with it ,(matter of fact you cannot participate in much overland solo content with a Hybrid build) you must fulfill a Trinity based Class , Tank/Healer/DPS /Support , or you will not be doing end game anything at all . Unless of course you are a Tamer , but those pets also fulfill Tank or DPS . /end
And exactly why i said " the journey may be a bit different but end game result is the same "
You can have different skills in a skill based system that accomplish the same thing (such as how you heal in your examples) in different ways.
It's easy to design if you want to give depth and nuances to your system. It can just be done more obviously in class-based systems by locking the ability to heal by doing Y instead of X to a class but that is not inherently exclusive to classes.
ESO for example, which has both, a class-based system and a skill-based one, you have the class nuances for healing as you'd expect. You can heal as a Templar, as a Warden, as a Sorcerer, or any class. and the class-based heals all have distinct ways of doing it.
But you also have skill-line based heals which do it in unique ways that are different from how the class heals work.
The Psijic Guild's skill line for example has a toggle skill, Mend Wounds, that turns your basic light and heavy attacks into heals. There are no class healing skills for any class that can heal that way.
One of the PvP skill lines (acquired through PvP but useable in PvE as well) has an Ultimate ability that many healers use instead of or in addition to their class's Ultimate healing ability because it grants a long-lasting and powerful damage absorption barrier to your whole group which, when leveled up, also provides a HOT.
And then there is the Restoration Staff's skill line with a whole set of 6 skills and morphs that heal in ways that are unique to its use.
So no, the nuances of healing you associate with classes do not need to be unique to class design. It can definitely also be done with skill lines in skill-based systems.
The only thing that class systems do differently is that they lock out a set of skills available to one class alone to emphasize a different way of accomplishing the same thing. That does help make games more replayable with alts but I have done alts in skill based systems as well that are very different from each other - especially in systems that make it expensive (and/or a pain in the ass) to re-specialize.
Even that is not a consistent difference. In ESO for example they went with the individual skill-up approach associated with skill-based systems even for the class skills. There is no general skill advancement on ding for class skills.
Most skills and their associated skill lines level up simply by virtue of being on your active skill bar when you gain experience from any source. For skill lines, progression is also a function of how many skills from that skill line you have slotted in that active bar.
A few skill lines advance a bit differently (not class skill lines though, those all work as I said above) in that advancement and unlocking of higher tier skills requires reaching milestones in the quest line associated with that skill line. This is true for both Soul Magic and the Psijic skill line.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
By "end game" you're talking about those huge PvP battles in the dungeons, right?
Where the zergs dominated?
Not everyone wants to play that.
And it has nothing to do with the Skill vs. Class systems discussion.
You're in effect ignoring everything but your "end game" PvP game play that you like.
Once upon a time....
I am referring to endgame PVE content .
You did not need those full on PvP builds for what I saw.
And it still doesn't have anything to do with the topic.
Lots of players had any number of builds like I mentioned. They were doing different things.
Once upon a time....
This is perhaps a more common feature actually of older RPGs that used skill lines for various game mechanics, as it drove the notion of what available paths a player had in achieving their goals.
Your description of a class system is just breaking out several branching paths for skills that draw in separate principles for different results. Like your class demonstration using combos and building chi to trigger specific abilities. Nothing stops a spiritual/martial skill line from doing the same thing in a skill based system, and I could in fact point back at GURPS for such a concept in action.
You still seem to be speaking to game mechanics that are agnostic to skill or class system, and have more to do with overall game depth/complexity.