First time poster, well only because I miss the skill-based games of the past, its all class based today it seems.
Skill based can be balanced and unblanaced, but it adds character bothways.
Case and point - Asheron's Call
- the whole game was skill based and made tone upon tones of interesting characters, while it was true that people could make gimped characters if they had no idea waht they were doing, it was more or less a balanced system in the end. Do I choose sword as my main weapon (which was the most expensive to train and most damaging) or do I just trian my heritiage weapon or a different weapon class such as axe (both of which are much cheaper). It was the one system I felt natural at, over my years of playing that I finally came down to the apex of any character I have had to date, my Dagger-mage, while he was neither strong as other melle characters (due to health and armor) or strong as any caster he felt like a nice balance between the two and I missed him every since.
Skill based...i've played Mud with the same concepts as trails of asension and wow the freedom and uniqueness of characters were amazing...Just pick skills to become whatever class you wanted..thief-you would train to hide, picklocks..whatever else you thought a thief would need...matrial artist...hand combat, dodging..etc etc...
Balancing is left to the devs of course but there are some limiting factors:
While you can learn any skill, they are separated into different groups...so learning magic requires some reading and studying while melee requires more exercise and stuff...these conflict...so while you could still get good at both it would be extremely hard to completely master them. The jack of all trades master of none rule basically. Secondly...yeah would skills decay if you don't use them which means the more skills you have the harder it is to train them all...these things would prevent people from becoming completely uber and give benifits to those who specialize (eg. all out warrior skills).
Slug-boy likes being in the majority...it happens so seldom!
With so many people favoring either a pure skill-based system or some hybrid, I have to wonder how it is that some of the most popular games seem to revolve around class systems? Is it just simplisty has mass appeal? I wonder if a Dev who's worked on such a project might coment what drives them to implement class system when it seems so many players would prefer choice?
I don't expect an answer, but I'd like one
I am glad that our debates seem to really get people talking! THe more we talk, the more its read, particularly by those who develope mmorpgs, perhaps it weill bear fruit in the way out game features we really want. Here's hoping
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone www.spankybus.com -3d Artist & Compositor -Writer -Professional Amature
Skill set FTW! mostly because very few designers know how to design proper class systems. My vote for one of the best skill systems is Morrowind's. I LOVE to create Battlemages in their system, it is totally exhilerating and awesome. Gandalf in full plate , wielding staff and sword!
I think a melding of the two would be an interesting way to go. Basicly like someone said, a PnP style where you can go with the architypes of warrior,mage,rogue,cleric or you can train in other skills, this way if you dont want to mix and match you don't have to. But this still gives you plenty of room to personalize unlike EQ, WoW and others.
Well - this is certainly not a new debate! We've been fighting about this exact same issue since the dawn of RPG's (and I don't just mean computer RPG's).
After 3 decades of having this argument, I've come to realize that the opposing factions are simply missing the fundamental point. They don't favor different approaches to a game, they favor TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMES!
At its heart, this is an even older debate that I like to call:
"Checkers vs Chess"
Some people play games to NOT think. They just want to relax, be entertained, have fun, and in general have a little break from work and effort. That's PERFECTLY REASONABLE. If that's what you enjoy, if that's why you play games, then of course you will prefer a class-based system. For you, a skills-based system just creates work that interferes with your ability to enjoy the game.
Some people play games TO think. They are looking for a challenge, something to make their gears spin, give them a mental work out, and in general WANT to put a bunch of effort into their play. That's PERFECTLY REASONABLE. If that's what you enjoy, if that's why you play games, then of course you will prefer a skills-based system. For you, a class-based system would steal a big chunk of the fun you get out of the game.
This has nothing to do with IQ, geekiness, or any other personality trait. It's just a fundamental difference between people. Chocolate vs Vanilla. Coke vs Pepsi. Ginger vs Marianne (for you old timers).
Which begs the question - why does the poll show such an overwhelming preference for skills-based systems? That's an EASY one. As a general rule, MMORPG's are very complicated and take a lot of work to play. So it's sort of a given that traditionally most MMORPG players are going to be more in the "chess" camp than the "checkers" camp.
That said, all you (I guess I should say "us") chess people shouldn't get cocky about it, because the HUGE success of WoW I think clearly demonstrates that while traditional MMORPG players are mostly chess people, we are clearly NOT the majority of the general population. Now that MMORPG developers are figuring that out, I fear it's going to get quite a bit more difficult to find good skills-based systems being built. Plus, as the original posters brought up, it's MUCH harder (hence takes more time / more money) to write a well balanced skills-based system.
I definitely prefer a skill system because of the freedom and oppurtunities it brings. Also with skill systems you can customize your character far more then with a class system model. Such as if i wanted to become a ranger tank i would just need to pick up some archery and defense skills rather then just being 1 or the other in a class system. Even if with the skill system i wouldnt be a powerful ranger or tank i would have fun because i would base it off my playing style.
If the skills were all completely balanced (rock-paper-bloody big ball of fire) then it WOULD be fine (also with a certain amount of skill availible say 1000, with the max you can get being 100 in each skill). In games with high RP content (none to date...Except maybe Planeshift but that's a work in progess) there will be less picking a specific skill set.
Originally posted by spankybus Slug-boy likes being in the majority...it happens so seldom! With so many people favoring either a pure skill-based system or some hybrid, I have to wonder how it is that some of the most popular games seem to revolve around class systems? Is it just simplisty has mass appeal? I wonder if a Dev who's worked on such a project might coment what drives them to implement class system when it seems so many players would prefer choice? I don't expect an answer, but I'd like one I am glad that our debates seem to really get people talking! THe more we talk, the more its read, particularly by those who develope mmorpgs, perhaps it weill bear fruit in the way out game features we really want. Here's hoping
Being a Dev, I can infact give you some insight as to the difference, and why many games choose the path of class vs. skill.
Most of the class based games, revolve around a heavily influenced PVE game play experience. A class based system, allows those developers to have a better understanding of how they wish to create a situation. They can determine what class types are needed and how many in order to defeat the PVE encounter. Good examples of this are EQ and WoW.
A skill based system, is much harder to balance PVE experiences, so that there is a maintained level of difficulty. Without knowing the types of players and the skills they choose, it makes it much more difficult. I by no means feel it canot be done, but it does make it easier. SWG found issues with this, as an area they wanted 20 players to deal with, ended up being soloable by a well tuned and perfect build of skills. THe Krayt Dragons are a good example.
Both systems hold value, but I do think in the end, the game type and its focus, often determine which system is best utilized.
Originally posted by spankybus Slug-boy likes being in the majority...it happens so seldom! With so many people favoring either a pure skill-based system or some hybrid, I have to wonder how it is that some of the most popular games seem to revolve around class systems? Is it just simplisty has mass appeal? I wonder if a Dev who's worked on such a project might coment what drives them to implement class system when it seems so many players would prefer choice? I don't expect an answer, but I'd like one I am glad that our debates seem to really get people talking! THe more we talk, the more its read, particularly by those who develope mmorpgs, perhaps it weill bear fruit in the way out game features we really want. Here's hoping
Being a Dev, I can infact give you some insight as to the difference, and why many games choose the path of class vs. skill.
Most of the class based games, revolve around a heavily influenced PVE game play experience. A class based system, allows those developers to have a better understanding of how they wish to create a situation. They can determine what class types are needed and how many in order to defeat the PVE encounter. Good examples of this are EQ and WoW.
A skill based system, is much harder to balance PVE experiences, so that there is a maintained level of difficulty. Without knowing the types of players and the skills they choose, it makes it much more difficult. I by no means feel it canot be done, but it does make it easier. SWG found issues with this, as an area they wanted 20 players to deal with, ended up being soloable by a well tuned and perfect build of skills. THe Krayt Dragons are a good example.
Both systems hold value, but I do think in the end, the game type and its focus, often determine which system is best utilized.
You can still solo krayt's as long as there not bugging out lol
I don't like a straight class system because it's too strict and everyone becomes the same as everyone else. People will still choose the class that is the 'best' in this kind of system, and there's just very little diversity.
A wide open skill system leads players to the best template, and you wind up with a system that's too hard to balance effectively.
A hybrid can make balancing easier while promoting diversity. You choose a novice class and work your way up skill trees based on your preferences.
The original SWG system was close but it allowed people to master multiple skill types which leads to the flavor of the month templates, defense stacking, etc. If the skill points had been limited so that a person had just enough to make it to the end of one branch, people would make choices. Do I go for greater defense or greater offense? Now limit the players to one Novice profession, do away with Hybrid Professions, and make sure no profession is able to survive completely alone against high level opponents. Voila.
Well.. When I played PnP RPGs I always played the Skillbased ones. Classbased, like AD&D I thought were just too much kiddie oriented (Here, have a finished character and a sword, now go play).
When MMOs came and I saw UO the first time I was so happy, finally a computer game that gave you all the freedom of a PnP RPG! But no... Everything after that just looked as the kiddie game.. and has made clones of that ever since. (Here, have a finished character and a sword.. go play)
Reason? Because game designers are computer people primarilly nowadays, not inventors of complex system mechanics. They are educated, not creative... So all game systems since the dawn if this genre has been copies of old, tried and tested... Simple is a keyword here... systems. They just can not be arsed to read up on, learn and understand somehting more complex than an AD&D clone. Heck, even Mechwarrior with its 1-5 skill system would probably go over their heads.
So... What are the odds creative inventors stop being creative for five years and get an education good enough to make it into the computer game industry? In such masses that they can change the thinking of thousands of coders without a creative bone in their body?
Slim to none...
Building a complex RPG system from the ground up is an artform. Computer code is theory. Unfortunatly.. The game industry is nowadays controlled by theorists..
The days of the Llama is long passed...
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force"
In the spirit of debate I wanted to respond to some of your points with my opinion.
Originally posted by LordDarkmist Problems with skill based - 1) - Too hard to manage balance and create new abilities ( result would be less amount of skills/spells than a class based system like Guild Wars could have created ) As far as it being too hard to balance and manage a skill based system....well there really needs no balance. Obviously you can't make a few skills that are uber one hit the hardest mob in the game spells, but you don't need to be constantly worrying about whether one class is stronger than another. Instead you concentrate on a skill-counter system, which is what skills are really all about anyway. If you get hit you heal, if you get rooted you counter with something like blink in WoW....only in a skill based system it is up to the player what they would like to be able to counter and how. If anything a skill based system allows for more skills/spells since you don't have to worry about adding something to a class that will make it more powerful to every other class since everyone can learn that new skill.
2) - A totally skill based game would just create a majority of players, who are around a the same "vicinity" (In otherwords, unlikely anyone would go pure offensive, when they can get both offensive and defense to survive better... Remember, Western culture = individualism, so we most likely build more for the survivability of ourselves more often than for team)... With classes, players would tend to build what's best for them within their containment... I find that isn't true. While there is a part of the MMO player community that is like that I find they don't find skill based games popular...they are usually into competative pvp with defined rules so they can say I was beat by this, I was beat by that. Not saying that there is no pvp in skill based games, but the players have a different mentality. I know me and my friends tend to build characters off of our own ideas of what we want to be...my UO char was a halberd wielding, bone armor wearing, spellcaster for example.
Needless to say I am for skill based games. While it is difficult to please a wide variety of people with skill based system I believe it is a better way of playing an RPG.
I still retain my belief that a class based system would be more effecient than a skill based... I'll give u that a respec would solve someone gimping themself, but that would create a whole other problem IMO...
To #1 , you make it look so simple... In reality, I doubt that's the case... Every possible tactics, combination of skills, have to be taken into account by the developers to make sure that none would be overpowered... Might as well use a class based system, if this is necessary... Your idea of using counters to balance skills, I think is flawed. "If someone attacks you, you heal?" If heals are able to counter attacks, then there's a counter for everything, then how is anyone able to kill anyone else, if he's just going to heal? (My idea of true tactics would be the use of environments,distance,etc to give yourself the best advantage based on your assets/skills)...Anyways, what I mean is, just adding counters to everything isn't going to solve balance issues, and it's ok for some counters to exist, but not everything should have a counter... When, you talk about players being able to get the same skill as another as a reason for players not being gimped, now that's the problem right there, now players are going to be "more" similar(same)...
To #2 , I think u misinterpreted what I said, so I'm not understanding u so well here...your quote --> "my UO char was a halberd wielding, bone armor wearing, spellcaster for example." This just shows my point... The fact of the matter is, almost everyone is going to get both defense and offensive skills, and it may be to the point that all available weaknesses are gone... But if there was like a skill tree, then okay, players would still be different and still have weaknesses... I really don't have a problem if this was the case...
Anyways, in the end, if the skill based system was really open( without skill trees), then what I see is either a more limited skill list or a very unbalanced one... ANyways, what I see people truly arguing about is the "ability to pick anything u want" versus "contained within a subgroup"... I think the latter is much more easier getting into than the first, because it doesn't require tons of research just to find out what's the best...
I'm not going to quote since it would be a long long quote. :P
A counter system would not be hard but it would take time. But it would take no more time than class systems. My example is that class systems already use a form of counters. In WoW for example you have your tank that counters aggro being pulled to another character with taunts. You have a priest to counter the damage that is being done to that tank. In a skill based system you merely have to employ that set of counters in order to prevent one spell from being overpowered. For example having doomsday nuke. In order to counter that a player would need to have a doomsday shield spell.
Not all character should be profficient in every skill. Just because your able to get those skills doesn't mean you are going to be an expert with them. In regard to my halberd wielding, bone armor wearing, spellcaster...sure he had defense and offense but what is wrong with that? The way I had him set up he sucked at almost all of it. But he was MY character made MY way. In WoW you have priests that can survive huge amounts of damage and still have some powerful nukes. It isn't a skill/class issue that causes things like that, it is a design issue. I don't think there is a problem with this though. In a skill system taking one skill will limit you in some other way...usually you have a limited number of skill points so you can be a jack of all trades or specialize in a few different ways.
As far as research goes, yes skill based systems tend to be a bit deeper than class based. I believe it boils down to instant gratification or reward for time spent. The guy who made the chess vs checkers analogy made a good point. I hope that clears up some of what I was saying...if not I'll be back to reply to your response.
I'm all for a class-based system, but with a good range of skill choices. The one thing all you pure skill-based proponents are forgetting is that what that does to a mmorpg is dilute the focus off everyone's role. You know, the 'R' in roleplaying . Without having a basic idea of what everyone does or is good at, it also makes pickup groups generally chaotic & crap. Sure, a pure skill system is ideal for soloists, but without a starting framework it's also likely to either push new players into only soloing or simply out of the game. It's fine in a guild where everyone knows each other & the guild's needs; CoH & GW are great examples of class-based systems that are extremely flexible, probably because of the primary/secondary combos & the sheer variety of skills available. EQ2 imo is an example of a very poor & rigid use of a skill system - plenty classes (24?), but hardly any variety within each. Non-mainstream mmorpgs like ATITD did a pure skill system very well, but it's hard to sustain the masses w/o stuff to kill & phat loot
They say that right before you die, your life flashes before your eyes. That's true, even for a blind man. ^DareDevil^
(grrr, I wrote this big explanation, but it didn't get posted... This forum ticks me off from time to time, because of that... so I'm just giving the jest of it...)
Anyways, we're all assuming some things... I'm assuming there's about 100+ skills per class like in Guild Wars... So a skill based game would be offering like 1000 different skills to choose from, and that's overwhelming IMO... but lets say there was just a "good amount" (alot less than 1000 in my case) for a skill based game, I would still pick the 100+ skills per class game over the skill based game... U see where I'm getting at here?
I find the chess vs. checker thing a real big exaggeration... too lazy to repost my explanation...
I sort of like the system RuneScape used. Even though RuneScape is a piece of crap it used a good system in my opinion. If you wanted you could be a smith,a potion maker,a warrior,a mage,a thief,a ranger,a mage,and you could even be a lumberjack.
It may be a piece of crap,but you can learn from their system what will keep people playing.
I still like old runescape's system..I was a Mage/Smith when I quit.
"The one who begins with nothing, gains everything slowly."
I would still pick the 100+ skills per class game over the skill based game... U see where I'm getting at here?
Yeah...that you're stubborn.
Anyway, in both a class based and a skill based game, there can be a small list to a huge list of skills. The type of system does not mean it will have a certain amount of skills.
It also is just as easy to balance a skill based game as it is to balance a class based game.
The real discussion is the amount of freedom a skill based system has with the...oh, wait, class based systems are retarded and archaic..no advantages.
Skill based allows mix matching of skills and playstyles while class based only restricts your choices. In the real world if I want to learn how to become a carpenter, musician, wrestler, mechanic, and so fourth I'm able to. I might not be a expert at all of them or even any of them that's more based on how much time I focus on them and my learning ability. Take thoughs examples and say wrestling and musician is class A and carpentry and mechanic is a class B now with class A can't learn carpentry or mechanics and vise versa hmm pretty restricted eh? In a skill based system I'm able to drop carpentry for wrestling for example or partially learn both. Which option seems better to you? Game over classes. Skills for the win.
Thanks for the poll on balancing. I think it's a really important issue and fits nicely with the class vs skill debate. Please please please, let the game balance itself! Or let the game determine that balance isn't really necessary to having fun. Remember, that's why we play these games. Who doesn't want to figure out that great combination and enjoy that position of strength, at least for awhile until someone figures out another winning combo? Competition is one of the reasons why we enjoy games.
About classes: The same argument can be made about class based systems that is made about skill based ones. That is, "oh, my!" people are going to gravitate toward that ideal skill combo for their class. So will you than have as many unique characters as there are classes? I think the argument is really irrelevant! In the end, we are all different and we will express that though a healthy variety of avatars. And note, as our MMORPG's get more sophisticated, with greater options, we will find that different skill sets have different effects on different targets.
A big thanks to the several developers that are creating new and exciting skill-based MMO's for us!
Comments
skill skill skill. class is ass with a cl in front of it.
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
First time poster, well only because I miss the skill-based games of the past, its all class based today it seems.
Skill based can be balanced and unblanaced, but it adds character bothways.
Case and point - Asheron's Call
- the whole game was skill based and made tone upon tones of interesting characters, while it was true that people could make gimped characters if they had no idea waht they were doing, it was more or less a balanced system in the end. Do I choose sword as my main weapon (which was the most expensive to train and most damaging) or do I just trian my heritiage weapon or a different weapon class such as axe (both of which are much cheaper). It was the one system I felt natural at, over my years of playing that I finally came down to the apex of any character I have had to date, my Dagger-mage, while he was neither strong as other melle characters (due to health and armor) or strong as any caster he felt like a nice balance between the two and I missed him every since.
I like the Skill based system EVE has (if changed a little to match other games)
I like the skill based system that SWG had which to me is a profession/skill
---------------------------------------------
Don't click here...no2
Skill based...i've played Mud with the same concepts as trails of asension and wow the freedom and uniqueness of characters were amazing...Just pick skills to become whatever class you wanted..thief-you would train to hide, picklocks..whatever else you thought a thief would need...matrial artist...hand combat, dodging..etc etc...
Balancing is left to the devs of course but there are some limiting factors:
While you can learn any skill, they are separated into different groups...so learning magic requires some reading and studying while melee requires more exercise and stuff...these conflict...so while you could still get good at both it would be extremely hard to completely master them. The jack of all trades master of none rule basically. Secondly...yeah would skills decay if you don't use them which means the more skills you have the harder it is to train them all...these things would prevent people from becoming completely uber and give benifits to those who specialize (eg. all out warrior skills).
Slug-boy likes being in the majority...it happens so seldom!
With so many people favoring either a pure skill-based system or some hybrid, I have to wonder how it is that some of the most popular games seem to revolve around class systems? Is it just simplisty has mass appeal? I wonder if a Dev who's worked on such a project might coment what drives them to implement class system when it seems so many players would prefer choice?
I don't expect an answer, but I'd like one
I am glad that our debates seem to really get people talking! THe more we talk, the more its read, particularly by those who develope mmorpgs, perhaps it weill bear fruit in the way out game features we really want. Here's hoping
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone
www.spankybus.com
-3d Artist & Compositor
-Writer
-Professional Amature
Skill set FTW! mostly because very few designers know how to design proper class systems. My vote for one of the best skill systems is Morrowind's. I LOVE to create Battlemages in their system, it is totally exhilerating and awesome. Gandalf in full plate , wielding staff and sword!
Well - this is certainly not a new debate! We've been fighting about this exact same issue since the dawn of RPG's (and I don't just mean computer RPG's).
After 3 decades of having this argument, I've come to realize that the opposing factions are simply missing the fundamental point. They don't favor different approaches to a game, they favor TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMES!
At its heart, this is an even older debate that I like to call:
"Checkers vs Chess"
Some people play games to NOT think. They just want to relax, be entertained, have fun, and in general have a little break from work and effort. That's PERFECTLY REASONABLE. If that's what you enjoy, if that's why you play games, then of course you will prefer a class-based system. For you, a skills-based system just creates work that interferes with your ability to enjoy the game.
Some people play games TO think. They are looking for a challenge, something to make their gears spin, give them a mental work out, and in general WANT to put a bunch of effort into their play. That's PERFECTLY REASONABLE. If that's what you enjoy, if that's why you play games, then of course you will prefer a skills-based system. For you, a class-based system would steal a big chunk of the fun you get out of the game.
This has nothing to do with IQ, geekiness, or any other personality trait. It's just a fundamental difference between people. Chocolate vs Vanilla. Coke vs Pepsi. Ginger vs Marianne (for you old timers).
Which begs the question - why does the poll show such an overwhelming preference for skills-based systems? That's an EASY one. As a general rule, MMORPG's are very complicated and take a lot of work to play. So it's sort of a given that traditionally most MMORPG players are going to be more in the "chess" camp than the "checkers" camp.
That said, all you (I guess I should say "us") chess people shouldn't get cocky about it, because the HUGE success of WoW I think clearly demonstrates that while traditional MMORPG players are mostly chess people, we are clearly NOT the majority of the general population. Now that MMORPG developers are figuring that out, I fear it's going to get quite a bit more difficult to find good skills-based systems being built. Plus, as the original posters brought up, it's MUCH harder (hence takes more time / more money) to write a well balanced skills-based system.
I definitely prefer a skill system because of the freedom and oppurtunities it brings. Also with skill systems you can customize your character far more then with a class system model. Such as if i wanted to become a ranger tank i would just need to pick up some archery and defense skills rather then just being 1 or the other in a class system. Even if with the skill system i wouldnt be a powerful ranger or tank i would have fun because i would base it off my playing style.
Skill based definately.
If the skills were all completely balanced (rock-paper-bloody big ball of fire) then it WOULD be fine (also with a certain amount of skill availible say 1000, with the max you can get being 100 in each skill). In games with high RP content (none to date...Except maybe Planeshift but that's a work in progess) there will be less picking a specific skill set.
Being a Dev, I can infact give you some insight as to the difference, and why many games choose the path of class vs. skill.
Most of the class based games, revolve around a heavily influenced PVE game play experience. A class based system, allows those developers to have a better understanding of how they wish to create a situation. They can determine what class types are needed and how many in order to defeat the PVE encounter. Good examples of this are EQ and WoW.
A skill based system, is much harder to balance PVE experiences, so that there is a maintained level of difficulty. Without knowing the types of players and the skills they choose, it makes it much more difficult. I by no means feel it canot be done, but it does make it easier. SWG found issues with this, as an area they wanted 20 players to deal with, ended up being soloable by a well tuned and perfect build of skills. THe Krayt Dragons are a good example.
Both systems hold value, but I do think in the end, the game type and its focus, often determine which system is best utilized.
Being a Dev, I can infact give you some insight as to the difference, and why many games choose the path of class vs. skill.
Most of the class based games, revolve around a heavily influenced PVE game play experience. A class based system, allows those developers to have a better understanding of how they wish to create a situation. They can determine what class types are needed and how many in order to defeat the PVE encounter. Good examples of this are EQ and WoW.
A skill based system, is much harder to balance PVE experiences, so that there is a maintained level of difficulty. Without knowing the types of players and the skills they choose, it makes it much more difficult. I by no means feel it canot be done, but it does make it easier. SWG found issues with this, as an area they wanted 20 players to deal with, ended up being soloable by a well tuned and perfect build of skills. THe Krayt Dragons are a good example.
Both systems hold value, but I do think in the end, the game type and its focus, often determine which system is best utilized.
You can still solo krayt's as long as there not bugging out lol
All the faults that Garret points out of a skill-based system are ones that can be worked around...easily.
It's ill logic like his that really makes you wish some people couldn't express their opinions.
I don't like a straight class system because it's too strict and everyone becomes the same as everyone else. People will still choose the class that is the 'best' in this kind of system, and there's just very little diversity.
A wide open skill system leads players to the best template, and you wind up with a system that's too hard to balance effectively.
A hybrid can make balancing easier while promoting diversity. You choose a novice class and work your way up skill trees based on your preferences.
The original SWG system was close but it allowed people to master multiple skill types which leads to the flavor of the month templates, defense stacking, etc. If the skill points had been limited so that a person had just enough to make it to the end of one branch, people would make choices. Do I go for greater defense or greater offense? Now limit the players to one Novice profession, do away with Hybrid Professions, and make sure no profession is able to survive completely alone against high level opponents. Voila.
Well.. When I played PnP RPGs I always played the Skillbased ones. Classbased, like AD&D I thought were just too much kiddie oriented (Here, have a finished character and a sword, now go play).
When MMOs came and I saw UO the first time I was so happy, finally a computer game that gave you all the freedom of a PnP RPG! But no... Everything after that just looked as the kiddie game.. and has made clones of that ever since. (Here, have a finished character and a sword.. go play)
Reason? Because game designers are computer people primarilly nowadays, not inventors of complex system mechanics. They are educated, not creative... So all game systems since the dawn if this genre has been copies of old, tried and tested... Simple is a keyword here... systems. They just can not be arsed to read up on, learn and understand somehting more complex than an AD&D clone. Heck, even Mechwarrior with its 1-5 skill system would probably go over their heads.
So... What are the odds creative inventors stop being creative for five years and get an education good enough to make it into the computer game industry? In such masses that they can change the thinking of thousands of coders without a creative bone in their body?
Slim to none...
Building a complex RPG system from the ground up is an artform. Computer code is theory. Unfortunatly.. The game industry is nowadays controlled by theorists..
The days of the Llama is long passed...
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly.
It should be thrown with great force"
Needless to say I am for skill based games. While it is difficult to please a wide variety of people with skill based system I believe it is a better way of playing an RPG.
I still retain my belief that a class based system would be more effecient than a skill based... I'll give u that a respec would solve someone gimping themself, but that would create a whole other problem IMO...
To #1 , you make it look so simple... In reality, I doubt that's the case... Every possible tactics, combination of skills, have to be taken into account by the developers to make sure that none would be overpowered... Might as well use a class based system, if this is necessary... Your idea of using counters to balance skills, I think is flawed. "If someone attacks you, you heal?" If heals are able to counter attacks, then there's a counter for everything, then how is anyone able to kill anyone else, if he's just going to heal? (My idea of true tactics would be the use of environments,distance,etc to give yourself the best advantage based on your assets/skills)...Anyways, what I mean is, just adding counters to everything isn't going to solve balance issues, and it's ok for some counters to exist, but not everything should have a counter... When, you talk about players being able to get the same skill as another as a reason for players not being gimped, now that's the problem right there, now players are going to be "more" similar(same)...
To #2 , I think u misinterpreted what I said, so I'm not understanding u so well here...your quote --> "my UO char was a halberd wielding, bone armor wearing, spellcaster for example." This just shows my point... The fact of the matter is, almost everyone is going to get both defense and offensive skills, and it may be to the point that all available weaknesses are gone... But if there was like a skill tree, then okay, players would still be different and still have weaknesses... I really don't have a problem if this was the case...
Anyways, in the end, if the skill based system was really open( without skill trees), then what I see is either a more limited skill list or a very unbalanced one... ANyways, what I see people truly arguing about is the "ability to pick anything u want" versus "contained within a subgroup"... I think the latter is much more easier getting into than the first, because it doesn't require tons of research just to find out what's the best...
-->LordDarkmist
I'm not going to quote since it would be a long long quote. :P
A counter system would not be hard but it would take time. But it would take no more time than class systems. My example is that class systems already use a form of counters. In WoW for example you have your tank that counters aggro being pulled to another character with taunts. You have a priest to counter the damage that is being done to that tank. In a skill based system you merely have to employ that set of counters in order to prevent one spell from being overpowered. For example having doomsday nuke. In order to counter that a player would need to have a doomsday shield spell.
Not all character should be profficient in every skill. Just because your able to get those skills doesn't mean you are going to be an expert with them. In regard to my halberd wielding, bone armor wearing, spellcaster...sure he had defense and offense but what is wrong with that? The way I had him set up he sucked at almost all of it. But he was MY character made MY way. In WoW you have priests that can survive huge amounts of damage and still have some powerful nukes. It isn't a skill/class issue that causes things like that, it is a design issue. I don't think there is a problem with this though. In a skill system taking one skill will limit you in some other way...usually you have a limited number of skill points so you can be a jack of all trades or specialize in a few different ways.
As far as research goes, yes skill based systems tend to be a bit deeper than class based. I believe it boils down to instant gratification or reward for time spent. The guy who made the chess vs checkers analogy made a good point.
I hope that clears up some of what I was saying...if not I'll be back to reply to your response. 
I'm all for a class-based system, but with a good range of skill choices. The one thing all you pure skill-based proponents are forgetting is that what that does to a mmorpg is dilute the focus off everyone's role. You know, the 'R' in roleplaying
. Without having a basic idea of what everyone does or is good at, it also makes pickup groups generally chaotic & crap. Sure, a pure skill system is ideal for soloists, but without a starting framework it's also likely to either push new players into only soloing or simply out of the game. It's fine in a guild where everyone knows each other & the guild's needs; CoH & GW are great examples of class-based systems that are extremely flexible, probably because of the primary/secondary combos & the sheer variety of skills available. EQ2 imo is an example of a very poor & rigid use of a skill system - plenty classes (24?), but hardly any variety within each. Non-mainstream mmorpgs like ATITD did a pure skill system very well, but it's hard to sustain the masses w/o stuff to kill & phat loot 
They say that right before you die, your life flashes before your eyes. That's true, even for a blind man. ^DareDevil^
(grrr, I wrote this big explanation, but it didn't get posted... This forum ticks me off from time to time, because of that... so I'm just giving the jest of it...)
Anyways, we're all assuming some things... I'm assuming there's about 100+ skills per class like in Guild Wars... So a skill based game would be offering like 1000 different skills to choose from, and that's overwhelming IMO... but lets say there was just a "good amount" (alot less than 1000 in my case) for a skill based game, I would still pick the 100+ skills per class game over the skill based game... U see where I'm getting at here?
I find the chess vs. checker thing a real big exaggeration... too lazy to repost my explanation...
I sort of like the system RuneScape used. Even though RuneScape is a piece of crap it used a good system in my opinion. If you wanted you could be a smith,a potion maker,a warrior,a mage,a thief,a ranger,a mage,and you could even be a lumberjack.
It may be a piece of crap,but you can learn from their system what will keep people playing.
I still like old runescape's system..I was a Mage/Smith when I quit.
"The one who begins with nothing, gains everything slowly."
Yeah...that you're stubborn.
Anyway, in both a class based and a skill based game, there can be a small list to a huge list of skills. The type of system does not mean it will have a certain amount of skills.
It also is just as easy to balance a skill based game as it is to balance a class based game.
The real discussion is the amount of freedom a skill based system has with the...oh, wait, class based systems are retarded and archaic..no advantages.
Thanks for the poll on balancing. I think it's a really important issue and fits nicely with the class vs skill debate. Please please please, let the game balance itself! Or let the game determine that balance isn't really necessary to having fun. Remember, that's why we play these games. Who doesn't want to figure out that great combination and enjoy that position of strength, at least for awhile until someone figures out another winning combo? Competition is one of the reasons why we enjoy games.
About classes: The same argument can be made about class based systems that is made about skill based ones. That is, "oh, my!" people are going to gravitate toward that ideal skill combo for their class. So will you than have as many unique characters as there are classes? I think the argument is really irrelevant! In the end, we are all different and we will express that though a healthy variety of avatars. And note, as our MMORPG's get more sophisticated, with greater options, we will find that different skill sets have different effects on different targets.
A big thanks to the several developers that are creating new and exciting skill-based MMO's for us!