then : "Congratulations, your swordmanship raised by 1"
i much rather see :
"congratulations, you are now master swordsman"
than: "you have killed dragon you gain 128 / 5,000,000 xp"
if you want to compare something make sure you compare the right things mate.
I would like to see:
"Congratulations, your now level 87" and "Congratulations, you are now master swordsman".
But that doesn't happen. What does happen is:
"Congratulations, you gain 128 / 5,000,000 xp" and "Congratulations, your swordsmanship raised by 1".
If you want to compare something then make sure you compare the right things mate. You are still leveling up either way, whether its your character or a single skill.
thats what i meant, i was just showing him that i can say the complete oposite for a skill based game
i completely agree with you
then again what would a game be without progression of any kind...if its story progression then you have single player adventure games. level based you got all RPG games, in soccer you have tournaments where you progress in ranking... a game requires progression to be a game.
I have no clue what "skillbased vs levelbased" is supposed to be. Levels arent in conflict with skills.
You can have levels in a skillbased game just fine, like in the TES games (TES4 Oblivion, upcoming TES5 Skyrim). They are simply a number that specify how much you have progressed.
And you can have a classbased game without levels. A good example for this was "Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines".
The conflict is "classbased vs skillbased". Where a class is some sort of container that gives you access to a limited number of skills. Possibly a fixed set of skills that progress in a predefined order, but also possibly a larger number of skills which you can develop according to your preferences, like with D&D3.x.
Having a level is useful and needed for games that offer a large difference in power, depending upon your progress, to help rating your power and to offer you still challenging opponents.
I massively prefer classbased. I have yet to see any skillbased game that is any fun. The reason is simple: by limiting the choices, classes allow a much larger array of possibilities.
Lets take one simple example: the Paladin.
Paladins are a mix between the tank, the class that stands at the front and takes the beating, and the cleric, the guy who can heal.
In a skillbased game that has any idea of balance, i.e. where its not like in TES games and you cannot max everything to 100 and be the Grand Warrior, Master Thief, and Archmage of the game at the same time, but have to make choices, you will get the following choices:
(a) Your Paladin turns into the best tank possible. Giving him healing skills is pointless, because he will have maxed his body attributes and his healing skills are honestly a waste of time.
(b) Your Paladin is an inferior tank. You managed to give him some noteworthy healing skills. Still his ability to heal is mediocre in comparison to real healers. You have a screwed up character - not really able to tank, not really able to heal.
(c) Your Paladin is a full healer. Tanking skills ? Pretty much nonexistent.
Only setup (b) is actually a Paladin. But he's screwed up, because he's no full tank and his healing skills are inferior.
While in a classbased game, none of this is a problem. As the class designer has full control over your character, he can give you healing skills that would be extremely unbalanced in a skillbased game - meaning they will offer about as much healing as a full healer, only you will have much more downtime. And your tanking abilities can be made on par with every other tank.
So now you'll have a tank that is actually useful - able to heal in emergencies, and able to tank.
And thats just the start of it. You can also offer completely different approaches to the game. An example are the Sorcerer and Wizard class from D&D 3.x. The abilities these classes can have are actually the same - but the approach to access them is completely different.
Another example are point systems. In Vanguard, many classes had such point systems.
For example, the Blood Mage could build "blood points" on the actual opponent. Depending upon his skill useage, he could get the blood points up to the maximum of 5 and then use various abilities to use them up, such as a skill that simply discarded all blood points for damage.
Or the Paladin had "valor points" instead. Valor points would build up slowly over time. They could be used for things like massive spike dps, or healing for allies.
All these point systems in Vanguard have been different.
I don't like skill based systems. In theory it sounds amazing. However, in reality it doesn't work so well. Leveling up is more fun cause your character grows in strength much faster. You gain one/two level and you notice the difference. Skill based games suffer from the problem that you get +1 to x feature and you barely even notice.
Leveling up skills feels like you are filling in a bar (1 to 100). Skill based systems promote a lot of boring play and it's not fun. I think leveling up should be something that just happens while you are playing the game. In level based game you play and have fun while you are gaining levels. In skill based games you just go out and to skill up.
Class based systems limit your freedom but give you more unique abilities and mechanics.
Of course, skill based systems have their advantages but definitely not what I'd like from an RPG.
Originally posted by Laserwolf
Of Course Skill Based is better. The only big game out there besides UO to use Skill-Based was SWG and now they have gone to Level Based because they think THAT is the reason no one wants to play their game.
Skill based systems are overrated. There are many reasons why one would prefer a leveling based system. Both have advantages and disadvatanges but it is not a no brainer decision.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
in PnP games, levels were a great progression system when making characters specifically for each campaign, but anyone that has tried any manner of persistence with their characters easily saw how flawed the system was even within that 12-14 level span. That anyone thought it would work with persistence over a greater length of time with far more levels is simply ridiculous. Skill-based, all the way.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think that many of the problems mmos face come from levelbased design. You have leveling and then 'endgame' which for many ppl becomes boring fast comparing to time when they were leveling. I've played classisc D&D for years and never reached something that could be called 'end game' and it's similiar in singleplayer rpgs, when u reach max level u ussualy finished (or atleast almost finished) game.
Todays mmos are basicly split into 2 games, first you have levelbased part where you level your character to max. level and then you have something that could be called "gearbased", where your progression continues only by improving your gear. It's not like you have nothing to do at endgame, but feeling your progression was suddenly cut is always there.
Reason why i realy liked gw1, was becouse leveling part was very short and leveling feeled just like introduction, I realy loved 'hunting' elite skills and imo they were reason why reaching lvl 20 didnt felt like ur done. I was realy dissapointed when i found out that in gw2 they ( imo ) use same flawed design as most others AAA mmos.
Imo developers should ditch leveling from mmos completly, it splits game into 2 parts and it is much less important part of the mmorpg game.
Hmm, well I can see people liking one and not the other. I think there is room for both. A hybrid system might be the best. EVE is kind of a hybrid system. I like how in EVE you can get 80% of a skill in a couple days of training. I really think that skill based MMOs should be similar. Maybe the first 50 out of a hundred makes more of a difference and is easier to get than the last 50. Thus while a player at 100 will be better than one at 50 they aren't significantly better.
That kind of highlights the problem with a lot of MMOs. They can be very tough for a new player to get into. For instance. I was playing WoW for a while and jumped on a PVP server because I had some friends on there. Well I was doing some quests on the border between the two alliances and was getting constantly insta-killed from a guy 50 levels higher than me. That is very frusterating beacuse until I am within a few levels of him, even if there was 50 of me, I couldn't beat him. One hit from them and I'm dead. I like how in EVE I could be a new player in a frigate and I could actually assist in taking out someone who has been playing for 5 years. Sure it would be tough and depending on the situation I probably couldn't do it myself. But I can actually help and may just be able to take him out.
Anywho, I think I prefer a skill based system done right.
As long as the game is a good game, I really don't mind how my character develops, as long as it develops.
I don't understand why people are bringing in the idea of class based system, it is a parallel idea to the skill based progressiong or level based progression, you can have skill based progression with class based mechanics together.
It doesn't matter that much to me on how my character progresses, as long as it involves tactical choices and physical skill like placing traps or aiming arrows in terms of combat(not the whole grind my way to train my swordmanship up, sounds stupid really, practically the same as a level based system).
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
I find skilled based games alot more easier and fun. Its fun to build characters in a skilled base game, I find level based games really competitive and uneven.
I really think the two could be combined to create a much deeper and more meaningful system. For example the skill system could be used for advancement in character power while the leveling system could be for appearance, only as a sort of prestige system. For example you could take EVEs skill system and make it so that when you reach lvl x you unlock the ability to have a new hull design or something along these lines. This way you have a leveling system that shows advancement by time spent in game without necessarily gimping a players usefulness just because they are more casual. This is obviously just my opinion but what do you guys think?
This discussion was valid before Darkfall when skill based game meant something, now that they managed to make a skill based game feel like a level based game, this discussion is just a mess.
Until skill-based can provide (a) varied, distinct playstyles, (b) a convenient metric of power and (c) exciting moments of progression, level-based will tend to be superior. (And if you solve A, B, and C you'll have created a system which basically is a level-based game.)
A few skill-based games come close, and AC's hybrid skill/level system was strong, but most skill-based games just water characters down into faceless blurs indistinguishable from the other faceless blurs.
I don't think level-based is the only way to make a fun game, but I feel there are very real development-evolutionary reasons why Level has emerged a clear "victor" in systems design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Skilled based of course. And i dont mind if its not blanced. There is always a bigger fish. Just find a template you are happy with and play the role in the game as you want it. Not how the devs want it....
Hauken Stormchaser I want pre-CU back Station.com : We got your game Yeah?, Well i want it back!!!
Until skill-based can provide (a) varied, distinct playstyles....
I stopped there as there was no point in reading that further. What are you basing that on? Outside of maybe Darkfall and turn of the century UO, what makes you think that skill-based MMOs can't and don't already offer that?
Free Realms, Ultima Online, EVE Online, and Puzzle Pirates are successful skill-based MMOs that all prove that tired talking point completly wrong,
Horizons is one of the few level-based MMOs where you can actually level up as something other than a Guy Who Kills Stuff. Most level-based games offer Killer as the only path of progression. In EVE, UO, Puzzle Pirates, Free Realms, ATITD and MMOs with skill-based progression, a person can advance a character as a baker, miner, treasure hunter, blacksmith, scribe, alchemist, tailor, merchant, etc without ever having to kill anyone. I
It's a myth, and an easily debunked one, at that. Gotta let go, man.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I tend to agree with Axe. Skill based games typically seem like they offer less distinct gameplay. In truth they offer more however... I'll take Ryzom for example and compar eto EQ or WoW.
In WoW when I level my 1hs and 2hs and 1hb all go up.
In Ryzom I train dual wield on a mob, for 3 months, then train 2hs on the same mobs for three months doing the same actions, than same for 1hb and 2hb - it is incredibly monotonous and gives the very real perception that there is no variety.
Horizons is different in some ways as I change classes I don't lose the skills of the last class. So I train paladin and get hp, health, strenght to a certain point then decide to go warrior and still have most of the last characters abiliteis. However I still have to swing that damn sword at those same damn mobs for months to bring warrior up. Again it is very grindy, very repetitive and makes one skill/class seem to be a carbon copy of another with a different number attached to it.
So yes between skill levels there does seem to be less variety.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I tend to agree with Axe. Skill based games typically seem like they offer less distinct gameplay. In truth they offer more however... I'll take Ryzom for example and compar eto EQ or WoW.
In WoW when I level my 1hs and 2hs and 1hb all go up.
In Ryzom I train dual wield on a mob, for 3 months, then train 2hs on the same mobs for three months doing the same actions, than same for 1hb and 2hb - it is incredibly monotonous and gives the very real perception that there is no variety.
Is that something new in WOW? I haven't played in years, but when I did play, if I wanted to start using 2H when I always used 1H, I'd have to take that 2H out to something I can actually hit reliably in order to train it up from one. That's a very welcomed change if that's no longer necessary.
Skill-based games can also raise your skills with your character's overall progression. An example would be Asheron's Call, where skills have a base value generated by your attributes. As a player levels up and raises his attrivutes, so does his base skill raise in everything he has trained. AC players can also allocate skill points gained from other activities to raise a particular skill, so if one wants a skill solely for its high end use, they can apply points from the activities they enjoy doing to the skill they rather only use once it's at a decent level.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I tend to agree with Axe. Skill based games typically seem like they offer less distinct gameplay. In truth they offer more however... I'll take Ryzom for example and compar eto EQ or WoW.
In WoW when I level my 1hs and 2hs and 1hb all go up.
In Ryzom I train dual wield on a mob, for 3 months, then train 2hs on the same mobs for three months doing the same actions, than same for 1hb and 2hb - it is incredibly monotonous and gives the very real perception that there is no variety.
Is that something new in WOW? I haven't played in years, but when I did play, if I wanted to start using 2H when I always used 1H, I'd have to take that 2H out to something I can actually hit reliably in order to train it up from one. That's a very welcomed change if that's no longer necessary.
Skill-based games can also raise your skills with your character's overall progression. An example would be Asheron's Call, where skills have a base value generated by your attributes. As a player levels up and raises his attrivutes, so does his base skill raise in everything he has trained. AC players can also allocate skill points gained from other activities to raise a particular skill, so if one wants a skill solely for its high end use, they can apply points from the activities they enjoy doing to the skill they rather only use once it's at a decent level.
Yes it's been like that for awhile now in Wow, can't remember when it changed. But even before the skill went up very quickly.
For AC - never played it but if more skill based systems would do something like that it would be great. Too many of them require you to train up that skill and to top it off don't make the training go faster or anything so it takes the exact same amount of time on typically the same mob. It gets dull very quick.
More games should offer AC's type or skill or at least Istaria (HZ's) type where you don't lose the skill.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I tend to agree with Axe. Skill based games typically seem like they offer less distinct gameplay. In truth they offer more however... I'll take Ryzom for example and compar eto EQ or WoW.
In WoW when I level my 1hs and 2hs and 1hb all go up.
In Ryzom I train dual wield on a mob, for 3 months, then train 2hs on the same mobs for three months doing the same actions, than same for 1hb and 2hb - it is incredibly monotonous and gives the very real perception that there is no variety.
Is that something new in WOW? I haven't played in years, but when I did play, if I wanted to start using 2H when I always used 1H, I'd have to take that 2H out to something I can actually hit reliably in order to train it up from one. That's a very welcomed change if that's no longer necessary.
Skill-based games can also raise your skills with your character's overall progression. An example would be Asheron's Call, where skills have a base value generated by your attributes. As a player levels up and raises his attrivutes, so does his base skill raise in everything he has trained. AC players can also allocate skill points gained from other activities to raise a particular skill, so if one wants a skill solely for its high end use, they can apply points from the activities they enjoy doing to the skill they rather only use once it's at a decent level.
I honestly think thats what i loved about Asherons Call leveling system the most.
It wasnt about the number you see " my level " that kept me going, it was about getting that XP to raise up my attributes and skills. i need that XP to raise my War Magic so higher level mobs would resist less. or i needed that XP to raise up my Magic Defense so when i pvped i had a higher chance to resist spells from other players.
awsome skill system each player had total control over how he built his character.
then : "Congratulations, your swordmanship raised by 1"
i much rather see :
"congratulations, you are now master swordsman"
than: "you have killed dragon you gain 128 / 5,000,000 xp"
if you want to compare something make sure you compare the right things mate.
I would like to see:
"Congratulations, your now level 87" and "Congratulations, you are now master swordsman".
But that doesn't happen. What does happen is:
"Congratulations, you gain 128 / 5,000,000 xp" and "Congratulations, your swordsmanship raised by 1".
If you want to compare something then make sure you compare the right things mate. You are still leveling up either way, whether its your character or a single skill.
I don't care whether I am now Level 87 or MAster Swordsman. I don't want to be focusing on whay my level is or how skilled I have become. i want to focus on completing the assigned tasks. That's what games should focus on not you level or skill.
I tend to agree with Axe. Skill based games typically seem like they offer less distinct gameplay. In truth they offer more however... I'll take Ryzom for example and compar eto EQ or WoW.
In WoW when I level my 1hs and 2hs and 1hb all go up.
In Ryzom I train dual wield on a mob, for 3 months, then train 2hs on the same mobs for three months doing the same actions, than same for 1hb and 2hb - it is incredibly monotonous and gives the very real perception that there is no variety.
Is that something new in WOW? I haven't played in years, but when I did play, if I wanted to start using 2H when I always used 1H, I'd have to take that 2H out to something I can actually hit reliably in order to train it up from one. That's a very welcomed change if that's no longer necessary.
Skill-based games can also raise your skills with your character's overall progression. An example would be Asheron's Call, where skills have a base value generated by your attributes. As a player levels up and raises his attrivutes, so does his base skill raise in everything he has trained. AC players can also allocate skill points gained from other activities to raise a particular skill, so if one wants a skill solely for its high end use, they can apply points from the activities they enjoy doing to the skill they rather only use once it's at a decent level.
Yes it's been like that for awhile now in Wow, can't remember when it changed. But even before the skill went up very quickly.
For AC - never played it but if more skill based systems would do something like that it would be great. Too many of them require you to train up that skill and to top it off don't make the training go faster or anything so it takes the exact same amount of time on typically the same mob. It gets dull very quick.
More games should offer AC's type or skill or at least Istaria (HZ's) type where you don't lose the skill.
Comments
thats what i meant, i was just showing him that i can say the complete oposite for a skill based game
i completely agree with you
then again what would a game be without progression of any kind...if its story progression then you have single player adventure games. level based you got all RPG games, in soccer you have tournaments where you progress in ranking... a game requires progression to be a game.
I have no clue what "skillbased vs levelbased" is supposed to be. Levels arent in conflict with skills.
You can have levels in a skillbased game just fine, like in the TES games (TES4 Oblivion, upcoming TES5 Skyrim). They are simply a number that specify how much you have progressed.
And you can have a classbased game without levels. A good example for this was "Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines".
The conflict is "classbased vs skillbased". Where a class is some sort of container that gives you access to a limited number of skills. Possibly a fixed set of skills that progress in a predefined order, but also possibly a larger number of skills which you can develop according to your preferences, like with D&D3.x.
Having a level is useful and needed for games that offer a large difference in power, depending upon your progress, to help rating your power and to offer you still challenging opponents.
I massively prefer classbased. I have yet to see any skillbased game that is any fun. The reason is simple: by limiting the choices, classes allow a much larger array of possibilities.
Lets take one simple example: the Paladin.
Paladins are a mix between the tank, the class that stands at the front and takes the beating, and the cleric, the guy who can heal.
In a skillbased game that has any idea of balance, i.e. where its not like in TES games and you cannot max everything to 100 and be the Grand Warrior, Master Thief, and Archmage of the game at the same time, but have to make choices, you will get the following choices:
(a) Your Paladin turns into the best tank possible. Giving him healing skills is pointless, because he will have maxed his body attributes and his healing skills are honestly a waste of time.
(b) Your Paladin is an inferior tank. You managed to give him some noteworthy healing skills. Still his ability to heal is mediocre in comparison to real healers. You have a screwed up character - not really able to tank, not really able to heal.
(c) Your Paladin is a full healer. Tanking skills ? Pretty much nonexistent.
Only setup (b) is actually a Paladin. But he's screwed up, because he's no full tank and his healing skills are inferior.
While in a classbased game, none of this is a problem. As the class designer has full control over your character, he can give you healing skills that would be extremely unbalanced in a skillbased game - meaning they will offer about as much healing as a full healer, only you will have much more downtime. And your tanking abilities can be made on par with every other tank.
So now you'll have a tank that is actually useful - able to heal in emergencies, and able to tank.
And thats just the start of it. You can also offer completely different approaches to the game. An example are the Sorcerer and Wizard class from D&D 3.x. The abilities these classes can have are actually the same - but the approach to access them is completely different.
Another example are point systems. In Vanguard, many classes had such point systems.
For example, the Blood Mage could build "blood points" on the actual opponent. Depending upon his skill useage, he could get the blood points up to the maximum of 5 and then use various abilities to use them up, such as a skill that simply discarded all blood points for damage.
Or the Paladin had "valor points" instead. Valor points would build up slowly over time. They could be used for things like massive spike dps, or healing for allies.
All these point systems in Vanguard have been different.
I don't like skill based systems. In theory it sounds amazing. However, in reality it doesn't work so well. Leveling up is more fun cause your character grows in strength much faster. You gain one/two level and you notice the difference. Skill based games suffer from the problem that you get +1 to x feature and you barely even notice.
Leveling up skills feels like you are filling in a bar (1 to 100). Skill based systems promote a lot of boring play and it's not fun. I think leveling up should be something that just happens while you are playing the game. In level based game you play and have fun while you are gaining levels. In skill based games you just go out and to skill up.
Class based systems limit your freedom but give you more unique abilities and mechanics.
Of course, skill based systems have their advantages but definitely not what I'd like from an RPG.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
in PnP games, levels were a great progression system when making characters specifically for each campaign, but anyone that has tried any manner of persistence with their characters easily saw how flawed the system was even within that 12-14 level span. That anyone thought it would work with persistence over a greater length of time with far more levels is simply ridiculous. Skill-based, all the way.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think that many of the problems mmos face come from levelbased design. You have leveling and then 'endgame' which for many ppl becomes boring fast comparing to time when they were leveling. I've played classisc D&D for years and never reached something that could be called 'end game' and it's similiar in singleplayer rpgs, when u reach max level u ussualy finished (or atleast almost finished) game.
Todays mmos are basicly split into 2 games, first you have levelbased part where you level your character to max. level and then you have something that could be called "gearbased", where your progression continues only by improving your gear. It's not like you have nothing to do at endgame, but feeling your progression was suddenly cut is always there.
Reason why i realy liked gw1, was becouse leveling part was very short and leveling feeled just like introduction, I realy loved 'hunting' elite skills and imo they were reason why reaching lvl 20 didnt felt like ur done. I was realy dissapointed when i found out that in gw2 they ( imo ) use same flawed design as most others AAA mmos.
Imo developers should ditch leveling from mmos completly, it splits game into 2 parts and it is much less important part of the mmorpg game.
Hmm, well I can see people liking one and not the other. I think there is room for both. A hybrid system might be the best. EVE is kind of a hybrid system. I like how in EVE you can get 80% of a skill in a couple days of training. I really think that skill based MMOs should be similar. Maybe the first 50 out of a hundred makes more of a difference and is easier to get than the last 50. Thus while a player at 100 will be better than one at 50 they aren't significantly better.
That kind of highlights the problem with a lot of MMOs. They can be very tough for a new player to get into. For instance. I was playing WoW for a while and jumped on a PVP server because I had some friends on there. Well I was doing some quests on the border between the two alliances and was getting constantly insta-killed from a guy 50 levels higher than me. That is very frusterating beacuse until I am within a few levels of him, even if there was 50 of me, I couldn't beat him. One hit from them and I'm dead. I like how in EVE I could be a new player in a frigate and I could actually assist in taking out someone who has been playing for 5 years. Sure it would be tough and depending on the situation I probably couldn't do it myself. But I can actually help and may just be able to take him out.
Anywho, I think I prefer a skill based system done right.
As long as the game is a good game, I really don't mind how my character develops, as long as it develops.
I don't understand why people are bringing in the idea of class based system, it is a parallel idea to the skill based progressiong or level based progression, you can have skill based progression with class based mechanics together.
It doesn't matter that much to me on how my character progresses, as long as it involves tactical choices and physical skill like placing traps or aiming arrows in terms of combat(not the whole grind my way to train my swordmanship up, sounds stupid really, practically the same as a level based system).
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
I find skilled based games alot more easier and fun. Its fun to build characters in a skilled base game, I find level based games really competitive and uneven.
I really think the two could be combined to create a much deeper and more meaningful system. For example the skill system could be used for advancement in character power while the leveling system could be for appearance, only as a sort of prestige system. For example you could take EVEs skill system and make it so that when you reach lvl x you unlock the ability to have a new hull design or something along these lines. This way you have a leveling system that shows advancement by time spent in game without necessarily gimping a players usefulness just because they are more casual. This is obviously just my opinion but what do you guys think?
This discussion was valid before Darkfall when skill based game meant something, now that they managed to make a skill based game feel like a level based game, this discussion is just a mess.
Until skill-based can provide (a) varied, distinct playstyles, (b) a convenient metric of power and (c) exciting moments of progression, level-based will tend to be superior. (And if you solve A, B, and C you'll have created a system which basically is a level-based game.)
A few skill-based games come close, and AC's hybrid skill/level system was strong, but most skill-based games just water characters down into faceless blurs indistinguishable from the other faceless blurs.
I don't think level-based is the only way to make a fun game, but I feel there are very real development-evolutionary reasons why Level has emerged a clear "victor" in systems design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Skilled based of course. And i dont mind if its not blanced. There is always a bigger fish. Just find a template you are happy with and play the role in the game as you want it. Not how the devs want it....
Hauken Stormchaser
I want pre-CU back
Station.com : We got your game
Yeah?, Well i want it back!!!
I stopped there as there was no point in reading that further. What are you basing that on? Outside of maybe Darkfall and turn of the century UO, what makes you think that skill-based MMOs can't and don't already offer that?
Free Realms, Ultima Online, EVE Online, and Puzzle Pirates are successful skill-based MMOs that all prove that tired talking point completly wrong,
Horizons is one of the few level-based MMOs where you can actually level up as something other than a Guy Who Kills Stuff. Most level-based games offer Killer as the only path of progression. In EVE, UO, Puzzle Pirates, Free Realms, ATITD and MMOs with skill-based progression, a person can advance a character as a baker, miner, treasure hunter, blacksmith, scribe, alchemist, tailor, merchant, etc without ever having to kill anyone. I
It's a myth, and an easily debunked one, at that. Gotta let go, man.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I tend to agree with Axe. Skill based games typically seem like they offer less distinct gameplay. In truth they offer more however... I'll take Ryzom for example and compar eto EQ or WoW.
In WoW when I level my 1hs and 2hs and 1hb all go up.
In Ryzom I train dual wield on a mob, for 3 months, then train 2hs on the same mobs for three months doing the same actions, than same for 1hb and 2hb - it is incredibly monotonous and gives the very real perception that there is no variety.
Horizons is different in some ways as I change classes I don't lose the skills of the last class. So I train paladin and get hp, health, strenght to a certain point then decide to go warrior and still have most of the last characters abiliteis. However I still have to swing that damn sword at those same damn mobs for months to bring warrior up. Again it is very grindy, very repetitive and makes one skill/class seem to be a carbon copy of another with a different number attached to it.
So yes between skill levels there does seem to be less variety.
Venge
Is that something new in WOW? I haven't played in years, but when I did play, if I wanted to start using 2H when I always used 1H, I'd have to take that 2H out to something I can actually hit reliably in order to train it up from one. That's a very welcomed change if that's no longer necessary.
Skill-based games can also raise your skills with your character's overall progression. An example would be Asheron's Call, where skills have a base value generated by your attributes. As a player levels up and raises his attrivutes, so does his base skill raise in everything he has trained. AC players can also allocate skill points gained from other activities to raise a particular skill, so if one wants a skill solely for its high end use, they can apply points from the activities they enjoy doing to the skill they rather only use once it's at a decent level.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Yes it's been like that for awhile now in Wow, can't remember when it changed. But even before the skill went up very quickly.
For AC - never played it but if more skill based systems would do something like that it would be great. Too many of them require you to train up that skill and to top it off don't make the training go faster or anything so it takes the exact same amount of time on typically the same mob. It gets dull very quick.
More games should offer AC's type or skill or at least Istaria (HZ's) type where you don't lose the skill.
Venge
I honestly think thats what i loved about Asherons Call leveling system the most.
It wasnt about the number you see " my level " that kept me going, it was about getting that XP to raise up my attributes and skills. i need that XP to raise my War Magic so higher level mobs would resist less. or i needed that XP to raise up my Magic Defense so when i pvped i had a higher chance to resist spells from other players.
awsome skill system each player had total control over how he built his character.
I don't care whether I am now Level 87 or MAster Swordsman. I don't want to be focusing on whay my level is or how skilled I have become. i want to focus on completing the assigned tasks. That's what games should focus on not you level or skill.
It changed in Cataclysm.
I like a combination of skill based elements where once you have mastewred 10 levels of a skill , you then actually level.
This can be repeated endlessley with levels providing stat and health boosts based on skills learnt.
Along with this certain skill combination otally should provide access to game based guilds / where skills match a stereo type.
As far as I am concerned any game where end game is a requirement has failed and is poor and lazy design.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel