These are just things people are interpreting, because they are either trying to use the term as a stigma, or they are taking the term as a slight and getting offended over it.
Chess, is a SKILL based game. You dont have to be strong, or fast, or have good aim. However, you do have to be smart, tactical, and out smart your opponent.
All skill-based means is 'the game relies primarily on player skill to determine the outcome'. It's really that simple. It doesn't distinguish the type of skill, or the amount, just that it's the primary driving force of whatever game you are playing. It doesn't have anything to do with how good (or bad) players are who play a certain game, that's just people being ignorant on the internet. When dealing with MMOs there tends to be 2 types of games, gear-based (or stat-based) which rely primarily on passive factors & rng to determine the outcome of a fight. Then you have skill-based (which rely primarily on player reactions, strategy, positionin, aim, etc.), which rely primarily on player-skill to determine the outcome.
One type of game is primarily passive, the other is primarily active. That's all there is to it, and that's why so many action-combat games are labeled 'skill-based'. Because action-combat is primarily an 'active' style of gameplay/
Originally posted by Utinni This is just another buzzword people use to make themselves feel better. I can't think of an MMO pvp system that really takes skill. Most telegraphs are super simple to land, and almost all games work off of a system where you have a reaction for every reaction, similar to baseball.
It's not a buzzword, and it's not something to be offended by either.
A game being 'skill-based' isn't a snipe at people playing 'non-skill-based' games. All it refers to is what the primary determining factor is for success / victory / winning a game. All games have varying degrees of skill. That is not what is being debated.
Originally posted by aesperus
Originally posted by SpottyGekko
Originally posted by DMKano
Skill based combat is the one where the use of aimbot programs and/or macros makes you pwn other players with ease.
+100% !
The term "skill-based combat" is usually linked to games where twitch skills (mouse-cursor aiming, circle-strafing, active dodging, etc.) are the deciding factor in the outcome of a battle. The term implies that physical attributes (fast reflexes and good eye/hand co-ordination) are what determines "skill", not the player's mental acuity.
So, if you can execute complex keypress combo's with one hand whilst using the other to move the mouse accurately at lightspeed, you are "skilled".
If not, you're a "bad"...
Actually, no it doesn't.
These are just things people are interpreting, because they are either trying to use the term as a stigma, or they are taking the term as a slight and getting offended over it.
actually, unlike skill-based vs level based character progression, where skill-based really is neutral term referring to the fact that your character progression is not based on gaining overall levels but on increasing particular character skill, term "skill based combat" is, well i would not as far as saying offensive, but it is MENT as demeaning.
because by saying "i prefer skill based combat" you actually are saying that the other types of combat are not skill based, you are more or less saying "those are beneath me, i have a skill"
edit:
if you want a neutral term, i would say "twitch based combat"
Firstly, at no time was I referring to progression. That is a separate topic & a separate issue.
What is being discussed is essentially game design in so much as the difference between players of the same lvl in a game that is skill-based vs. a game that is not.
As to whether this is 'meant' as demeaning is ENTIRELY inferred by the reader. Anything can be taken as a slight, but that doesn't mean that it is. The definition for skill based, has nothing to do with how good or bad a player is. It just doesn't. It's similar to how someone being an 'intellectual' has nothing to do with whether or not a person is smart or not. But many people take it to be so.
In short you (and other similar-minded gamers) are focusing too much on the 'skill' portion of the term 'skill-based', and ignoring the second half completely. 'Based'. Just because a combat system is based around player skill, does not mean that a system which isn't based around player skill doesn't require skill. Conversely, just because a combat system is based around player skill, does not mean it has no passive components contributing to the outcome.
Being offended by the term is a personal choice, and just shifting the term to 'twitch-based combat' is a dodge at best, without even getting to the issue at hand. There are plenty of examples of 'skill-based' games that do not rely on twitch skills. Again, chess is an example of this; as are RTS games (strategy), and puzzle games (problem solving).
RPGs, on the other hand, are primarily NOT based around skill. They are largely based around the journey, telling a story and acquiring more and more power. While all RPGs have varying degrees of skill in them, the outcome is mostly determined by the items you obtain along your journey, as well as character level. Few RPGs defer from this, with Zelda being an example of an RPG that is more skill-based than not. However, most older MMORPGs are based around the traditional RPG concept of the epic journey, and acquiring more and more powerful items.
As a result, most MMOs are not skill-based but rather based around passive upgrades in power, that are THEN utilized through skill. It is only in the last few years that we are seeing MMOs that put a much larger emphasis on player-skill, and skill-caps (the amount of skill(s) / difficultty required to master an aspect of the game) as the primary factor.
- Another way to look at it is as an order of operations. What does the game put first? Passive upgrades, or how you use a base set of items and abilities?
Originally posted by seraphynx Originally posted by Destai The general idea is that tab targeting systems are based on rolls of dice, thereby absolving the player of concerning about positions, dodges, etc. In games like Guild Wars 2, the damage is still based off of a calculation but the player has to manage dodges and other functions abstracted to a dice roll.
If both players have equal gear and stats then it no longer is just a dice roll..so then it would come down to who knows how to play their character better
I don't think you've thought that through.
You would still have the "dice rolls" but the variables such as armor ratings, range of damage, etc would all be the same.
Have you ever played D&D? give to combatants the same gear, same level of class, same spells or "skills" same equipment, etc you still would have the dice rolls against all of that.
"Skill based" usually means you are responsible for dodging, blocking and striking and your dodges, blocks and strikes are up to you as the player.
In a tab target game like say Rift for example since PvP gear is normalized if I outplay or am more "skilled" then my opponent I will win 100% of the time no question..so I don't see how people can generalize skill based to equal twitch based
EQ was purely a dice roll game, but I believe it took a lot of skill to play. Even WoW takes some skill to play if you are doing raids and don't use macro type tolls to automate things. Generally it's all about hitting the right skills at the right time regardless of manual dodging and things of that nature. It seems simple, but it's fairly difficult to get the timing right. It's one of the reasons I don't always like to group or raid. It's easy to miss that heal or pull agro and then the whole group/raid dies and is mad at you. Most PvP is also group oriented so if your timing sucks and you die a lot people will be mad at you. It's even more then just timing. You have to provide a helpful role in the activity you are doing. Not just what you want to do. Perhaps that's why a lot of people don't group/raid/PvP. They don't want to have to do something a certain way. It's really amazing how often people miss time a skill or target the wrong target. It just shows how easy it is to make a mistake even with something fairly/repetitive simple. I found kiting in Everquest to be fairly challenging at times. Mostly because one or two hits meant your death. There wasn't much margin for error. Grouping/Raiding/PvP has always been a challenge for me. I generally don't want to invest the time to learn the right mechanics to use and find out what equipment I need to participate. Small grouping PvE is probably my favorite activity of the bunch though. It requires a lot less information to perform correctly then the others.
EQ was purely a dice roll game, but I believe it took a lot of skill to play. Even WoW takes some skill to play if you are doing raids and don't use macro type tolls to automate things. Generally it's all about hitting the right skills at the right time regardless of manual dodging and things of that nature. It seems simple, but it's fairly difficult to get the timing right. It's one of the reasons I don't always like to group or raid. It's easy to miss that heal or pull agro and then the whole group/raid dies and is mad at you. Most PvP is also group oriented so if your timing sucks and you die a lot people will be mad at you. It's even more then just timing. You have to provide a helpful role in the activity you are doing. Not just what you want to do. Perhaps that's why a lot of people don't group/raid/PvP. They don't want to have to do something a certain way. It's really amazing how often people miss time a skill or target the wrong target. It just shows how easy it is to make a mistake even with something fairly/repetitive simple. I found kiting in Everquest to be fairly challenging at times. Mostly because one or two hits meant your death. There wasn't much margin for error. Grouping/Raiding/PvP has always been a challenge for me. I generally don't want to invest the time to learn the right mechanics to use and find out what equipment I need to participate. Small grouping PvE is probably my favorite activity of the bunch though. It requires a lot less information to perform correctly then the others.
In a tab target game like say Rift for example since PvP gear is normalized if I outplay or am more "skilled" then my opponent I will win 100% of the time no question..so I don't see how people can generalize skill based to equal twitch based
If gear is completely normalized, then the game would be more 'skill-based'.
However no games have perfectly normalized gear yet. There is always a discrepancy between the best & sub-par gear. Even in Rift. That said, some games put a harsh cap on how much gear actually does for you. Whether or not a game focuses on victory through gear(power) acquisition, or strength through player control determines whether or not a game is 'skill-based' or not.
This is why games like Guild Wars are generally refered to as 'skill-based'. While both games have an amount of gear progression, it is primarily how you customize your character, its skills, and how well you use these decision that determine who wins a battle. In both PvP and PvE. Rift requires some degree of skill as well, and I used to enjoy the PvP quite a lot, but how strong your character was, was largely determined by passive factors.
This is another term such as 'sandbox' which has an ever changing definition and is probably more of a philosophy of game/combat design than anything else.
I would propose that any game which pits players versus other players has skill-based combat. Despite those games which rely heavily on gear level and stats have skill-based combat because there are still aspects of the engagement that come down to one player's familiarity of their class/skills/system that gives them an edge.
More often than not, 'skill-based' is used to belittle another's choice in gameplay or game.
Firstly, at no time was I referring to progression. That is a separate topic & a separate issue.
i didnt say you were - it was ment as an example of "skill based" with neutral connotation
What is being discussed is essentially game design in so much as the difference between players of the same lvl in a game that is skill-based vs. a game that is not.
As to whether this is 'meant' as demeaning is ENTIRELY inferred by the reader.
no it isnt. quite opposite - is entirely dependent on intention of the person using it.
"All i find are mmos with classes, levels and damn boring combat systems...
"klick that point to kill this guy" --- if anything happens automatic, its really boring!"
- do you really think he doesnt mean skill based = superior? (and this is not that i specifically chosen some rare thread where it is used in this way, i did google "site:mmorpg.com skill based combat" and that was first link result that wasnt this thread)
Anything can be taken as a slight, but that doesn't mean that it is. The definition for skill based, has nothing to do with how good or bad a player is. It just doesn't. It's similar to how someone being an 'intellectual' has nothing to do with whether or not a person is smart or not. But many people take it to be so.
you are right - in general. but me (as OP) was talking about how is "skill based combat" term used in mmorpg(.com) community.
In short you (and other similar-minded gamers) are focusing too much on the 'skill' portion of the term 'skill-based', and ignoring the second half completely. 'Based'. Just because a combat system is based around player skill, does not mean that a system which isn't based around player skill doesn't require skill. Conversely, just because a combat system is based around player skill, does not mean it has no passive components contributing to the outcome.
i agree, thats why i dont have problem when someone use terms "player skill based combat" and "character skill/stat based combat"
Being offended by the term is a personal choice, and just shifting the term to 'twitch-based combat' is a dodge at best, without even getting to the issue at hand. There are plenty of examples of 'skill-based' games that do not rely on twitch skills. Again, chess is an example of this; as are RTS games (strategy), and puzzle games (problem solving).
well i am not per se offended, i am too much of a phlegmatic for that. ok, if you dont like "twitch based" (because we are talking about mmorpg, not chess, so i think that term is pretty accurate), how about "action combat"? thats imo quite a good term for it, even tho i think that "twitch" is more accurate, because in tab target game you still usually have to move around a do different actions)
RPGs, on the other hand, are primarily NOT based around skill. They are largely based around the journey, telling a story and acquiring more and more power. While all RPGs have varying degrees of skill in them, the outcome is mostly determined by the items you obtain along your journey, as well as character level. Few RPGs defer from this, with Zelda being an example of an RPG that is more skill-based than not. However, most older MMORPGs are based around the traditional RPG concept of the epic journey, and acquiring more and more powerful items.
As a result, most MMOs are not skill-based but rather based around passive upgrades in power, that are THEN utilized through skill. It is only in the last few years that we are seeing MMOs that put a much larger emphasis on player-skill, and skill-caps (the amount of skill(s) / difficultty required to master an aspect of the game) as the primary.
yes and i would love it would stay the way it was - true to the rpg roots. because while i like that in fps, rts, combat games (not sure what exact term is for the games like mortal combat etc) the person with better player skills win, rpg genre was BASED on idea of CHARACTER development, on the fact that while it can happen that lev 1 char kills lev 10 char, it is a rare occasion and usually higher level kills the lower one. if someone wants to make a mmo game with fps combat, do that, but please dont call it mmorpg.
- Another way to look at it is as an order of operations. What does the game put first? Passive upgrades, or how you use a base set of items and abilities?
actually i would say that in all (mmo)rpg games i played where you have action combat, i would say that passive upgrades (aka levels and gear) still outweigh player skill - dont know any (mmo)rpg where a new character, no matter how good the player is, would be able to kill max level player
I often wish MMORPGs these days had less focus on gear. Leveling is one thing because at some point everyone will be equal in power more or less. Equipment is another thing as it takes a lot of research and defeats the adventure aspect of RPGs. While it's always fun to get powerful loot it should just be a side effect of going to kill the baddies out of a certain place. You shouldn't feel compelled to get a specific set of equipment to compete with other people or perform your role in a group IMO. I actually prefer leveling my character and trying out new skills as apposed to getting a new piece of equipment. Perhaps that's part of why endgame never appealed to me.
Originally posted by Flyte27 I often wish MMORPGs these days had less focus on gear. Leveling is one thing because at some point everyone will be equal in power more or less. Equipment is another thing as it takes a lot of research and defeats the adventure aspect of RPGs. While it's always fun to get powerful loot it should just be a side effect of going to kill the baddies out of a certain place. You shouldn't feel compelled to get a specific set of equipment to compete with other people or perform your role in a group IMO. I actually prefer leveling my character and trying out new skills as apposed to getting a new piece of equipment. Perhaps that's part of why endgame never appealed to me.
thats why i really like the ac2/diablo style of loot, where anything can drop anywhere, just with a different probability and with a bit randomized stats
In a tab target game like say Rift for example since PvP gear is normalized if I outplay or am more "skilled" then my opponent I will win 100% of the time no question..so I don't see how people can generalize skill based to equal twitch based
IF there are dice rolls then there are going to be "dice rolls".
It depends on what those numbers mean and how their system uses them.
But "of course" if you are playing a player who is slow to tab target or hesitates with a key or doesn't use the correct skill then you are going to win.
But if you are playing an equally skilled player with the same knowledge you have then those dice rolls are going to affect the outcome.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Quit being delusional. There is no such thing as skill when pressing a sequence of keys on a keyboard. Skill is what losers call what they do in a futile attempt to glorify their actions. The developers of a game call the actions that happen when you press a button a skill sometimes and that is as close to skill as you are going to get. Other than that, the only other skills you will find that do not come from the fantasy world itself is the ability to read and write that most players seem to have. That is all.
Boycotting EA. Why? They suck, even moreso since 2008.
Its simple, button mashing also known as tab targetting IS NOT skill based combat. You have some spreadsheet that basically decides the outcomes of battles. Dont even start about your "timing" to mash some button at the right time, theres macro programs for that.
Games where you actually have to aim where your sword goes, or have magic projectiles that you can dodge ARE skill based, decided by real timing, positioning in battles, etc.
These are just things people are interpreting, because they are either trying to use the term as a stigma, or they are taking the term as a slight and getting offended over it.
Chess, is a SKILL based game. You dont have to be strong, or fast, or have good aim. However, you do have to be smart, tactical, and out smart your opponent.
All skill-based means is 'the game relies primarily on player skill to determine the outcome'. It's really that simple. It doesn't distinguish the type of skill, or the amount, just that it's the primary driving force of whatever game you are playing. It doesn't have anything to do with how good (or bad) players are who play a certain game, that's just people being ignorant on the internet. When dealing with MMOs there tends to be 2 types of games, gear-based (or stat-based) which rely primarily on passive factors & rng to determine the outcome of a fight. Then you have skill-based (which rely primarily on player reactions, strategy, positionin, aim, etc.), which rely primarily on player-skill to determine the outcome.
One type of game is primarily passive, the other is primarily active. That's all there is to it, and that's why so many action-combat games are labeled 'skill-based'. Because action-combat is primarily an 'active' style of gameplay/
This ^
That ---^
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
Originally posted by Destai The general idea is that tab targeting systems are based on rolls of dice, thereby absolving the player of concerning about positions, dodges, etc. In games like Guild Wars 2, the damage is still based off of a calculation but the player has to manage dodges and other functions abstracted to a dice roll.
If both players have equal gear and stats then it no longer is just a dice roll..so then it would come down to who knows how to play their character better
I don't think you've thought that through.
You would still have the "dice rolls" but the variables such as armor ratings, range of damage, etc would all be the same.
Have you ever played D&D? give to combatants the same gear, same level of class, same spells or "skills" same equipment, etc you still would have the dice rolls against all of that.
"Skill based" usually means you are responsible for dodging, blocking and striking and your dodges, blocks and strikes are up to you as the player.
In a tab target game like say Rift for example since PvP gear is normalized if I outplay or am more "skilled" then my opponent I will win 100% of the time no question..so I don't see how people can generalize skill based to equal twitch based
Because even given equal gear a lot of things are still stat based. One of you may get better RNG than the other and there's nothing you can do about that. Skill based combat reduces RNG and puts the outcome more in the hands of the player instead of on the computer.
Take TERA for example. TERA does not have ANY gear stats for dodge, block, evade, parry, hit, etc. They have basic defense stats on gear but that's it. Every class has multiple ways to either manually (i.e. via player input) reduce, miss, or avoid damage with a 100% success rate if timed properly - hitting your block button doesn't have any background RNG associated with it. So a few classes have a block button on their right click for the mouse which has no cooldown and is only regulated by a resolve resource bar. If they can time it properly (and aim it - they can't block attacks coming from the side or behind them) they can significantly reduce incoming damage and avoid certain effects altogether, such as stuns, sleeps, etc. Many classes also have an invulnerability frame on a short (6-12 second) CD, which if properly timed, can allow them to avoid attacks or effects. So on my Priest if I want to avoid sleep, I have to watch the sleep animation fly through the air from the enemy player and time my backstep evasion at the proper time to avoid being slept. If I fail I am guaranteed to be slept - CC's have a 100% hit rate if the player can successfully hit with it and no diminishing returns, since you can avoid them. I also have a skill that pushes me backwards several feet which is not an i-frame, but is a movement skill that moves me out of the way of harm.
There is also the aiming factor. You can't hit anyone unless you properly aim your skills at their (constantly moving) character model. There is no guarantee of a hit and no hit rate calculation in the background. I can do something as simple as zig zagging around to make it difficult for a melee to hit me; or backstepping away from a ranged attacks AoE animation, or LoS people. TERA also has no Wildstar style telegraphs telling you where to move out of the way. You need to learn the visuals and animations (which are all unique) of each and every attack from other classes so you know what skill they're using, what effects it has, and where it hits, so you can react appropriately. If you get caught in a hard hitting attack you could have avoided - that's pure skill that no tab target game has.
Sure there's proper skill usage but even that needs to be reconsidered when speaking about action combat. Your rotations are different. You rely more on short combos when the opportunity arises than standard rotations used in the same order all the time. But you also need to take into account other things such as proper usage of various CC's to keep the enemy in place so you can actually aim properly, or prevent them from moving, or skills to use in conjunction with your team for various effects. You need to consider that usage of various defensive CD's will often interrupt a rotation or combo and may put a valuable skill on CD to save yourself. You have to worry about being caught in animations and hit with a big attack, so choosing when to cast a skill can be risky. You need to be concerned about positioning as players can do significantly more damage if they're behind you and some ranged classes do more damage if they're closer to you, etc.
None of these things have anything to do with gear. You can in fact beat a team with far better gear than you if your skill level exceeds their own - it doesn't matter how hard someone can hit you if you can avoid damage. So when people say it's a skill based game, they're referring to the fact that skill has a bigger impact than gear stats (or class for that matter).
Its simple, button mashing also known as tab targetting IS NOT skill based combat. You have some spreadsheet that basically decides the outcomes of battles. Dont even start about your "timing" to mash some button at the right time, theres macro programs for that. Games where you actually have to aim where your sword goes, or have magic projectiles that you can dodge ARE skill based, decided by real timing, positioning in battles, etc.
If that were true how was I able to take out guys 5+ levels over me if rift? How did I know when to use my stun/interrupt at the correct time to stop my enemies attack or use my shield skill to mitigate enough damage to get the upper hand...or how to manage my mana correctly to not go oom....
MMOs are not competitive games which require high levels of skill. Also there is a common misconception that skill = precise reactions and aiming. This is skill based on reflexes and developing habits to anticipate common scenarios in the game.
But there is more to it than pure reflexies. Some games require strategy which is a different kind of skill compared to shooters. I personally see MOBAs as the very definition of skill based games. They require quick reflexes but they also require tons of strategy. To me shooters seem like mindless shooting lol.
Anyway RPGs normally require more of a strategic type of skill. It is much more important to prioritise which skills you use and when. Of course, stats play a huge role but we are talknig here if given equal gear and character level. Also knowing which abilities to skill up and which items to use also takes some skill. But it's more about theorycrafting and preparation than something that actually happens during combat.
I still fail to see how a game like GW2 takes more skill than WoW in PvP. WoW arenas, given equal gear levels, used to be extremely competitive and required a lot of skill and good decision making. I always found it incredibly difficult to use all my skills efficiently and quickly. In GW2 style games you manage a much smaller number of skills and they don't even cost resources which takes out resource management out of the picture.
But yeah some parts of MMOs (arena based PvP) do take quite a bit of skill.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
If my cat walking across the keyboard is enough to win me the fight....it's not skill based.
If randomly hitting buttons will get you past most fights, it's a low skill game
If you have to know your class and use abilities at the proper times or you'll lose every fight, I consider that to be a skill based game.
Many games have the leveling section of the game set to very low skill ( some are even 0 ) and then ramp it up in end game raiding and pvp. That gives the impression the game takes 0 skill. Most of the people saying it never got to that point, while the people defending it can't understand what they're talking about because they raid and use "skill" to win every time.
Skill based games are equivalent to arcade games or FPS. Play with your joystick rapidly for maximum pleasure.
Tab-targeting are equivalent to pen and paper role playing games. You have a few things to manage but primarily chat with others for maximum pleasure.
Originally posted by DMKano Skill based combat is the one where the use of aimbot programs and/or macros makes you pwn other players with ease.
That too.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
But there is more to it than pure reflexies. Some games require strategy which is a different kind of skill compared to shooters. I personally see MOBAs as the very definition of skill based games. They require quick reflexes but they also require tons of strategy. To me shooters seem like mindless shooting lol.
But for good enough players, FPS is about the map, where the weapons are, about ammunition, etc.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I'm pretty sure when people use the words "skill based combat system", OP, that you know that they're talking about a system that's not a tab-target system and that your point is that even in a tab-target system, knowing what abilities to use when, how to use combos, ect. are skills and that calling other types of systems skill based implies that other systems take no skill at all.
Is my assumption correct? The short answer I'm going to give in this post is horribly oversimplified and there are a lot more details, but my full answer depends on whether or not I'm on the right page here.
The short answer is that when you have a manual targeting system most people feel like it takes more skill, and so the name "skill-based system" evolved from that. Whether or not you personally agree is irrelevant so long as when people say "skill-based system" you understand that they're talking about something other than traditional tab-target systems. The term is rather ill-defined though.
I'm pretty sure when people use the words "skill based combat system", OP, that you know that they're talking about a system that's not a tab-target system and that your point is that even in a tab-target system, knowing what abilities to use when, how to use combos, ect. are skills and that calling other types of systems skill based implies that other systems take no skill at all.
Is my assumption correct? The short answer I'm going to give in this post is horribly oversimplified and there are a lot more details, but my full answer depends on whether or not I'm on the right page here.
The short answer is that when you have a manual targeting system most people feel like it takes more skill, and so the name "skill-based system" evolved from that. Whether or not you personally agree is irrelevant so long as when people say "skill-based system" you understand that they're talking about something other than traditional tab-target systems. The term is rather ill-defined though.
you are correct.. and i know what people mean when they say "skill-based" combat...i just find it funny people label tab targetting games as zero skill games and ones with aiming and dodging "skill-based"..the OP is more of a rhetorical question
Comments
This ^
Firstly, at no time was I referring to progression. That is a separate topic & a separate issue.
What is being discussed is essentially game design in so much as the difference between players of the same lvl in a game that is skill-based vs. a game that is not.
As to whether this is 'meant' as demeaning is ENTIRELY inferred by the reader. Anything can be taken as a slight, but that doesn't mean that it is. The definition for skill based, has nothing to do with how good or bad a player is. It just doesn't. It's similar to how someone being an 'intellectual' has nothing to do with whether or not a person is smart or not. But many people take it to be so.
In short you (and other similar-minded gamers) are focusing too much on the 'skill' portion of the term 'skill-based', and ignoring the second half completely. 'Based'. Just because a combat system is based around player skill, does not mean that a system which isn't based around player skill doesn't require skill. Conversely, just because a combat system is based around player skill, does not mean it has no passive components contributing to the outcome.
Being offended by the term is a personal choice, and just shifting the term to 'twitch-based combat' is a dodge at best, without even getting to the issue at hand. There are plenty of examples of 'skill-based' games that do not rely on twitch skills. Again, chess is an example of this; as are RTS games (strategy), and puzzle games (problem solving).
RPGs, on the other hand, are primarily NOT based around skill. They are largely based around the journey, telling a story and acquiring more and more power. While all RPGs have varying degrees of skill in them, the outcome is mostly determined by the items you obtain along your journey, as well as character level. Few RPGs defer from this, with Zelda being an example of an RPG that is more skill-based than not. However, most older MMORPGs are based around the traditional RPG concept of the epic journey, and acquiring more and more powerful items.
As a result, most MMOs are not skill-based but rather based around passive upgrades in power, that are THEN utilized through skill. It is only in the last few years that we are seeing MMOs that put a much larger emphasis on player-skill, and skill-caps (the amount of skill(s) / difficultty required to master an aspect of the game) as the primary factor.
- Another way to look at it is as an order of operations. What does the game put first? Passive upgrades, or how you use a base set of items and abilities?
If both players have equal gear and stats then it no longer is just a dice roll..so then it would come down to who knows how to play their character betterI don't think you've thought that through.
You would still have the "dice rolls" but the variables such as armor ratings, range of damage, etc would all be the same.
Have you ever played D&D? give to combatants the same gear, same level of class, same spells or "skills" same equipment, etc you still would have the dice rolls against all of that.
"Skill based" usually means you are responsible for dodging, blocking and striking and your dodges, blocks and strikes are up to you as the player.
In a tab target game like say Rift for example since PvP gear is normalized if I outplay or am more "skilled" then my opponent I will win 100% of the time no question..so I don't see how people can generalize skill based to equal twitch basedEQ was purely a dice roll game, but I believe it took a lot of skill to play. Even WoW takes some skill to play if you are doing raids and don't use macro type tolls to automate things. Generally it's all about hitting the right skills at the right time regardless of manual dodging and things of that nature. It seems simple, but it's fairly difficult to get the timing right. It's one of the reasons I don't always like to group or raid. It's easy to miss that heal or pull agro and then the whole group/raid dies and is mad at you. Most PvP is also group oriented so if your timing sucks and you die a lot people will be mad at you. It's even more then just timing. You have to provide a helpful role in the activity you are doing. Not just what you want to do. Perhaps that's why a lot of people don't group/raid/PvP. They don't want to have to do something a certain way. It's really amazing how often people miss time a skill or target the wrong target. It just shows how easy it is to make a mistake even with something fairly/repetitive simple. I found kiting in Everquest to be fairly challenging at times. Mostly because one or two hits meant your death. There wasn't much margin for error. Grouping/Raiding/PvP has always been a challenge for me. I generally don't want to invest the time to learn the right mechanics to use and find out what equipment I need to participate. Small grouping PvE is probably my favorite activity of the bunch though. It requires a lot less information to perform correctly then the others.
Agreed:)uh shesh, 4 pages? seriously?
the difference is that one has SKILLSHOTS and the other TABAIMED shots.
that term originally comes from mobas.
no one said tab aimed combat does not require any skill, chill your panties guys.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
If gear is completely normalized, then the game would be more 'skill-based'.
However no games have perfectly normalized gear yet. There is always a discrepancy between the best & sub-par gear. Even in Rift. That said, some games put a harsh cap on how much gear actually does for you. Whether or not a game focuses on victory through gear(power) acquisition, or strength through player control determines whether or not a game is 'skill-based' or not.
This is why games like Guild Wars are generally refered to as 'skill-based'. While both games have an amount of gear progression, it is primarily how you customize your character, its skills, and how well you use these decision that determine who wins a battle. In both PvP and PvE. Rift requires some degree of skill as well, and I used to enjoy the PvP quite a lot, but how strong your character was, was largely determined by passive factors.
This is another term such as 'sandbox' which has an ever changing definition and is probably more of a philosophy of game/combat design than anything else.
I would propose that any game which pits players versus other players has skill-based combat. Despite those games which rely heavily on gear level and stats have skill-based combat because there are still aspects of the engagement that come down to one player's familiarity of their class/skills/system that gives them an edge.
More often than not, 'skill-based' is used to belittle another's choice in gameplay or game.
i didnt say you were - it was ment as an example of "skill based" with neutral connotation
no it isnt. quite opposite - is entirely dependent on intention of the person using it.
take e.g. this thread:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/6359325#6359325
"All i find are mmos with classes, levels and damn boring combat systems...
"klick that point to kill this guy" --- if anything happens automatic, its really boring!"
- do you really think he doesnt mean skill based = superior? (and this is not that i specifically chosen some rare thread where it is used in this way, i did google "site:mmorpg.com skill based combat" and that was first link result that wasnt this thread)
you are right - in general. but me (as OP) was talking about how is "skill based combat" term used in mmorpg(.com) community.
i agree, thats why i dont have problem when someone use terms "player skill based combat" and "character skill/stat based combat"
well i am not per se offended, i am too much of a phlegmatic for that. ok, if you dont like "twitch based" (because we are talking about mmorpg, not chess, so i think that term is pretty accurate), how about "action combat"? thats imo quite a good term for it, even tho i think that "twitch" is more accurate, because in tab target game you still usually have to move around a do different actions)
yes and i would love it would stay the way it was - true to the rpg roots. because while i like that in fps, rts, combat games (not sure what exact term is for the games like mortal combat etc) the person with better player skills win, rpg genre was BASED on idea of CHARACTER development, on the fact that while it can happen that lev 1 char kills lev 10 char, it is a rare occasion and usually higher level kills the lower one. if someone wants to make a mmo game with fps combat, do that, but please dont call it mmorpg.
actually i would say that in all (mmo)rpg games i played where you have action combat, i would say that passive upgrades (aka levels and gear) still outweigh player skill - dont know any (mmo)rpg where a new character, no matter how good the player is, would be able to kill max level player
thats why i really like the ac2/diablo style of loot, where anything can drop anywhere, just with a different probability and with a bit randomized stats
IF there are dice rolls then there are going to be "dice rolls".
It depends on what those numbers mean and how their system uses them.
But "of course" if you are playing a player who is slow to tab target or hesitates with a key or doesn't use the correct skill then you are going to win.
But if you are playing an equally skilled player with the same knowledge you have then those dice rolls are going to affect the outcome.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Boycotting EA. Why? They suck, even moreso since 2008.
There is much confusion because different games and genres require different skills.
Situational awareness, timing, muscle memory, aiming, planning, etc, are all different skills.
Then there are degrees of skill - having to press a button in a 10 second window is easier than having to press a button in a 2 second window.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Its simple, button mashing also known as tab targetting IS NOT skill based combat. You have some spreadsheet that basically decides the outcomes of battles. Dont even start about your "timing" to mash some button at the right time, theres macro programs for that.
Games where you actually have to aim where your sword goes, or have magic projectiles that you can dodge ARE skill based, decided by real timing, positioning in battles, etc.
That ---^
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
Because even given equal gear a lot of things are still stat based. One of you may get better RNG than the other and there's nothing you can do about that. Skill based combat reduces RNG and puts the outcome more in the hands of the player instead of on the computer.
Take TERA for example. TERA does not have ANY gear stats for dodge, block, evade, parry, hit, etc. They have basic defense stats on gear but that's it. Every class has multiple ways to either manually (i.e. via player input) reduce, miss, or avoid damage with a 100% success rate if timed properly - hitting your block button doesn't have any background RNG associated with it. So a few classes have a block button on their right click for the mouse which has no cooldown and is only regulated by a resolve resource bar. If they can time it properly (and aim it - they can't block attacks coming from the side or behind them) they can significantly reduce incoming damage and avoid certain effects altogether, such as stuns, sleeps, etc. Many classes also have an invulnerability frame on a short (6-12 second) CD, which if properly timed, can allow them to avoid attacks or effects. So on my Priest if I want to avoid sleep, I have to watch the sleep animation fly through the air from the enemy player and time my backstep evasion at the proper time to avoid being slept. If I fail I am guaranteed to be slept - CC's have a 100% hit rate if the player can successfully hit with it and no diminishing returns, since you can avoid them. I also have a skill that pushes me backwards several feet which is not an i-frame, but is a movement skill that moves me out of the way of harm.
There is also the aiming factor. You can't hit anyone unless you properly aim your skills at their (constantly moving) character model. There is no guarantee of a hit and no hit rate calculation in the background. I can do something as simple as zig zagging around to make it difficult for a melee to hit me; or backstepping away from a ranged attacks AoE animation, or LoS people. TERA also has no Wildstar style telegraphs telling you where to move out of the way. You need to learn the visuals and animations (which are all unique) of each and every attack from other classes so you know what skill they're using, what effects it has, and where it hits, so you can react appropriately. If you get caught in a hard hitting attack you could have avoided - that's pure skill that no tab target game has.
Sure there's proper skill usage but even that needs to be reconsidered when speaking about action combat. Your rotations are different. You rely more on short combos when the opportunity arises than standard rotations used in the same order all the time. But you also need to take into account other things such as proper usage of various CC's to keep the enemy in place so you can actually aim properly, or prevent them from moving, or skills to use in conjunction with your team for various effects. You need to consider that usage of various defensive CD's will often interrupt a rotation or combo and may put a valuable skill on CD to save yourself. You have to worry about being caught in animations and hit with a big attack, so choosing when to cast a skill can be risky. You need to be concerned about positioning as players can do significantly more damage if they're behind you and some ranged classes do more damage if they're closer to you, etc.
None of these things have anything to do with gear. You can in fact beat a team with far better gear than you if your skill level exceeds their own - it doesn't matter how hard someone can hit you if you can avoid damage. So when people say it's a skill based game, they're referring to the fact that skill has a bigger impact than gear stats (or class for that matter).
If that were true how was I able to take out guys 5+ levels over me if rift? How did I know when to use my stun/interrupt at the correct time to stop my enemies attack or use my shield skill to mitigate enough damage to get the upper hand...or how to manage my mana correctly to not go oom....All games take skill in some fashion..
MMOs are not competitive games which require high levels of skill. Also there is a common misconception that skill = precise reactions and aiming. This is skill based on reflexes and developing habits to anticipate common scenarios in the game.
But there is more to it than pure reflexies. Some games require strategy which is a different kind of skill compared to shooters. I personally see MOBAs as the very definition of skill based games. They require quick reflexes but they also require tons of strategy. To me shooters seem like mindless shooting lol.
Anyway RPGs normally require more of a strategic type of skill. It is much more important to prioritise which skills you use and when. Of course, stats play a huge role but we are talknig here if given equal gear and character level. Also knowing which abilities to skill up and which items to use also takes some skill. But it's more about theorycrafting and preparation than something that actually happens during combat.
I still fail to see how a game like GW2 takes more skill than WoW in PvP. WoW arenas, given equal gear levels, used to be extremely competitive and required a lot of skill and good decision making. I always found it incredibly difficult to use all my skills efficiently and quickly. In GW2 style games you manage a much smaller number of skills and they don't even cost resources which takes out resource management out of the picture.
But yeah some parts of MMOs (arena based PvP) do take quite a bit of skill.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
If my cat walking across the keyboard is enough to win me the fight....it's not skill based.
If randomly hitting buttons will get you past most fights, it's a low skill game
If you have to know your class and use abilities at the proper times or you'll lose every fight, I consider that to be a skill based game.
Many games have the leveling section of the game set to very low skill ( some are even 0 ) and then ramp it up in end game raiding and pvp. That gives the impression the game takes 0 skill. Most of the people saying it never got to that point, while the people defending it can't understand what they're talking about because they raid and use "skill" to win every time.
Skill based games are equivalent to arcade games or FPS. Play with your joystick rapidly for maximum pleasure.
Tab-targeting are equivalent to pen and paper role playing games. You have a few things to manage but primarily chat with others for maximum pleasure.
That too.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
But for good enough players, FPS is about the map, where the weapons are, about ammunition, etc.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I'm pretty sure when people use the words "skill based combat system", OP, that you know that they're talking about a system that's not a tab-target system and that your point is that even in a tab-target system, knowing what abilities to use when, how to use combos, ect. are skills and that calling other types of systems skill based implies that other systems take no skill at all.
Is my assumption correct? The short answer I'm going to give in this post is horribly oversimplified and there are a lot more details, but my full answer depends on whether or not I'm on the right page here.
The short answer is that when you have a manual targeting system most people feel like it takes more skill, and so the name "skill-based system" evolved from that. Whether or not you personally agree is irrelevant so long as when people say "skill-based system" you understand that they're talking about something other than traditional tab-target systems. The term is rather ill-defined though.
you are correct.. and i know what people mean when they say "skill-based" combat...i just find it funny people label tab targetting games as zero skill games and ones with aiming and dodging "skill-based"..the OP is more of a rhetorical question