UO was first generation. UO was skill based. Therefore, skill based games were more likely to be first generation. I believe AC1 was even first generation. As the games progressed they started cloning EQ and then they started cloning WoW (which is hodge podge of all the best ideas that were on the MMORPG market when WoW came out). As far as I know the only next generation game ever proposed that would have been skilled based was Impertrator (cancelled project of Mythic before it became EA Mythic). I to perfer skill based games to level/class based games because they allow for much more freedom. I would love to see a current generation version of UO with all of the aspects of that game.
Unfortunately, once WoW dominated the market the majority of games get asked how they are like WoW when they go searching for funding, and the result is a generation of WoW clones with a few different aspects, and very few people are following the right concept and focusing content away from WoW. Its this simple....If I wanted to play WoW I would be playing WoW. I can't stand WoW, so it is more than likely that your generic version of WoW isn't going to hold my attention for very long either.
The reason is simple, everyone clamors for pvp and it is distinctly harder to balance a skill system based game verses a rigid class based game. Instead of balancing class against class for pvp, they have to balance skill verses skill and there are usually a lot more skills in the game than usual classes. So that brings us to the reason, developers are basically lazy, they don't want to put in all that work balancing the skills for pve and pvp. I'd take a updated UO, AC1 or SWG over any of these current games in a heartbeat. All were skill based games. UO was EQized, SWG destroyed and AC1 never updated(AC2 was a EQ rigid class system). I have yet to come close to the fun I had in these original games in any of the current offerings.
That arguement would hold water if you could mention a SINGLE MMORPG that is level/class based that is actually balanced for PvP to date. The level/class games are just a rolling set of buffs and nerfs based on which set of class players can whine the loudest before a given publish. Level/class games have never been balanced for PvP, and WoW is FAR FROM BALANCED for PvP. In WoW PvP there are two teirs...there is the rogue and then there is every class that is not the rogue, and almost every patch they buff the rogue because they whined the loudest. That is how it goes in most level/class based games.
Because the new generation of players only want instant gratification, and with a skill based system you actually have to play for a long while to earn that skill in using that weapon or armor! In gear based games you just grab an item and go then bunny hop to success!
I totally and utterly disagree because as WoW shows you it can take years to "grab" that item. It takes longer to get items in WoW then it takes to complete 2-3 characters in games like UO if the RNG is not on your side. If people are willing to grind the same content over and over for an item then your idea of instant gratification in item based games is inadequate.
Having balanced content is a big plus. No skill based game has ever had decent content. Its all been in the form of PvP or RPing. PvE content has been generally non existant. Attempting to create meaningful and challenging content without any way to know how your players will be equiped is basically impossible. Do you take into consideration EVERY combination of skills or do you tailor the content to a specific set of skills? Sounds like a headache. You can do it, but it'll always be too easy or too hard with not much wiggle room, which will of course force players to choose skill templates to easily trivialize different encounters, which would of course be unfair and unbalanced.
So what games have extensive PvE? WoW? Sorry, but chasing the same pixels over and over is not very involved PvE. When you realise in WoW that everything in the game is just repeating the same idiotic elements over and over it gets very boring.
There is much more content in games like UO then WoW has or will ever have, but people turn away from UO because it is an older game. When WoW goes 10 years then you can say that WoW has a lot more content then skill based games. If the same players can play the same content over and over for 10 years and not leave in droves I will be amazed.
We will see more skill based games...eventually. I dont doubt that. The class based system has nearly been done to death. Its usually the same thing in every class based MMO, with only a few minor tweaks here and there. Same basic classes, same lack of options, same group dynamics...
I wont say skill systems are harder to balance, but I would guess that they just take much more work over all. I true skill system would leave room for MANY different play styles, rather than just pure combat builds. When you think about it, a good skill based system is THE major feature of a game, since everything else will be built around it.
I dont understand why most people think that skill in a video game = how fast you can twitch ,why isnt thinking considered a skill or knowing your enemys and when to attack ( no im not talking about WoW ,WoW actualy requires no skill at all,even a untrained monkey can play it).
Well what your realy asking for is a sandbox MMOG,about 98% of mmog companies think that linear game = win + lots of cash and then they fail and wonder were they went wrong.Seriously the sandbox mmog market has alot of room ,while all of the linear mmogs are cramped up in a small box.
Two main reasons I don't think skill-based is as prevelant now:
1) Balancing. As said before in this post it has to be harder to balance out a skill based game vs a level/classes based game. Just think about it... with classes, you have at most something like 5 different basic classes (Tank, DPS-melee, DPS-caster, Healer, and maybe Buffer) and maybe 3 variations of each for 15 total combinations that you need to balance. In a skill based game the number of combinations that can be made is in the hundereds. It's just tough
2) Ease of understanding. I think this is a big one too. Companies making MMOs what to get as big a market as possible... so like WoW, they want to be able to cater to all. A skill based MMO requires a lot more thinking of what skills to pick, what to pursue, how much of each skill. Classes is easy... I want to be a Tank... of there is my class that nice dwarven warrior. For a skill based game that same person who wants to play a tank actually has to think about what makes a tank a good tank... what skills will get me there. And that is in the simple case that the person just wants to be a tank... hybrids are even harder.
I, personally, would love a good skill based system... but a balanced one and that's tough. If Darkfall actually happens like it claims it will, they sound like they are going to have a pretty good system (again, if it's like it's described).
Levels are a way of slotting and designing content appropriate for the characters. In an RPG character development is important so characters grow more powerful over time. If you are going to design content you need some mechanism for knowing approximately how powerful the characters exploring the content will be.
Class based is a tool for generating world flavor and facilitating group play. If you want a world with classic wizards you need a reason why they are not running around in plate armor and the most straightforward way of doing this is to use classes. There are other ways but they are more complicated and ultimately just as artificial, so the keep it simple principle applies.
Classes also allow you to have some idea of what a character is going to bring to a group without knowing them personally. This is also important for developers designing content, because it allows them to have some idea of what capabilities a group will be bringing.
If you go for a pure sandbox with no real content then games without class/levels work great. If you want content and story you need to start adding structure, and classes/levels are the best way to do this. As it turns out a lot more paying customers prefer games with content and story then prefer PvP sandboxes, so classes and levels prevail.
hah yeah reminds me of Dungeon Siege. your class was depicted by the skills/skill category you would go through. not really much variety like other skill based games, but it get boring quick. having to strive to be the best in a class or a type within a class gives more to competition and we humans like that.
Well hopefully if games like TCoS and Darkfall become really successful, maybe someone will take a closer look at the online sandbox concept and expand upon it: coming out with something that will blow your mind away and you out of your socks!
As its reflected in this thread almost everyone that's posted has some different interpretation not only about levels, but about skills and character balance. Isn't the idea that the player with their 'abilities' to play the game, adapt to the game and to utilize the mechanics of the game, is indicative to actual 'skill'. Isn't skill being referred to here as an innate quality of the character versus the competence of the player?
I would agree the argument for balance will always be there because as long as characters have different characteristics/abilities someone will want their character to have some compensation counterman (defense-offense) to a particular class ability.
Levels weren't thrown into the game as some design obstacle to inconvenience players, they were there to distinguish characters and provide structure.
The Old Timers Guild Laid back, not so serious, no drama. All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
My interpretation of "skill" is if i pickup a sword and swing it for the first time, I wont know how to use it.
The more I use the sword, the better I get at using it and what/where to swing at. Much the same for using any weapon/tool in any game.
Taking the example of the "sword". I start off with a wooden training sword, I train for 4 weeks (real time) for 4 hours a day, I would expect to be comfortable using it so I switch to a fairly solid metal sword.
Another 4 weeks (4hrs a day) down the line, I can try double handed swords, single blade, dual blade, different weight distribution between the hilt and blade. Mastering the sword, I learn newer strikes that impale, stun, critcally hit, etc etc
Now...... Try and build that mechanics into a game across mutliple weapons/tools and balance it
PS I am working on this game mechanic for my own game
Currently, skills in all games are not creative enough because lack of complete infrastructure to each class build. I think skill needs to be more diversified with more varieties which means more flexbility, once you chosen your race with racial traits then you can learn all type of skills you want. But if you want to be more specialized then you need to join a guild in the game such as rogue guild or mage guild and then the guild are not allow you to learn the other skill or you have not enough skill points or feat to join the guild whatsoever.
So this type of scenario background will generate a lot of quests until you join the guild. And it is easier to integrate skill point from exp as only one source, and then once you join a guild, you started with skill point which is different from player's exp.
Most game developers only want to use their own existed resources because it takes too long time to create different structures.
I think skill needs to be more diversified with more varieties which means more flexbility, once you chosen your race with racial traits then you can learn all type of skills you want. But if you want to be more specialized then you need to join a guild in the game such as rogue guild or mage guild and then the guild are not allow you to learn the other skill or you have not enough skill points or feat to join the guild whatsoever.
That's not a skill based game. That's a class based hybrid type. You should always be able to learn any skills you want with the skills that have the most EXP in them being your best skills and defining your character.
Melee having to face their target, switch weapon types in combat to penetrate certain armor types, switching armor sets in battle to defend against different magic types/melee is skill. Will you see this? doubt it.
Casters having to use a crosshair to aim and lock onto their target takes skill. knowing what to CC and when takes skill. Unless it has a big red X over the target...
Healing always takes skill as you have to monitor everyones health, debuffs, and have cognitive abilities to select who to heal and be aware of who is about to take serious damage. It is melee and casters that are easy mode right now.
I hear this 'balancing' issue come up every time people debate class vs. skill systems and it's a load of rubbish. In a good skill based system there is no balancing required as long as every attack skill has an equivalent counter skill. For example any melee attack can be countered by a shield block, a perry, a riposte or even a well timed dodge. In this way all balancing is done by the individual player and not the developer. This makes skill based systems way easier on the developer than class based systems that require constant tweaks to keep the classes balanced and fair. If you end up with a poorly balanced character in a skill based game it's your own fault and not the fault of the developer or the game.
Bren
Developers don't want that situation. See, they want to keep people around paying money and your blame it on the player approach loses business as customers walk. Not a smart idea from a devs point of view.
My interpretation of "skill" is if i pickup a sword and swing it for the first time, I wont know how to use it. The more I use the sword, the better I get at using it and what/where to swing at. Much the same for using any weapon/tool in any game. Taking the example of the "sword". I start off with a wooden training sword, I train for 4 weeks (real time) for 4 hours a day, I would expect to be comfortable using it so I switch to a fairly solid metal sword. Another 4 weeks (4hrs a day) down the line, I can try double handed swords, single blade, dual blade, different weight distribution between the hilt and blade. Mastering the sword, I learn newer strikes that impale, stun, critcally hit, etc etc Now...... Try and build that mechanics into a game across mutliple weapons/tools and balance it PS I am working on this game mechanic for my own game
IF you spend all that time training swinging that sword at starting zone rats, I think you should quickly hit a limit. Having only time/use as a factor is too EZ mode for improving some skills. I would use a scheme where as your skill improves you need to face tougher opponents to get better. In fact, your skill vs the opponents in real combat would be the base to determine what kind of change in skill and by how much. The progression would also be non-linear so that adding a point with a new skill is easier than when you are near the top which will become very difficult to increase.
Originally posted by FreddyNoNose Originally posted by Brenelael I hear this 'balancing' issue come up every time people debate class vs. skill systems and it's a load of rubbish. In a good skill based system there is no balancing required as long as every attack skill has an equivalent counter skill. For example any melee attack can be countered by a shield block, a perry, a riposte or even a well timed dodge. In this way all balancing is done by the individual player and not the developer. This makes skill based systems way easier on the developer than class based systems that require constant tweaks to keep the classes balanced and fair. If you end up with a poorly balanced character in a skill based game it's your own fault and not the fault of the developer or the game.
Bren
Developers don't want that situation. See, they want to keep people around paying money and your blame it on the player approach loses business as customers walk. Not a smart idea from a devs point of view.
That's not entirely true. If you try to drive a golf cart on a highway: who's fault is it? The golf cart maker or the idiot that thought a golf cart could go at least 55MPH? Maybe this analogy is too weak to use, but I think utility or intention versus assumption by customer(s) is what is the problem. Developers of games need to lay down the utility/intention of a game mechanic before even coding. Such ideas are not alien and often are found in other developments such as in the IT field (especially when cobbling together a system for a customer). A customer that takes a shrink-wrapped product like a game has to understand there are limitations set by the developer, and not by the player. The less limitations by the developer implies the more freedom for the player, especially to *bleep* up. If a player comes to a sandbox game thinking, "Gee, this will be a cake walk", then they *do* have it coming to them with no excuses. If that means some customers walk, I think that's acceptable: not everyone is fulfilled by the same product or service, otherwise there would only be one car manufacturer, one CPU manufacturer (for PCs, mainframes, *and* mobile devices), and one maker of any product or provider of any service. So, your assumption that everyone would walk away from such a game is silly at best, and your assumption that a customer's intent must match the developer's intent is equally silly.
I hear this 'balancing' issue come up every time people debate class vs. skill systems and it's a load of rubbish. In a good skill based system there is no balancing required as long as every attack skill has an equivalent counter skill. For example any melee attack can be countered by a shield block, a perry, a riposte or even a well timed dodge. In this way all balancing is done by the individual player and not the developer. This makes skill based systems way easier on the developer than class based systems that require constant tweaks to keep the classes balanced and fair. If you end up with a poorly balanced character in a skill based game it's your own fault and not the fault of the developer or the game.
Bren
Developers don't want that situation. See, they want to keep people around paying money and your blame it on the player approach loses business as customers walk. Not a smart idea from a devs point of view.
That's not entirely true. If you try to drive a golf cart on a highway: who's fault is it? The golf cart maker or the idiot that thought a golf cart could go at least 55MPH? Maybe this analogy is too weak to use, but I think utility or intention versus assumption by customer(s) is what is the problem. Developers of games need to lay down the utility/intention of a game mechanic before even coding. Such ideas are not alien and often are found in other developments such as in the IT field (especially when cobbling together a system for a customer). A customer that takes a shrink-wrapped product like a game has to understand there are limitations set by the developer, and not by the player. The less limitations by the developer implies the more freedom for the player, especially to *bleep* up. If a player comes to a sandbox game thinking, "Gee, this will be a cake walk", then they *do* have it coming to them with no excuses. If that means some customers walk, I think that's acceptable: not everyone is fulfilled by the same product or service, otherwise there would only be one car manufacturer, one CPU manufacturer (for PCs, mainframes, *and* mobile devices), and one maker of any product or provider of any service. So, your assumption that everyone would walk away from such a game is silly at best, and your assumption that a customer's intent must match the developer's intent is equally silly.
-- Brede
You are right I see the light. Putting all on the customers is genius.
I hear this 'balancing' issue come up every time people debate class vs. skill systems and it's a load of rubbish. In a good skill based system there is no balancing required as long as every attack skill has an equivalent counter skill. For example any melee attack can be countered by a shield block, a perry, a riposte or even a well timed dodge. In this way all balancing is done by the individual player and not the developer. This makes skill based systems way easier on the developer than class based systems that require constant tweaks to keep the classes balanced and fair. If you end up with a poorly balanced character in a skill based game it's your own fault and not the fault of the developer or the game.
Bren
Developers don't want that situation. See, they want to keep people around paying money and your blame it on the player approach loses business as customers walk. Not a smart idea from a devs point of view.
That's not entirely true. If you try to drive a golf cart on a highway: who's fault is it? The golf cart maker or the idiot that thought a golf cart could go at least 55MPH? Maybe this analogy is too weak to use, but I think utility or intention versus assumption by customer(s) is what is the problem. Developers of games need to lay down the utility/intention of a game mechanic before even coding. Such ideas are not alien and often are found in other developments such as in the IT field (especially when cobbling together a system for a customer). A customer that takes a shrink-wrapped product like a game has to understand there are limitations set by the developer, and not by the player. The less limitations by the developer implies the more freedom for the player, especially to *bleep* up. If a player comes to a sandbox game thinking, "Gee, this will be a cake walk", then they *do* have it coming to them with no excuses. If that means some customers walk, I think that's acceptable: not everyone is fulfilled by the same product or service, otherwise there would only be one car manufacturer, one CPU manufacturer (for PCs, mainframes, *and* mobile devices), and one maker of any product or provider of any service. So, your assumption that everyone would walk away from such a game is silly at best, and your assumption that a customer's intent must match the developer's intent is equally silly.
-- Brede
Asheron's call 1 had like 4 or 5 server worlds and at prime time they were all at around 1,500-2,000 people on. No one was walking away from it. They loved it. Turbine were complete fools for not making a true sequel to AC1. Instead they made some half assed EQ1 clone and stamped AC2 on it.
AC1's skill system failed because the devs didn't know what they were doing. Look at the Vagabond/Blademaster Templates. Look at the endurance stat. Look at the sword skill that cost 16 'points' to spec and the martial arts skill that cost 6 (for a long time, according to a dev's subsequent dps chart, MA did more damage - far more).
UO had a very large subscription base for a long time despite very shoddy service (a class action vs Ultima won) and 2D graphics.
Neither game lost vs EQ because of their skill systems.
Subsequent developers have just been assuming that most players don't want complexity - at least not at the beginning just out of the gate. They may not be wrong but I'm not one of the masses myself. I'd love to see another skill-based game. Game makers do have to be smarter than Turbine was but that's not hard considering hindsight and the other games we have to look at to predict what players will do and how to prioritize.
IF you spend all that time training swinging that sword at starting zone rats, I think you should quickly hit a limit. Having only time/use as a factor is too EZ mode for improving some skills. I would use a scheme where as your skill improves you need to face tougher opponents to get better. In fact, your skill vs the opponents in real combat would be the base to determine what kind of change in skill and by how much. The progression would also be non-linear so that adding a point with a new skill is easier than when you are near the top which will become very difficult to increase.
That is an interesting point and one to take on board.
in most skill based games you can get to some of the most powerful tiers in a minmal amount of time, however you will only be able to do one thing.
If a game has combat 100 skills this is what should happen: a newbie has 10 skills near maxed out, the veteran has 70 skills near maxed out. Now they get get into a competition(PvE, PvP, it doesn't matter) they will be very similar to each other in combat strength due to the fact that in combat you can only bring about 8 into the fight due to limiting factors: anything from requiring a weapon type, requiring focus, spell componets, didn't meditate recently, only being able to use a handful of high cost skills(balance requirement IE focus/mana/rage), or even the fact that combat doesn't last long enough for you to use more than 8 skills.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
MMO players in general are not skilled gamers, they are persistent gamers. Guild Wars PVP, prior to the expasions was as close to skill based as you can get. A good measure of a skill based game is if you can take a character, pratice for quite a while, then go and beat people of equal level and gear.
Guild Wars has been the only MMO to date that isn't based almost entirely on a characters gear or level. A level 1 with starter gear could actually beat a level 20 (the highest level)
A skilled player, which I was, used to take on 3-4 people at a time and come out a winner. If this happened in most MMOs the player base, rather than admit to being unskilled, would cry for a nerf. This is the reason you see so many whiners crying for nerfs in MMOs that specialize in PVP. Because the playerbase is very unskilled and can not admit to this fact, so in turn the game must be cheating.
Comments
UO was first generation. UO was skill based. Therefore, skill based games were more likely to be first generation. I believe AC1 was even first generation. As the games progressed they started cloning EQ and then they started cloning WoW (which is hodge podge of all the best ideas that were on the MMORPG market when WoW came out). As far as I know the only next generation game ever proposed that would have been skilled based was Impertrator (cancelled project of Mythic before it became EA Mythic). I to perfer skill based games to level/class based games because they allow for much more freedom. I would love to see a current generation version of UO with all of the aspects of that game.
Unfortunately, once WoW dominated the market the majority of games get asked how they are like WoW when they go searching for funding, and the result is a generation of WoW clones with a few different aspects, and very few people are following the right concept and focusing content away from WoW. Its this simple....If I wanted to play WoW I would be playing WoW. I can't stand WoW, so it is more than likely that your generic version of WoW isn't going to hold my attention for very long either.
That arguement would hold water if you could mention a SINGLE MMORPG that is level/class based that is actually balanced for PvP to date. The level/class games are just a rolling set of buffs and nerfs based on which set of class players can whine the loudest before a given publish. Level/class games have never been balanced for PvP, and WoW is FAR FROM BALANCED for PvP. In WoW PvP there are two teirs...there is the rogue and then there is every class that is not the rogue, and almost every patch they buff the rogue because they whined the loudest. That is how it goes in most level/class based games.
I totally and utterly disagree because as WoW shows you it can take years to "grab" that item. It takes longer to get items in WoW then it takes to complete 2-3 characters in games like UO if the RNG is not on your side. If people are willing to grind the same content over and over for an item then your idea of instant gratification in item based games is inadequate.
There is much more content in games like UO then WoW has or will ever have, but people turn away from UO because it is an older game. When WoW goes 10 years then you can say that WoW has a lot more content then skill based games. If the same players can play the same content over and over for 10 years and not leave in droves I will be amazed.
We will see more skill based games...eventually. I dont doubt that. The class based system has nearly been done to death. Its usually the same thing in every class based MMO, with only a few minor tweaks here and there. Same basic classes, same lack of options, same group dynamics...
I wont say skill systems are harder to balance, but I would guess that they just take much more work over all. I true skill system would leave room for MANY different play styles, rather than just pure combat builds. When you think about it, a good skill based system is THE major feature of a game, since everything else will be built around it.
I dont understand why most people think that skill in a video game = how fast you can twitch ,why isnt thinking considered a skill or knowing your enemys and when to attack ( no im not talking about WoW ,WoW actualy requires no skill at all,even a untrained monkey can play it).
Well what your realy asking for is a sandbox MMOG,about 98% of mmog companies think that linear game = win + lots of cash and then they fail and wonder were they went wrong.Seriously the sandbox mmog market has alot of room ,while all of the linear mmogs are cramped up in a small box.
Two main reasons I don't think skill-based is as prevelant now:
1) Balancing. As said before in this post it has to be harder to balance out a skill based game vs a level/classes based game. Just think about it... with classes, you have at most something like 5 different basic classes (Tank, DPS-melee, DPS-caster, Healer, and maybe Buffer) and maybe 3 variations of each for 15 total combinations that you need to balance. In a skill based game the number of combinations that can be made is in the hundereds. It's just tough
2) Ease of understanding. I think this is a big one too. Companies making MMOs what to get as big a market as possible... so like WoW, they want to be able to cater to all. A skill based MMO requires a lot more thinking of what skills to pick, what to pursue, how much of each skill. Classes is easy... I want to be a Tank... of there is my class that nice dwarven warrior. For a skill based game that same person who wants to play a tank actually has to think about what makes a tank a good tank... what skills will get me there. And that is in the simple case that the person just wants to be a tank... hybrids are even harder.
I, personally, would love a good skill based system... but a balanced one and that's tough. If Darkfall actually happens like it claims it will, they sound like they are going to have a pretty good system (again, if it's like it's described).
hah yeah reminds me of Dungeon Siege. your class was depicted by the skills/skill category you would go through. not really much variety like other skill based games, but it get boring quick. having to strive to be the best in a class or a type within a class gives more to competition and we humans like that.
____________________________________________________________________
Well hopefully if games like TCoS and Darkfall become really successful, maybe someone will take a closer look at the online sandbox concept and expand upon it: coming out with something that will blow your mind away and you out of your socks!
I mean, hopefully.
Money. It is as simple as that.
Lets look at the first 3 mainstream MMOs that came out:
UO- Skill based
EQ- Level based (with raisable skills)
AC- Skill based
EQ had more subs then the other two games combined. That right there told Developers where to go in the future.
There is a market for pure skill based games but level based games will always carry a larger sub base. Its all about the money.
As its reflected in this thread almost everyone that's posted has some different interpretation not only about levels, but about skills and character balance. Isn't the idea that the player with their 'abilities' to play the game, adapt to the game and to utilize the mechanics of the game, is indicative to actual 'skill'. Isn't skill being referred to here as an innate quality of the character versus the competence of the player?
I would agree the argument for balance will always be there because as long as characters have different characteristics/abilities someone will want their character to have some compensation counterman (defense-offense) to a particular class ability.
Levels weren't thrown into the game as some design obstacle to inconvenience players, they were there to distinguish characters and provide structure.
The Old Timers Guild
Laid back, not so serious, no drama.
All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
My interpretation of "skill" is if i pickup a sword and swing it for the first time, I wont know how to use it.
The more I use the sword, the better I get at using it and what/where to swing at. Much the same for using any weapon/tool in any game.
Taking the example of the "sword". I start off with a wooden training sword, I train for 4 weeks (real time) for 4 hours a day, I would expect to be comfortable using it so I switch to a fairly solid metal sword.
Another 4 weeks (4hrs a day) down the line, I can try double handed swords, single blade, dual blade, different weight distribution between the hilt and blade. Mastering the sword, I learn newer strikes that impale, stun, critcally hit, etc etc
Now...... Try and build that mechanics into a game across mutliple weapons/tools and balance it
PS I am working on this game mechanic for my own game
Currently, skills in all games are not creative enough because lack of complete infrastructure to each class build. I think skill needs to be more diversified with more varieties which means more flexbility, once you chosen your race with racial traits then you can learn all type of skills you want. But if you want to be more specialized then you need to join a guild in the game such as rogue guild or mage guild and then the guild are not allow you to learn the other skill or you have not enough skill points or feat to join the guild whatsoever.
So this type of scenario background will generate a lot of quests until you join the guild. And it is easier to integrate skill point from exp as only one source, and then once you join a guild, you started with skill point which is different from player's exp.
Most game developers only want to use their own existed resources because it takes too long time to create different structures.
That's not a skill based game. That's a class based hybrid type. You should always be able to learn any skills you want with the skills that have the most EXP in them being your best skills and defining your character.
Melee having to face their target, switch weapon types in combat to penetrate certain armor types, switching armor sets in battle to defend against different magic types/melee is skill. Will you see this? doubt it.
Casters having to use a crosshair to aim and lock onto their target takes skill. knowing what to CC and when takes skill. Unless it has a big red X over the target...
Healing always takes skill as you have to monitor everyones health, debuffs, and have cognitive abilities to select who to heal and be aware of who is about to take serious damage. It is melee and casters that are easy mode right now.
Developers don't want that situation. See, they want to keep people around paying money and your blame it on the player approach loses business as customers walk. Not a smart idea from a devs point of view.
IF you spend all that time training swinging that sword at starting zone rats, I think you should quickly hit a limit. Having only time/use as a factor is too EZ mode for improving some skills. I would use a scheme where as your skill improves you need to face tougher opponents to get better. In fact, your skill vs the opponents in real combat would be the base to determine what kind of change in skill and by how much. The progression would also be non-linear so that adding a point with a new skill is easier than when you are near the top which will become very difficult to increase.
Developers don't want that situation. See, they want to keep people around paying money and your blame it on the player approach loses business as customers walk. Not a smart idea from a devs point of view.
That's not entirely true. If you try to drive a golf cart on a highway: who's fault is it? The golf cart maker or the idiot that thought a golf cart could go at least 55MPH? Maybe this analogy is too weak to use, but I think utility or intention versus assumption by customer(s) is what is the problem. Developers of games need to lay down the utility/intention of a game mechanic before even coding. Such ideas are not alien and often are found in other developments such as in the IT field (especially when cobbling together a system for a customer). A customer that takes a shrink-wrapped product like a game has to understand there are limitations set by the developer, and not by the player. The less limitations by the developer implies the more freedom for the player, especially to *bleep* up. If a player comes to a sandbox game thinking, "Gee, this will be a cake walk", then they *do* have it coming to them with no excuses. If that means some customers walk, I think that's acceptable: not everyone is fulfilled by the same product or service, otherwise there would only be one car manufacturer, one CPU manufacturer (for PCs, mainframes, *and* mobile devices), and one maker of any product or provider of any service. So, your assumption that everyone would walk away from such a game is silly at best, and your assumption that a customer's intent must match the developer's intent is equally silly.
-- Brede
Developers don't want that situation. See, they want to keep people around paying money and your blame it on the player approach loses business as customers walk. Not a smart idea from a devs point of view.
That's not entirely true. If you try to drive a golf cart on a highway: who's fault is it? The golf cart maker or the idiot that thought a golf cart could go at least 55MPH? Maybe this analogy is too weak to use, but I think utility or intention versus assumption by customer(s) is what is the problem. Developers of games need to lay down the utility/intention of a game mechanic before even coding. Such ideas are not alien and often are found in other developments such as in the IT field (especially when cobbling together a system for a customer). A customer that takes a shrink-wrapped product like a game has to understand there are limitations set by the developer, and not by the player. The less limitations by the developer implies the more freedom for the player, especially to *bleep* up. If a player comes to a sandbox game thinking, "Gee, this will be a cake walk", then they *do* have it coming to them with no excuses. If that means some customers walk, I think that's acceptable: not everyone is fulfilled by the same product or service, otherwise there would only be one car manufacturer, one CPU manufacturer (for PCs, mainframes, *and* mobile devices), and one maker of any product or provider of any service. So, your assumption that everyone would walk away from such a game is silly at best, and your assumption that a customer's intent must match the developer's intent is equally silly.
-- Brede
You are right I see the light. Putting all on the customers is genius.
Developers don't want that situation. See, they want to keep people around paying money and your blame it on the player approach loses business as customers walk. Not a smart idea from a devs point of view.
That's not entirely true. If you try to drive a golf cart on a highway: who's fault is it? The golf cart maker or the idiot that thought a golf cart could go at least 55MPH? Maybe this analogy is too weak to use, but I think utility or intention versus assumption by customer(s) is what is the problem. Developers of games need to lay down the utility/intention of a game mechanic before even coding. Such ideas are not alien and often are found in other developments such as in the IT field (especially when cobbling together a system for a customer). A customer that takes a shrink-wrapped product like a game has to understand there are limitations set by the developer, and not by the player. The less limitations by the developer implies the more freedom for the player, especially to *bleep* up. If a player comes to a sandbox game thinking, "Gee, this will be a cake walk", then they *do* have it coming to them with no excuses. If that means some customers walk, I think that's acceptable: not everyone is fulfilled by the same product or service, otherwise there would only be one car manufacturer, one CPU manufacturer (for PCs, mainframes, *and* mobile devices), and one maker of any product or provider of any service. So, your assumption that everyone would walk away from such a game is silly at best, and your assumption that a customer's intent must match the developer's intent is equally silly.
-- Brede
Asheron's call 1 had like 4 or 5 server worlds and at prime time they were all at around 1,500-2,000 people on. No one was walking away from it. They loved it. Turbine were complete fools for not making a true sequel to AC1. Instead they made some half assed EQ1 clone and stamped AC2 on it.
AC1's skill system failed because the devs didn't know what they were doing. Look at the Vagabond/Blademaster Templates. Look at the endurance stat. Look at the sword skill that cost 16 'points' to spec and the martial arts skill that cost 6 (for a long time, according to a dev's subsequent dps chart, MA did more damage - far more).
UO had a very large subscription base for a long time despite very shoddy service (a class action vs Ultima won) and 2D graphics.
Neither game lost vs EQ because of their skill systems.
Subsequent developers have just been assuming that most players don't want complexity - at least not at the beginning just out of the gate. They may not be wrong but I'm not one of the masses myself. I'd love to see another skill-based game. Game makers do have to be smarter than Turbine was but that's not hard considering hindsight and the other games we have to look at to predict what players will do and how to prioritize.
IF you spend all that time training swinging that sword at starting zone rats, I think you should quickly hit a limit. Having only time/use as a factor is too EZ mode for improving some skills. I would use a scheme where as your skill improves you need to face tougher opponents to get better. In fact, your skill vs the opponents in real combat would be the base to determine what kind of change in skill and by how much. The progression would also be non-linear so that adding a point with a new skill is easier than when you are near the top which will become very difficult to increase.
That is an interesting point and one to take on board.
in most skill based games you can get to some of the most powerful tiers in a minmal amount of time, however you will only be able to do one thing.
If a game has combat 100 skills this is what should happen: a newbie has 10 skills near maxed out, the veteran has 70 skills near maxed out. Now they get get into a competition(PvE, PvP, it doesn't matter) they will be very similar to each other in combat strength due to the fact that in combat you can only bring about 8 into the fight due to limiting factors: anything from requiring a weapon type, requiring focus, spell componets, didn't meditate recently, only being able to use a handful of high cost skills(balance requirement IE focus/mana/rage), or even the fact that combat doesn't last long enough for you to use more than 8 skills.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
MMO players in general are not skilled gamers, they are persistent gamers. Guild Wars PVP, prior to the expasions was as close to skill based as you can get. A good measure of a skill based game is if you can take a character, pratice for quite a while, then go and beat people of equal level and gear.
Guild Wars has been the only MMO to date that isn't based almost entirely on a characters gear or level. A level 1 with starter gear could actually beat a level 20 (the highest level)
A skilled player, which I was, used to take on 3-4 people at a time and come out a winner. If this happened in most MMOs the player base, rather than admit to being unskilled, would cry for a nerf. This is the reason you see so many whiners crying for nerfs in MMOs that specialize in PVP. Because the playerbase is very unskilled and can not admit to this fact, so in turn the game must be cheating.
You can't handle the skill!