I was always a fan of UO. I loved the fact that skills did not go up based on what you killed or how much exp the monster was worth, rather it was about challenging the particular skill or attribute you wanted to raise. If you wished to raise magery and intelligence you had to work with magery. You could teleport around town or you could cast fireballs. As long as it was a harder spell for you to cast it would help you in the long run. One seemingly forgotten aspect of UO is that there was no predefined time table on how long it would take to take a particular skill to grandmaster. Most people can say with definity that in COH or EQ it takes XXX hours to reach level 65. In UO it ranged depending on many variables; including the skill itself, what you were using to raise that skill and other environmental aspects as well. UO was not centered on reaching that next level it was more about customizability. And once you "finished" with your character, you always had the option to change him once again. There were no artificial bounds that predetermined what was available to your character. To the designers it was more important to feel unique then to have echelons of achievement. Games like EQ have very limited character customization. Even DAOC failed horribly in this avenue. Sadly, no company has come close to achieving what UO excelled at. Now, as we discuss the advantages to such a system, EA slowly but surely takes away those attributes that made UO so special. I'd still be playing UO if they had just left alone the mechanics and upgraded the graphics. I think many of us would be.
The thing UO missed was a metric that made the skill increase based on the skill used and the challenge on which it was used. Then perhaps a triviality metric that made the increases very small for skills not used on some challenge (like the teleporting example you used) when those skills are used a lot within a time limit or when they pose no challenge to the character anymore.
There's always some form of answer to the problems of any system, it just depends on how much time you want to spend on it. Character abilities and advancement seems to be a pretty pivotal system, which devs would find worthy of that time spent, one might think.
Originally posted by jimhus Bah - unrelated entirely. Many skill based systems were in place before EQ saw the light of day. No matter how I look at it - your statement is simply baffling in it's illogic.
Many systems? There were very few MMORPG's before 1998-99(The years of AC1 and EQ). About the only real known ones were UO, Meridian 59, and The Realm.
So no, unless your including MUD's in your countings, there were not many. And after EQ almost every single one that was released was class based.
So the only post with illogicalities is yours.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Originally posted by jimhus Bah - unrelated entirely. Many skill based systems were in place before EQ saw the light of day. No matter how I look at it - your statement is simply baffling in it's illogic.
Many systems? There were very few MMORPG's before 1998-99(The years of AC1 and EQ). About the only real known ones were UO, Meridian 59, and The Realm.
You'll have to point out to me where I said MMORPG (hint: I said systems, and there were plenty: MUDs/MOOs, SP PC games (TES II, TES III), along with the early MMORPGs).
So no, unless your including MUD's in your countings, there were not many. And after EQ almost every single one that was released was class based.
Most are hybrids of skills-talents and level based systems... which is the whole point of the thread I believe.
But the illogic was "What does the presence of EQ clones have to do with whether an ORPG is skills or level based?" Are you saying developers can't or shouldn't make skills based games? That you don't like skills based? That you don't like level based? Why you like one or the other? That no game could be commercially successful unless it copied EQ's formula? A list of advantages or disadvantages to each?
Nope, you offered no input or thought. You just sneered about EQ clones and wandered off.
So the only post with illogicalities is yours.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
Originally posted by aeric67 The thing UO missed was a metric that made the skill increase based on the skill used and the challenge on which it was used. Then perhaps a triviality metric that made the increases very small for skills not used on some challenge (like the teleporting example you used) when those skills are used a lot within a time limit or when they pose no challenge to the character anymore.
I think the TES games ignored this as well. AC1 considered your skill vs. the difficulty - but raising a skill thru use alone wasn't a big consideration once you were mid-level (unless you were macroing in a mana pool - fixed eventually). But a lot of og Mages were created in the mana pools before they did.
I do like the skills going up when you use them - but wouldn't want macroer/exploiters to use it as a portal to high powered characters.
You'll have to point out to me where I said MMORPG (hint: I said systems, and there were plenty: MUDs/MOOs, SP PC games (TES II, TES III), along with the early MMORPGs).
Uhm...And you're bringing up SP PC Games, and old style Muds when I'm talking about post EQ style MMORPG's because...?
I never said there weren't other games, especially older games that did not have systems as such. I was obviously though talking about the majority of post EQ MMORPG's, hence why I said EQ clone, it has to be a MMORPG and it has to be after the thing it was modeled after.
How you even have a basis to argue is beyond me, you seem to just be argueing for arguments sake.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
You'll have to point out to me where I said MMORPG (hint: I said systems, and there were plenty: MUDs/MOOs, SP PC games (TES II, TES III), along with the early MMORPGs).
Uhm...And you're bringing up SP PC Games, and old style Muds when I'm talking about post EQ style MMORPG's because...?
You know, nevermind dude. you just seem to be in this to just argue for argueings sake.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
Actually Finwe, I dont believe I ever mentioned EQ clones as part of the original post. I would rather this topic not veer off into an Eq bashing or other for that matter. The topic is strictly to do with a play style preference Finwe - whatever system it may happen to be on. Thanks
I believe that the increase in level based systems is rooted in what I believe is the fundamental flaw in mmorpg's. That is the lack of a "game over" whether in victory or loss. As there is no game over you keep playing until there is nothing left to do or you just plain get sick of it.
Now the developers of course want you to keep playing (and paying) as long as possible. The easiest way to do this is to extend "The grind", if you ever played a video game RPG you likely know what I am talking about, as long as the players can stand it. This is espallily true at higher levels.
What is one of the primary things that makes "the grind" bearable? Well to me that is the people you talk to and play with online. As I commonly see posts to the effect of - "if it wasn't for my friend, family member, guild members, etc, etc I would quit this game" I believe I am far from the only one who believes this.
Now as to how this relates to skill based Vs level based systems is the IMO a level based system is easier to promote interdependence among the various people and it is also easier for grouping to occur as people can generally tell what they are getting that way. This helps form the relationships that keep people in the games especially at the high end where the lack of a "game over" becomes more and more problematic.
A level based system also make for easier design of end game encounter's as a good skill based system allows for wide custumation it also make designing challenges for it more difficult though not impossible. As such it is easier to with the level based system and because of a relatively easier time designing encounters they can design more of them.
Fun encounters especially at the high end are IMO vital to keep people playing. The more there are the more chance there is of the masses experiencing them, or reasonably looking for to being able to experience them which helps keep people playing.
I personally like skill based systems as they as more able to let me be Anskier a powerful and feared archmagus as opposed to level58_Wizard_0128. In mmorpgs they seem to be becoming more and more group centric where you have to have groups to accomplish anything, perhaps I am in the minority when I say sometimes I just want to go off and adventure alone.
A skill based system tends to make this more possible. Some people say if you want to be alone then play single player games, and I do. But I play mmorpgs so I can interact with people if I want, not to be forced to do so. Sadly for me mmorpg's seem to be veering away from a unique "hero centric" so to speak approach to a more cookie cutter approach and I mourn.
Originally posted by Anskier I personally like skill based systems as they as more able to let me be Anskier a powerful and feared archmagus as opposed to level58_Wizard_0128. In mmorpgs they seem to be becoming more and more group centric where you have to have groups to accomplish anything, perhaps I am in the minority when I say sometimes I just want to go off and adventure alone. A skill based system tends to make this more possible. Some people say if you want to be alone then play single player games, and I do. But I play mmorpgs so I can interact with people if I want, not to be forced to do so. Sadly for me mmorpg's seem to be veering away from a unique "hero centric" so to speak approach to a more cookie cutter approach and I mourn.
Sorry for the rambling post Anskier
No apology necessary. Excellent post! I especially agree with the two paragraphs above.
I agree that 'grouping' has led to the mass of level based characters for the reason you stated. Unfortunately for me, it doesnt add to longevity of the game. The rote experience even when coupled with a great social environment leaves the overall experience lackluster and without challenge or fulfillment.
I can assure you that the mentality of "high-end" or "end-game" gameplay was not prevalent until EQ. What happened when you made 7x in UO? You kept playing because the world was interesting and the players made it so. Most players really didn't even "grind" skills either. You played the game the way you wanted to play it and the relevant skills raised accordingly. A few treks or adventures in the wilderness, with one's only concern was to find something interesting or surprising, would net adequet skill gain.
A game can survive past "the dreaded end-game" if it is built around being interesting from the get-go. Not as a trap to sucker in more monthly fees.
Originally posted by iceseraph The rote experience even when coupled with a great social environment leaves the overall experience lackluster and without challenge or fulfillment.
Yes it got to me as well sadly now I just log on occasion to see what my friends are up too and do something on occasion. I am reluctant to cancel and throw away all the time I have invested in the game.
Originally posted by Crabby I can assure you that the mentality of "high-end" or "end-game" gameplay was not prevalent until EQ. What happened when you made 7x in UO? You kept playing because the world was interesting and the players made it so. Most players really didn't even "grind" skills either. You played the game the way you wanted to play it and the relevant skills raised accordingly. A few treks or adventures in the wilderness, with one's only concern was to find something interesting or surprising, would net adequet skill gain. A game can survive past "the dreaded end-game" if it is built around being interesting from the get-go. Not as a trap to sucker in more monthly fees.
I only got to play UO for a brief time because of money/time considerations, it sounds like I really missed something unfortunately. I didn't really start playing till mmorpgs till EQ, and you are right that a good game can delay and perhaps overcome the end-game problem.
But I stand by what I said and still believe it is a very serious problem that must be accounted for from the ground up. Even then I do not truly believe that it can be overcome just delayed. But perhaps I just don't have the vision necessary to see how it can be done, I certainly hope that is the case anyway.
In games like AC and UO, they used a skill/attribute based system to develop your character. Even as early as char creation, you decided what skills and level of attributes your character would be based on. As you gained experience, you also decided where to invest that xp to build the char further whether it was to raise attributes such as health and strength or skills like archery or cooking. There were no limitations based on class as to what skill you could or couldn't train. Only the limitation of skill points and where you wanted to use them.
I played AC, but still haven't checked out UO. AC is roughly 25% Level Based and 75% Skill Based. When a player reaches a new level, they get new skill points that they decided where to put towards whatever skills they have. It is true in AC no two players are forced by the game to be the same. Magic users can use weapons, warriors can use magic, any character can use a bow and arrow - as long as they pick the skill.
Many MMOs seem to be adopting a level-based package system - you choose a class such as warrior, mage, etc. and you get a basic set of skills for that class. If you are a mage, for example, you start out the exact same as any other mage, you have the same health, the same spells, etc. As you gain levels you get a set number of additional health, etc and maybe the choice of advancing different spell paths. But basically you are the same as many others in your class other than your ability to control the character.
Blame two things for this:
1. EverQuest. Which is the best example of a level based game. It is 100% Level Based. When players reach level 46 they can start investing in AA points, which then turns EQ into being roughly 20% Skill Based and 80% Level Based. I won't go into detail on how AA points work.
2. The MMORPG moneymen. Just like in the music, movie, TV, clothing, toy, and car, industries - whenever one product is a hit, a success, the moneymen force all other new (and sometimes existing) products to be clones of the first successful product. In the MMORPG industry the moneymen are the ones to blame for forcing all new MMORPGs to follow the level based formula of the successful EverQuest.
I personally preferred the style of skills-based, I think it made the game much more strategic. While there could be 50 archers or mages, etc. in a guild, it was unlikely that any of them had identical abilities. It allowed for hybrid characters, which depending on your playing skill could be an incredible combination or an utter failure. It made rolling new characters interesting if only to see how well you could develop them. I just don't understand why so many of the new mmos have abandoned this style of character development.
I fully agree a Skill Based MMORPG is superior to a Level Based MMORPG. SklBsd has everything LvlBsd has. SklBsd has far more positives than negatives. Also, in looking at the most successful, most revolutionary MMORPGs - UO, AO, and SWG - they were all Skill Based. (EQ is just UO in 3-D Nothing else was new or revolutionary about it.)
Edit: perhaps I should elaborate on my definition of "level based". While I realize in skills based development the xp is earned as you level as are skill points, the 'level based' systems automatically increase attributes or simply allow a newer skill to be used in a "Cooke cutter" style as is described by another poster.
Level Based is usually defined exactly as you say, plus players have no choice aka must use pre-set templates. As soon as they make their character, they can tell ahead of time exactly how their character will be like at level 50.
Skill Based games can have levels, (like in AC, and AO), but they can also have absolutly no levels. The best example being SWG.
Something else: It is not always a case of "Skills vs Level". Most games are a mix, and some more than others. In AC in order for one to gain more skills, one must increase their level. But skills are of more importance, and make up the game more than levels. Then there is Anarchy Online. Which is roughly 50% Level Based and 50% Skill Based. Any character can learn any skill. But some learn certain skills easier than others depending on their Breed (race, species, etc...). What Level a player is also plays a big part in AO. A level 50 player can kill a level 80 player. But has zero chance vs a level 150 player.
IMHO the future will be less Level Based games (like EQ). But more hybrid games (like AO) that mix Level Based with Skill Based together in one game. EQ2 is further proof of this also. There will also be more Skill Based games. (like SWG which is 100% Skill Based.)
Having Skill Based game mechanics gives players more of a choice. That is the main attraction of Skill Based game mechanics. Which in turn makes players feel their character is more unique, more the result of their decisions... and not the decision of pre-set templates. Their character feels more personal.
I think perhaps one of the reasons games have turned away from skill based character development is the emphasis that seems to be placed on groups/teams in MMOs. Making characters dependent on one another increases the need for grouping/teaming .
Both Level Based, Skill Based, and Hybrid Based, MMORPGs can have it where players are dependant on each other. That is a result of the game DEVs. Last, there is a reason MMORPGs are not RPGs. "Massive Multiplayer Online" is suppose to lean more towards meeting the massive online community. Not lean towards soloing. That is just the nature of MMORPGs. If one does not like meeting other players, then they would save more money playing an offline RPG, instead of paying to play an online MMORPG as if it were a RPG.
Very few new games allow for char advance through pure soloing. Through not being able to select your own set of skills and attributes - your ability to be self sufficient is sacrificed.
All MMORPGs allow characters to advance IF they want to solo. In EQ any class can solo easily to level 30. And even to level 46 (but it is far harder.Some classes are easier than others.) In AO it is extreemly easy to solo the entire game - just pick easy customized missions, Hunt easy static bosses and/or henchmen either on the planet, or in the static dungeons. And SWG is definatly easy to solo since each character can learn 3 1/2 professions.
Some MMORPGs are just harder to solo than others. It is true most generally lean more towards grouping than soloing. Then again, that is the core of what a MMORPG is.
In most level/class based games, you are interdependent on other class chars to have maximum efficiency when hunting/questing etc. A good example of this is AO. And isnt that a large part of the fun of your character? The feeling of superiority, greatness, lol..or if you prefer "uberness"of the character you created?! How uber can you be if you are reduced to begging for the buffs necessary to complete your character or give you an added edge?
No, AO is not a good example. In AO buffing is a science. There is buffing, hardcore buffing, and uber-buffing. Any solo player can buff. If they push it they can get into hardcore buffing. (Having surgery done to get certain implants which allow them to get surgery for other implants, inorder to get a special implant. Its almost like building a house of cards.).
Then there is uber-buffing. That is when a player buffs theirself, and even use hardcore buffing, THEN go to other players to add buffs ontop of their buffs. Like building a house of cards on top of a house of cards.
This is very helpful in hardcore PvP. But in PvM/PvE all it means is the player will level up quicker, reach endgame/highgame quicker. Quicker than someone who does not go to other players for buffs. Going to other players for buffs is not madatory, or needed, in order to play AO. Except for hardcore PvP.
I personally like skill based systems as they as more able to let me be Anskier a powerful and feared archmagus as opposed to level58_Wizard_0128. In mmorpgs they seem to be becoming more and more group centric where you have to have groups to accomplish anything, perhaps I am in the minority when I say sometimes I just want to go off and adventure alone. A skill based system tends to make this more possible. [snip]
Some great points Anskier - especially the one on solo play. In a skill based world you can make your character independent of other player-classes. You can make a Melee that can heal himself or debuff mobs or a Mage that can tank, etc. Or some other truly unique combo that ends up being effective in ways no one considered. Or maybe just the way you -want- the character. Never as effective as a group - but viable under most conditions.
Originally posted by xplororor
Then there is Anarchy Online. Which is roughly 50% Level Based and 50% Skill Based. Any character can learn any skill. But some learn certain skills easier than others depending on their Breed (race, species, etc...). What Level a player is also plays a big part in AO.
AO is unique in the way they manage skills - the ease of raising them being based on race &//or class.
But, with the exception of the Agent, all classes have deep segregation on Nanos. No other class will Mongo except the Enforcer and no other class but MP will cast Composite Teachings/Masteries.
The more I think on it - AO was very nearly my "ideal" setup for character development. If 90% of the nanos that were class specific were made available to all classes: it would have been close to perfect.
Would have made a shambles of balance and destroyed the Agent class... but oh well.
Comments
I prefere skill base system imo for numerous reasons i won't list here.
Not many games did a good job at it though, except UO & more recently Saga of Ryzom who has the deepest skill base system i've seen for years.
( bit like the rpg Morrowind but even more intricate & balanced ).
****************************
Playing : Uncharted Waters Online
****************************
========================
Pker.org
Join eRepublik today!
The thing UO missed was a metric that made the skill increase based on the skill used and the challenge on which it was used. Then perhaps a triviality metric that made the increases very small for skills not used on some challenge (like the teleporting example you used) when those skills are used a lot within a time limit or when they pose no challenge to the character anymore.
There's always some form of answer to the problems of any system, it just depends on how much time you want to spend on it. Character abilities and advancement seems to be a pretty pivotal system, which devs would find worthy of that time spent, one might think.
Many systems? There were very few MMORPG's before 1998-99(The years of AC1 and EQ). About the only real known ones were UO, Meridian 59, and The Realm.
So no, unless your including MUD's in your countings, there were not many. And after EQ almost every single one that was released was class based.
So the only post with illogicalities is yours.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Many systems? There were very few MMORPG's before 1998-99(The years of AC1 and EQ). About the only real known ones were UO, Meridian 59, and The Realm.
You'll have to point out to me where I said MMORPG (hint: I said systems, and there were plenty: MUDs/MOOs, SP PC games (TES II, TES III), along with the early MMORPGs).
So no, unless your including MUD's in your countings, there were not many. And after EQ almost every single one that was released was class based.
Most are hybrids of skills-talents and level based systems... which is the whole point of the thread I believe.
But the illogic was "What does the presence of EQ clones have to do with whether an ORPG is skills or level based?" Are you saying developers can't or shouldn't make skills based games? That you don't like skills based? That you don't like level based? Why you like one or the other? That no game could be commercially successful unless it copied EQ's formula? A list of advantages or disadvantages to each?
Nope, you offered no input or thought. You just sneered about EQ clones and wandered off.
So the only post with illogicalities is yours.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
Bah again - fix your quote.
I think the TES games ignored this as well. AC1 considered your skill vs. the difficulty - but raising a skill thru use alone wasn't a big consideration once you were mid-level (unless you were macroing in a mana pool - fixed eventually). But a lot of og Mages were created in the mana pools before they did.
I do like the skills going up when you use them - but wouldn't want macroer/exploiters to use it as a portal to high powered characters.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
You'll have to point out to me where I said MMORPG (hint: I said systems, and there were plenty: MUDs/MOOs, SP PC games (TES II, TES III), along with the early MMORPGs).
Uhm...And you're bringing up SP PC Games, and old style Muds when I'm talking about post EQ style MMORPG's because...?
You know, nevermind dude. you just seem to be in this to just argue for argueings sake.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
Actually Finwe, I dont believe I ever mentioned EQ clones as part of the original post. I would rather this topic not veer off into an Eq bashing or other for that matter. The topic is strictly to do with a play style preference Finwe - whatever system it may happen to be on. Thanks
I believe that the increase in level based systems is rooted in what I believe is the fundamental flaw in mmorpg's. That is the lack of a "game over" whether in victory or loss. As there is no game over you keep playing until there is nothing left to do or you just plain get sick of it.
Now the developers of course want you to keep playing (and paying) as long as possible. The easiest way to do this is to extend "The grind", if you ever played a video game RPG you likely know what I am talking about, as long as the players can stand it. This is espallily true at higher levels.
What is one of the primary things that makes "the grind" bearable? Well to me that is the people you talk to and play with online. As I commonly see posts to the effect of - "if it wasn't for my friend, family member, guild members, etc, etc I would quit this game" I believe I am far from the only one who believes this.
Now as to how this relates to skill based Vs level based systems is the IMO a level based system is easier to promote interdependence among the various people and it is also easier for grouping to occur as people can generally tell what they are getting that way. This helps form the relationships that keep people in the games especially at the high end where the lack of a "game over" becomes more and more problematic.
A level based system also make for easier design of end game encounter's as a good skill based system allows for wide custumation it also make designing challenges for it more difficult though not impossible. As such it is easier to with the level based system and because of a relatively easier time designing encounters they can design more of them.
Fun encounters especially at the high end are IMO vital to keep people playing. The more there are the more chance there is of the masses experiencing them, or reasonably looking for to being able to experience them which helps keep people playing.
I personally like skill based systems as they as more able to let me be Anskier a powerful and feared archmagus as opposed to level58_Wizard_0128. In mmorpgs they seem to be becoming more and more group centric where you have to have groups to accomplish anything, perhaps I am in the minority when I say sometimes I just want to go off and adventure alone.
A skill based system tends to make this more possible. Some people say if you want to be alone then play single player games, and I do. But I play mmorpgs so I can interact with people if I want, not to be forced to do so. Sadly for me mmorpg's seem to be veering away from a unique "hero centric" so to speak approach to a more cookie cutter approach and I mourn.
Sorry for the rambling post
Anskier
-=Surf=-
-=Surf=-
No apology necessary. Excellent post! I especially agree with the two paragraphs above.
I agree that 'grouping' has led to the mass of level based characters for the reason you stated. Unfortunately for me, it doesnt add to longevity of the game. The rote experience even when coupled with a great social environment leaves the overall experience lackluster and without challenge or fulfillment.
I can assure you that the mentality of "high-end" or "end-game" gameplay was not prevalent until EQ. What happened when you made 7x in UO? You kept playing because the world was interesting and the players made it so. Most players really didn't even "grind" skills either. You played the game the way you wanted to play it and the relevant skills raised accordingly. A few treks or adventures in the wilderness, with one's only concern was to find something interesting or surprising, would net adequet skill gain.
A game can survive past "the dreaded end-game" if it is built around being interesting from the get-go. Not as a trap to sucker in more monthly fees.
Yes it got to me as well sadly now I just log on occasion to see what my friends are up too and do something on occasion. I am reluctant to cancel and throw away all the time I have invested in the game.
I only got to play UO for a brief time because of money/time considerations, it sounds like I really missed something unfortunately. I didn't really start playing till mmorpgs till EQ, and you are right that a good game can delay and perhaps overcome the end-game problem.
But I stand by what I said and still believe it is a very serious problem that must be accounted for from the ground up. Even then I do not truly believe that it can be overcome just delayed. But perhaps I just don't have the vision necessary to see how it can be done, I certainly hope that is the case anyway.
Anskier
Level Based is usually defined exactly as you say, plus players have no choice aka must use pre-set templates. As soon as they make their character, they can tell ahead of time exactly how their character will be like at level 50.
Skill Based games can have levels, (like in AC, and AO), but they can also have absolutly no levels. The best example being SWG.
Something else: It is not always a case of "Skills vs Level". Most games are a mix, and some more than others. In AC in order for one to gain more skills, one must increase their level. But skills are of more importance, and make up the game more than levels. Then there is Anarchy Online. Which is roughly 50% Level Based and 50% Skill Based. Any character can learn any skill. But some learn certain skills easier than others depending on their Breed (race, species, etc...). What Level a player is also plays a big part in AO. A level 50 player can kill a level 80 player. But has zero chance vs a level 150 player.
IMHO the future will be less Level Based games (like EQ). But more hybrid games (like AO) that mix Level Based with Skill Based together in one game. EQ2 is further proof of this also. There will also be more Skill Based games. (like SWG which is 100% Skill Based.)
Having Skill Based game mechanics gives players more of a choice. That is the main attraction of Skill Based game mechanics. Which in turn makes players feel their character is more unique, more the result of their decisions... and not the decision of pre-set templates. Their character feels more personal.
-Personal Website (A Work in progress):
http://www.geocities.com/xplororor/index.html
-AC, AC2, AO, EQ, SWG:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor
-More SWG:
http://community.webshots.com/user/capt_xplororor
-EverQuest II:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor_eq2archives01
-EQ, Dungeon Siege, Diablo II, *UXO*:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor_archives01
-EVE Online !!!
http://community.webshots.com/user/sica_xol_archives01
No, AO is not a good example. In AO buffing is a science. There is buffing, hardcore buffing, and uber-buffing. Any solo player can buff. If they push it they can get into hardcore buffing. (Having surgery done to get certain implants which allow them to get surgery for other implants, inorder to get a special implant. Its almost like building a house of cards.).
Then there is uber-buffing. That is when a player buffs theirself, and even use hardcore buffing, THEN go to other players to add buffs ontop of their buffs. Like building a house of cards on top of a house of cards.
This is very helpful in hardcore PvP. But in PvM/PvE all it means is the player will level up quicker, reach endgame/highgame quicker. Quicker than someone who does not go to other players for buffs. Going to other players for buffs is not madatory, or needed, in order to play AO. Except for hardcore PvP.
-Personal Website (A Work in progress):
http://www.geocities.com/xplororor/index.html
-AC, AC2, AO, EQ, SWG:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor
-More SWG:
http://community.webshots.com/user/capt_xplororor
-EverQuest II:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor_eq2archives01
-EQ, Dungeon Siege, Diablo II, *UXO*:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor_archives01
-EVE Online !!!
http://community.webshots.com/user/sica_xol_archives01
Some great points Anskier - especially the one on solo play. In a skill based world you can make your character independent of other player-classes. You can make a Melee that can heal himself or debuff mobs or a Mage that can tank, etc. Or some other truly unique combo that ends up being effective in ways no one considered. Or maybe just the way you -want- the character. Never as effective as a group - but viable under most conditions.
AO is unique in the way they manage skills - the ease of raising them being based on race &//or class.
But, with the exception of the Agent, all classes have deep segregation on Nanos. No other class will Mongo except the Enforcer and no other class but MP will cast Composite Teachings/Masteries.
The more I think on it - AO was very nearly my "ideal" setup for character development. If 90% of the nanos that were class specific were made available to all classes: it would have been close to perfect.
Would have made a shambles of balance and destroyed the Agent class... but oh well.
Nice analysis xplororor!