The class system good or bad or just needs some work

holythough · August 2006

Wel again this in response of a thread already running. Lots of people really want a skill based mmorpg but i'm not so sure if thats the way to go.

With skill based system everybody can more or less train any skill as they see fit. Now people who really like this concept argue that you get more indivualisme to the char but the reality people tend to play a role in the game and just develop into one of the archtype classes just to support there function or are total soloers that use the system to be self supportive. The sad thing is that any try to get out off the archtype group setup has failt untill now. In the end it rather makes people all the same in a skill based system because in the end everybody gets the same skill because there basic skill can't be trained anymore so they develop the others and in the end everybody has all there skills at max level.

The class system prevents you from becoming a fighter after you choicen a healer. This limits your options from start and in the long run BUT it also makes it easier developing your character. In most skill based sytem you can gimp your char by training the wrong skills first making it mostly games with a steep learning curve in the start of the game.

The main problem of most class based mmorpg is they make it to easy not to make misstakes so everybody gets to max level it jsut depends on your char on how fast. In a skill based mmorpg people that don't learn to play there char right tend to be left behind which sort of "seperates the man from the mice" most old time mmorpg hate the Roxxor kiddies i really enjoy that those get shafted by a to diffcult system to get into. Im one of them i eally found that skill based mmorpgs have A LOT more mature community.

Actaully i think that WAR is going the right way actaully and that is a primairy and secondary class. Basic group will rely on the primairy classe with possibity of having the secondary class providing the needed skills to finish a group. In basic group keep function the same in both skill based and class based games. PvE groups are support class (healer/buffer), pull class(ranged dmg dealer), damage dealer, tank(agro holder) and PvP there's the additional stealther(for suprise and recon) and some of the mention classes get split up into 2 classes. You really end up with only a few base classes.

Also really like to see more Side proffesions like the ones you used to have in SWG. i really would like see that more often. Just be a dancer as a side proffesion.

If it was my choice i would say 3 proffesions. 1 basic group PvE class, 2. basic PvP proffesion 3. in town proffesion. that would be activated on where you are so when in town you become the crafter builder or wathever. In Pvp a certain type and in Pve a certain type. just my two cents ofcourse

Virco · August 2006

I think without a class system then there is no variety. To me having no classes in a game would be kinda boring depending on what content they put in the game. Although i do believe that they need to work on the classes more than they are, for instance, maybe make a few more classes even if they are quite unbelievable. Just get creative.

Unknown · August 2006

Theoretically you could say that a class system is just a subset of a skill system.

Mrbloodworth · August 2006

Do classes suck?

I was away, of course, but i am sure that plenty of people have expected me to jump in on the never-ending debate on class-based systems. So I thought I should, but with brevity.

Class based systems are:

Simpler. Everyone has just one role to play, and a game is
built out of bringing a fairly fixed handful of these roles together.
It’s like a sports team. You gather a few defenders, a few attackers,
and so on.
Simpler means the permutations and combinations are easier to balance. Less permutations and combinations, natch. You can trap them all.
It also means it’s heavily constrained,
which makes it easy to learn and master. “You stay back here, and if
the ball comes in this direction, you catch it.” “You stay back here,
and if the ball tries to go in the goal, you stop it.” “You stay back
here, and when the red bar on a teammate reaches this percentage, you
hit this button.” Obviously, there are endless nuances, but this is a
heavily constrained experience, very directed. Very different from
one-on-one games like tennis, where you have to manage defense and
offense both, for example.
Lastly, it’s easy to communicate because it relies on archetypal roles very strongly. Healer, tanker, nuke, defender, attacker, goalie, etc.

It’s no accident, to my mind, that the MMORPGs have
progressed more and more towards feeling like sports games, with raids
and so on. It’s the thrill of being part of a well-oiled machine, where
each has a role to play and knows how to play it well. The terminology
is creeping towards similarity as well: I don’t think the term “pick-up
group” is a linguistic accident, but rather a recognition of the ways
in which the dynamics are much like a pick-up team in a sport.

Skill-based
systems are, of course, none of the above. They are more complicated,
harder to balance, so lacking in constraint that they often seem
directionless, and hard to explain to users. But they do have some
virtues that run contrary to the sports metaphor:

Users aren’t locked in to one behavior; they can shift their
nature or have more than one specialty. In a team-based game, this is
generally a bad thing; you need intense focus.
Class-based games have to be designed in a fairly static
way; you cannot add a new role to soccer or baseball without throwing
the whole thing out of whack. You can’t add a sniper to football,
useful as it might be. In contrast, skill-based games are expandable because not all the roles need even aim at the same purpose.
Which brings to mind another virtue, which is that there’s no assumption that every role is equal. This is something that is a lie
in team-based games anyway. Everyone contributes, but sorry, some
contribute more than others, and some roles are far less important than
others, far easier than others, and far less active than others.
Skill-based games can feel fre to say “sorry, this is a shallow role.
If you aren’t satisfied by that, feel free to pick up some other stuff
too.”
And really, the fact that there can be multiple reasons to play
is at the heart of it. This is why class-based systems have real
trouble absorbing crafting, for example, and we often see the notion of
having a separate parallel class system for crafting alongside the
combat classes. It’s like asking a hockey team to also do embroidery
during the match.

Of course, the game design secret here is that class systems and skill systems are the same thing;
they simply have different parameters. A skill-system can have
exclusive skills, pre-requisite skills, tiered skills, branching
skills, mutually exclusive branches, and so on. Put in enough of these,
and you tip over into what gets called a class system.

The
question is, as always, what is the appropriate mix for the job. If you
are making a game centered around teams, with clear singular objectives
and one core system and mechanic, and nothing much else in the mix,
then yes, of course, go with classes. Anything else would be a bit
strange.

But if you’re making a virtual world with more than
one thing to do, more than one game system, then they’ll make less
sense. As soon as you have parallel game systems that don’t really
overlap in their objectives, you’ll need to account for the fact that
someone might be a hockey goalie and a herringbone stitcher. And the more of these you add to the mix, the less sense classes will make.

I leave the question of whether virtual worlds are destined to have one single core game mechanic as an exercise for the reader.

Unknown · August 2006

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Do classes suck?

I was away, of course, but i am sure that plenty of people have expected me to jump in on the never-ending debate on class-based systems. So I thought I should, but with brevity.

Class based systems are:

Simpler. Everyone has just one role to play, and a game is
built out of bringing a fairly fixed handful of these roles together.
It’s like a sports team. You gather a few defenders, a few attackers,
and so on.
Simpler means the permutations and combinations are easier to balance. Less permutations and combinations, natch. You can trap them all.

It also means it’s heavily constrained,
which makes it easy to learn and master. “You stay back here, and if
the ball comes in this direction, you catch it.” “You stay back here,
and if the ball tries to go in the goal, you stop it.” “You stay back
here, and when the red bar on a teammate reaches this percentage, you
hit this button.” Obviously, there are endless nuances, but this is a
heavily constrained experience, very directed. Very different from
one-on-one games like tennis, where you have to manage defense and
offense both, for example.
Lastly, it’s easy to communicate because it relies on archetypal roles very strongly. Healer, tanker, nuke, defender, attacker, goalie, etc.

It’s no accident, to my mind, that the MMORPGs have
progressed more and more towards feeling like sports games, with raids
and so on. It’s the thrill of being part of a well-oiled machine, where
each has a role to play and knows how to play it well. The terminology
is creeping towards similarity as well: I don’t think the term “pick-up
group” is a linguistic accident, but rather a recognition of the ways
in which the dynamics are much like a pick-up team in a sport.

Skill-based
systems are, of course, none of the above. They are more complicated,
harder to balance, so lacking in constraint that they often seem
directionless, and hard to explain to users. But they do have some
virtues that run contrary to the sports metaphor:

Users aren’t locked in to one behavior; they can shift their
nature or have more than one specialty. In a team-based game, this is
generally a bad thing; you need intense focus.
Class-based games have to be designed in a fairly static
way; you cannot add a new role to soccer or baseball without throwing
the whole thing out of whack. You can’t add a sniper to football,
useful as it might be. In contrast, skill-based games are expandable because not all the roles need even aim at the same purpose.

Which brings to mind another virtue, which is that there’s no assumption that every role is equal. This is something that is a lie
in team-based games anyway. Everyone contributes, but sorry, some
contribute more than others, and some roles are far less important than
others, far easier than others, and far less active than others.
Skill-based games can feel fre to say “sorry, this is a shallow role.
If you aren’t satisfied by that, feel free to pick up some other stuff
too.”
And really, the fact that there can be multiple reasons to play
is at the heart of it. This is why class-based systems have real
trouble absorbing crafting, for example, and we often see the notion of
having a separate parallel class system for crafting alongside the
combat classes. It’s like asking a hockey team to also do embroidery
during the match.

Of course, the game design secret here is that class systems and skill systems are the same thing;
they simply have different parameters. A skill-system can have
exclusive skills, pre-requisite skills, tiered skills, branching
skills, mutually exclusive branches, and so on. Put in enough of these,
and you tip over into what gets called a class system.

The
question is, as always, what is the appropriate mix for the job. If you
are making a game centered around teams, with clear singular objectives
and one core system and mechanic, and nothing much else in the mix,
then yes, of course, go with classes. Anything else would be a bit
strange.

But if you’re making a virtual world with more than
one thing to do, more than one game system, then they’ll make less
sense. As soon as you have parallel game systems that don’t really
overlap in their objectives, you’ll need to account for the fact that
someone might be a hockey goalie and a herringbone stitcher. And the more of these you add to the mix, the less sense classes will make.

I leave the question of whether virtual worlds are destined to have one single core game mechanic as an exercise for the reader.

Not sure if easier to balance is a 100% thing. If the system is heaevily vertical than that is probably true. But a system that is very lateral and caps all "roles" or abilities or whatever you want to call it. Lets just say specialties. Well that may work itself out.

A good example is Eve. Which has a fairly hard cap on the power of any one skill line and is very much lateral. Then for balance you just have to make sure that any particular combination of things does not synergize into uberness. For Eve that is not so hard to do since being awesome at BattleShips and Interdictors means nothing together and maxing out projectiles is just maxing out projectiles.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the treadmill of uberness games tend to be class based. But I don't think its always the case that class based is easier to balance. In fact I think it might be easier to balance a nicely deisgned lateral skill game.

nomadian · August 2006

I don't mind the class system but it bugs me when the classes are really boiled down to HEALER-TANK-DAMAGE DEALER. If anyone has played Dota that is a lot more varied 'class' design.

Mrbloodworth · August 2006

Originally posted by nomadian
I don't mind the class system but it bugs me when the classes are really boiled down to HEALER-TANK-DAMAGE DEALER. If anyone has played Dota that is a lot more varied 'class' design.

That’s all that design allows for. Its based off the LOTR "group" set
up that was carried over to the DnD, and now MMO's. = People get bored

Skill based system allows you to make your own "class" based on your play
style. = Freedom of play, choice and people stay more attached because of the limitless
possibilities and combinations.

Howdy, Stranger!

The class system good or bad or just needs some work

Comments

Do classes suck?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

The class system good or bad or just needs some work

Comments

Do classes suck?