Should games be an ongoing mensa test where the intelligent ones rule over the less intelligent ones? Or perhaps an empathy test where the most social people rule the less social ones? What's a good combat system? Solving equations or speedtyping?
Originally posted by DamonVile How are skill based games unique ? There's going to be one master mold that everyone builds and you end up with the same thing. Also, if you're going to take shots at peoples intelligence don't use funner as a word.
Um, sure the "power gamers" who want to be "teh bestest at PvP!!" all go 2-3 certain builds. But the joy of skill based is that you don't have to be the same build as those people. In SWG, for instance, I was Master Ranger/Rifleman for a long time (if anyone played rifleman early, they will remember many deaths to melee and not being able to hit anything..OH, and the warping mobs of doom! lol). It matched the role I wanted to play in the game...later in the game idiots would run around with cookie cutter builds that allowed them to take almost no damage. They would hold "teh bestest PvPer evar!!!" tournaments and some fights (1v1) would go on for 30+ minutes...fun for them I guess, but I could still explore all the planets and shoot some badies in the face and PvP in the real game world.
I'm with the OP, when did replacing many skill based possibilities/combinations with few generic classes become a good idea for an MMORPG?
Originally posted by Xanrn Yay yet another bloody post with some pompose moron insulting people and say their way is the only way under a thin pretext of a Discussion.
People who like different things from you are not stupid. Just because you dislike something doesn't mean your opinion is the truth.
Also don't bloody kid yourself, Eve has plenty of "this is the BEST build for that Job".
There are loads of builds on the boards, there are skills that are a most have (Enginering for one).
The reason is doesn't look like it, is because it has so many skills, but most are useless for a specific Job.
All games end up with people finding the BEST way/s and then telling the world and people copy it.
Go to CoX so many power primary/secondary choices, yet alot of people pick whats best for their "Class"/flavour of the Month.
8 sub-powers sets, yet 90% have Swift/Hurdle, Health, Stamina.
3/4 choices of 40+ plus power sets for each Class, yet people generally choose what they have heard whats best for their build so far.
People have a pack mentiality, if their told/shown a certain way is best, they will most likely go that way.
Add to that, most developers couldn't balance a simple seesaw.
Certainly some skills are must haves, so what? Certainly some skills are better for Minmatar ships and some are better for Amaar ships.
There is no doubt that having enegery gun skills maxed and Minmatar shipps maxed is pretty much gonna gimp you.
But there is also a whole whole lot of wiggle room. There are tons of builds for the same purpose and there are many jobs that will require different builds.
Sure there are standard Blasterthron builds. But that is not the be all end all close combat build. There are many many kinds of combat builds in Eve. And there is certainly no agreement on what is the Uberest. And even in a blasterthron build there is variation between people.
There is absolutely no way you can give me the one Uber buld to rule them all in Eve. There isn't even an uber build to rule all battleship pvp fights. Sure a lot of people use Ravens and Eve is by no means perfect, and things like EW are controversal.
But there is a very wide vairety of fighting builds, some of which are even very close in function.
No one in their right mind really thinks there is some way to make every single possible combination of skill points in a game come out to be exactly even.
But there are a wide variety of builds in Eve, and there is even a good bit of disagreement about what is the best for certain roles.
The fact is Eve doesn't have the oh you just do 80 is sword and 80 in healing and 80 in fire magic and you are teh uberest, that is THE build.
There is nothing wrong with trends in a skill system, the problem that occurs in some is that they do not actually turn out to be diverse even though there are many skills because every just use the same 3 skills to the same levels.
Eve has many many diverse builds even within a restricted field such as pvp fighting. Part of this is because of the ship system. There is no guarantee that without the ship/skill interactions there wouldn't be some uberest skill setup. But there isn't there are many things you can try to do.
Eve is not balanced on skills, Eve is balanced on ships. Eve is a game that busts up a lot of misconceptions about skills system. The cookie cutter misconception and the hard to balance misconcpetion.
In Eve you can only be as uber as whatever ships exist. You can never get more uber with other skills once you ahve those ship's skill maxed.
I'm not saying skills aren't important, but without a ship your skills mean nothing for fighting. Being awesome at projectile turrets means nothing if you have hybrid turrets on your ships (although there is some synergy).
In a UO type game being awesome at earth magic and fire magic means you get both, because that is what the skills give you. The balance is different because you ahve to make sure the entire system jives together.
In Eve as long as the ships are designed right there are as many things you can be as there are ships. Granted some ships in Eve are not so hot. But there are enough good ones that there actually are a lot of different and various things going on.
Some people say the ships are the equivalent to classes, whatever.
Gestalt11 said... The skill versus class thing though is another thing all together. They both have good points and bad points. I prefer free skill based or at the very least a nice feat/class system like 3rd ed D&D. But they both have ups and downs.
3E class/feats isn't much different from WoW class/talents, other than general feats being more available to anyone. The end result is the same, however: core classes that are then tweaked to emphasize certain capabilities or playstyles. A lot of people seem to knock WoW around here, but I think their talent system creates subtle (or not so subtle) but significant differences in how the builds play. I am a very non-cookie-cutter player and I have "weird" builds on almost all my characters and am perfectly happy with how they perform - they don't "feel" gimped, and anyone else's opinion on how I play and enjoy the game I pay for is meaningless to me.
Well I don't consider WoW's system as open as 3rd ed D&D. And certainly not sa flexible. In WoW there are too many feats that all members of a class get.
For fighters specifically you could wind up being quite different from one another. You could be a dex tank or a heavy armor tank, you could multi class in a little rogue or whatever. You could be a knockdown/attack of opportunity with some rogue spalshed in to get the sneak attack. Or go for super crits etc.
All in all it was possible to get some interesting and novel builds out of the system just with feats. Some classes were very cookie cutter though.
Actually I kind of like how a paladin was very cookie cutter but fighters had a lot of freedom by getting lots of class feats. And you could really make a fighter and rogue be fairly similar combat wise, (although you would never get certain things like pick lock or whatever)
Also 1st ed to 3rd ed they made it so that armor was no longer purely class based. You could be a wizard wearing a plate armor, you just fail spells a lot.
The thing I was trying to capture here is that a lot of this stuff people are arguing about is not really based on skills versuses classes.
I really think the Guild Wars system is really nice and its not really skills based at all. Its really a great and unique system.
In the end its about elegant and effective restrictions, but at the same time giving nice choices.
What often happens is that classes are extremely narrowly defined, restrictive and controling. Very much like 1st ed AD&D. But they really don't have to be, 3rd ed made them much more flexible and customizable. But still kept alot of the flavor of the classes. By putting in various types of class restriction or bonuses. Fighter got free feats, rogues get skills only they have access too, etc.
You can make a very free customizable class/feat system. You can also make a very restrictive skill system, although it may not appear restrictive at first.
I like skill systems personally because I do not like the one-dimensional level aptitude, but I think a nice open class/feat system is good too. But the fact is the problems people assign to class system can apply to skill systems and the problem that are assigned to skill systems can apply to class systems.
The thing is that classes tend to be to confined and skills tend to not be confined enough or not be confined correctly. But if you are good enough to moderate things either one is good.
Um... isn't this contradictory, here and and in relation to your other points? Do you want combat to be more challenging or less challenging? A good /stick function makes fighting easier, not more interactive, which is what I thought you wanted.
No I said a target lock not a stick.. When I mean target lock.. perhaps I should describe it as a face lock. Because camera tend to be messy in any MMO. The intelligent follow can get a tree stuck in your way so you can't see. So I just meant a way to keep facing the target so you can worry about the other combat buttons.. Dodge, kick, block, step back to avoid a hit, dodge to side aka strafing.
Now a skill based system that also worked was SWG to a degree.. I'm talking a hybrid skill/level system. Ok so everyones number 1 complaint about skill based system is you cap it and eventually everyone will be the same. But that is where you cap the skill it should than branch off into a tree choice like SWG. Now you start on a different path for the same skill.. Someone wielding sword might focus on more specialized variety of sword type skills..
I'm sure if people brainstormed ideas would come but let's just throw an idea out.. dumb example but an example never the less. You capped your sword skill than you start on another path.. One path could be a multi oppponent style attacks, while another could be duel wielding. Both have it's advantages. Now if you played AC1 you know how long it took to cap your skill.. Now a new path of skill opens up for you to choose.. AC 1 only allowed so many skill points to buy skills some were cheaper others were more expensive so nobody could get all the skills even at level 150+. That could just be one skill tree your working on.. you may also have blunt weapons, armor skills (armor types), shields, pikes, ect.. You could almost think of maxing your skills as going to the next level.. and starting a new branch from there. A good skill based system is a combination of both class/level/skills and skills only go up by using them.. not just leveling up.
But the dumbed down class/level based system is totally boring and gives no feeling of accomplishment at all. Oh boy I leveled now I can use this ability that I never used before. But a skill based system you will get that new ability based on your level but it's going to be very very innefective and require alot of practice to make it even useful. Just as you can go purchase a musical instrument but if you don't practice you never will sound good on it. Same with wielding weapons and wearing different types of armor.
Originally posted by Nullapax I can't speak for EQ ( only played it a month then switched to DAoC ) or L2 ( was in Beta but that was all )but in DAoC ToA for instance I spent weeks and weeks developing strategies for soloing the artifacts.
I soloed tons of stuff in WOW, I loved doing red ('impossible') and elite (allegedly requires a group) quests on my druid in WOW while leveling. I spent a good chunk of my playtime doing things solo that I 'shouldn't' be able to do, spending some time at level cap messing around to avoid using a group to snag something doesn't exactly impress me with the level of challenge. Especially since you spent far longer grinding your way to 50 and camping for the various items you need than you did on the part that's supposedly more challenging than WOW.
Just trying to find safe paths through certain zones to a good hunting spot was a buzz.
Bumbling around the map to try to guess where the developers set up a safe path is not the kind of challenge I'm talking about here. Seriously, do you guys even think about how dumb some of these 'challenges' sound? If you described the game to someone who doesn't already play MMOs, do you think detailing this part of the game would make them more or less likely to be interested in the game?
I think what it really comes down to is the games need more, but ever since wow the companys try to compete therefor, your going to have a cookie cutter, now I cannot say for the future but I know for sure neverwinter nights 2 will offer more of people are looking for and its free online, in my opinion games need to be more like oblivion except online with varations, this way you can get exploration, deep fantasy with rich story lines, well thought out quests, unique customizations in classes and looks, interaction with the environment, atleast 70 more percent then wow and im talking about not only combat but non combat as well, make the mechanics more based on skill then gear.
Give the npcs and mobs more personality and act more realistic, and if any pvp at all make it more fullfilling like in daoc or cov/coh were you take over kingdoms or bases. I do not want to make thiis any longer im sure anyone could list more if they wish, but I think if a game company did this all in one game it would deffinatly dominate games like wow and etc.
I am not a game designer so im not sure how something like this can work, but for how long mmorpgs have been developing you would think someone could of done this by now...
Originally posted by SiddGames I think that's the problem right there. It's very difficult to simulate a very fluid, real-time event like combat in what is essentially a number-crunching, statistical, and "impulse-based" game system. There's player skill and character skill. At one end are games where player skill dominates - the fighting and FPS game genres. At the other end are games with character skills - the traditional RPG and most MMOG. You can certainly "slide" back and forth between the two, but the more you go one way, the less you have of the other. If you're saying no game out there meets where you'd like, I can understand that -- but to say you want player-skill to dominate in a non-FPS/Fighting game just seems unrealistic, IMHO.
Player skill already dominates in non-FPS/Fighting games, MMORPGs are a tiny subset of games where 'willingness to spend hours repetitively repeating tasks in the game' is what dominates. RTSs, TBSs, and other entire genres of games are dominated by player skill, to say nothing of non-computer games. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that 'player skill' is 'twitch', which is not the case - reflexes are one kind of player skill, but not the only one.
In traditional RPGs, player skill is massively important - the character's skills determine a lot of game effects, but using those skills effectively is critically important (for example, selecting which spells to memorize for a D&D wizard or deciding how to position a fighter to effectively use a reach weapon). In a well-run traditional RPG game, the player will not be able to simply walk up to a field of orcs, select one as a target, then keep repeating the exact same attacks forever. If you walk up to every encounter and simply do the same thing, then a good DM will need to be sure to throw some encounters your way for which it just doesn't work. Plus traditional RPGs include a lot more RP anyway, the player skill of deciding to try to ally with a given NPC instead of just killing them can often completely dominate how multiple sessions go.
Originally posted by boognish75 im not sure if you mean this strictly in a pvp sense, but eq2 has a variety of ways too make yer char skills unique, with the introduction of acheivments, now coming with adornements and a belief system.
If the belief / adornements system is anything like acheivments it will matter very little.
AA in Everquest II is nearly pointless, I think there are a few good skills there you can get with it that are truly worth it to use. Either way, they are hardly anything to justify giving players a large choice in being unique.
Anyways, I agree with the OP. I too am waiting for a bit more intuitive combat system.
I soloed tons of stuff in WOW, I loved doing red ('impossible') and elite (allegedly requires a group) quests on my druid in WOW while leveling.
Me too, but like I said, it never felt like a major challenge.
Sorry Pan but your entire post just feels like your going out of your way to start an argument with a few lightly veiled insults thrown in for good measure.
Originally posted by Celestian Anyone that says skill based systems promote unique'ness is kidding themselves. Once the optimal "skill set" is worked out EVERYONE is exactly the same..
If so, then the game design itself is flawed, not the idea of a skill based deveolpment. There are a few skill based games, that actually do a fine job in promoting diversity (meaning everyone can find their favourite role without one being better over the other).
Originally posted by Celestian Class based systems promote more unique characters than skill based systems ever did.
They act merely as an "anchor point" for the unimaginative, or for those that want to get fast into the game without getting into the gameworld first. It's the same with p&p rpgs, as with mmos. The problem, is that a lot of uniqueness (in p&p rpgs) is often roleplayed, something that computer rpgs, especially mmorpgs generally, don't support that well (no, /dance etc, is not what I mean). Players should define their characters by their actions and their skills, not some one word description with artificial restrictions/bonuses.
Someone should be called a warrior if he wears heavy armor and bashes heads with a [insert wepaon of choice], a magician should be called so if he uses mainly magic to get his way, a warrior mage should be called so if he mixes the two, and a Rogue is a Rogue, if he tries to avoid frontal assaults, and does things more ..... "elusive" style - and not because a label above the character's head says so. Of course some people would be hard to categorize, but that exactly would make it so real and immersive. Instead of "Warrior Level 46" you would see a "big guy with chainmail and a sword". He might be a warrior, but who says he isn't a mage appearing as warrior, who will blast you with his arcane power?
Another big advantage of skill based systems is that you can change the course of your character. Don't like the mage you are now? Then train your combat or your craft skills up a bit, and change your gameplay. With classes you are stuck, which again is against immersion. People change, not necessarily only get better, and an rpg should offer that possibility too. And no, "untrain classes" or " untrain class talents/skills" would not be the same, for obvious reasons. That "blanks" your development and history. People are a lot the sum of the experiences they made, and for characters it's the same. Taking that away leaves nothing but an empty shell.
Originally posted by Celestian A mix of class based and skill based is probably the best options by keeping certain skill sets specific to certain classes.
Where would be the difference to a pure level based development? Eg D&D uses exatly the same concept, and D&D is one of the most level driven games out there. It's about how your character advances, not necessarily how you can raise the skills skills for him.
But the general idea of mixing level and skill based development might work. There was a p&p RPG called Alternity which had a similar concept. You had levels and classes, but each level raise earned you a certain amount of development points which you used to "purchase" skills, advantages, etc. Plus your Hit points did not change directly from leveling up. So a high level character would avoid injury by his better skills and experience, not by having more hitpoints.
@ topic: People's view of Roleplaying was severly distorted by games like Diablo and the like. They seem to think that Roleplayinggames are about beating up monsters, getting powerful fast and having the best weapon, best armor. And the gaming industry is giving them that. Those who seem to miss the Roleplaying part in MMORPGs are viewed as weirdos who cling to "old times". Additionally the economy that sprung up around MMOs certainly did its share to worsen the MMO community as whole.
------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Mandolin
Designers need to move away from the old D&D level-based model which was never designed for player vs player combat in the first place.
Originally posted by DamonVile How are skill based games unique ? There's going to be one master mold that everyone builds and you end up with the same thing. Also, if you're going to take shots at peoples intelligence don't use funner as a word.
two words - ultima online
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I'll tellya what happened to todays gamers... they're pu$$ies! lol
Buncha no grindin, no time vestin, no pvp'n, third party prog usin rookie gamers usin daddies credit card who want everything handed to them. They think developers owe them the easy way since thier daddy pays 15 bucks per month for them to be ubar! lameass gamer wannabees i tellya! No skill,no patience and no dedication.
Pantastic said... Player skill already dominates in non-FPS/Fighting games, MMORPGs are a tiny subset of games where 'willingness to spend hours repetitively repeating tasks in the game' is what dominates. RTSs, TBSs, and other entire genres of games are dominated by player skill, to say nothing of non-computer games. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that 'player skill' is 'twitch', which is not the case - reflexes are one kind of player skill, but not the only one.
Yes, I omitted RTS and such, but I'm speaking specifically around MMOGs. I suppose there could be an MMOG that was RTS implemented on a grand scale, but that's beyond the scope of what we're discussing I think. That's part of what appeals to me in the upcoming Gods & Heroes, though, is the prominent use of squad-based minion control for some encounters. (I'm quick becoming a fanboi for G&H.) But note that that game still features a "the player is represented by a single character" model.
bugzonlsd said... Buncha no grindin, no time vestin, no pvp'n, third party prog usin rookie gamers usin daddies credit card who want everything handed to them. They think developers owe them the easy way since thier daddy pays 15 bucks per month for them to be ubar! lameass gamer wannabees i tellya! No skill,no patience and no dedication.
Hey, if you enjoy "patience" and "dedication" as a requirement in your free time computer gaming, then more power to you! But there are lots of players who don't. I think maybe it boils down to the difference between people who like MMOGs as a GAME vs those who like them as a HOBBY?
Could be dude... why tho? Did I hit a nerve there?
Gaming IS a HOBBY, if it wasnt would people play them 4-6 hours?10-15 hours? Would people sit there honestly if it wasnt?
People can make all the generalizations they want about hardcore and casual but there isnt much difference between the guy who works and comes home and goes strait to the mmo of choice and the guy who plays allday continuously( effin bum), theres only one problem there, one has the skill to progress and the other wants the skill given to him which of the two would be which I have no clue and dont care to know.
Look at games now ...you can buy frikkin skill for crying out loud and if you cant buy the skill you can buy the account or the gold,credits, weapons pretty much whatever you want. Shit like that ruins gaming dude seriously. Games should be fun but they should also be a challenge and people like the ones i mentioned above should find something easier to do because obviously they cant handle something as simple as playing a frikkin game for gods sake.
everything in life takes patience and dedication if your doing anything that doesnt require those two or one in the least of the two I think its safe to say your not aiming too high and most likely a slacker who really does want everything handed to him.
So for many people watching TV is a hobby? (Sadly, that's probably true...)
Games should be fun but they should also be a challenge and people like the ones i mentioned above should find something easier to do because obviously they cant handle something as simple as playing a frikkin game for gods sake.
Maybe people who want to dedicate several hours per day to an activity that tries to frustrate them and requires research and dedication to excel at should go find something harder to do since something as simple as playing a frikkin game doesn't satisfy them for gods sake? Like, I don't know, high-altitude mountain climbing or archaeology or cage fighting or something. If you don't have the patience and dedication to excel at those things, then you most likely are a slacker who really does want everything handed to you.
lol yea, i didnt get much of his point either but his reaction to my earlier post definantly shows he somehow disagrees with it, Sidd maybe your reaction to the negativty of my words is correct, I put it pretty bluntly and if it hit a nerve there Im sorry but you have to understand that these games arent in fact something you should have to cheat at nor complain about the complexity of the present tasks and situations developers put before you.
There hasnt been one mmo made to this day that requires a college degree or high school education to play, to make them yes probably but to play them no. I just fail to see why a player would take the easy ways out of a game. Games are made for you to enjoy and developers approach that in several different ways but not one developer takes the mindset of making a game to frustrate you and if your frustrated because your having problems aquiring and manipulating pixels then yes maybe you should infact try something else like mountain climbing but think about this ...if you cant handle something as easy as sitting in a chair mashing buttons how in heck are you going to be able to handle climbing the andes?
Originally posted by bugzonlsd lol yea, i didnt get much of his point either but his reaction to my earlier post definantly shows he somehow disagrees with it, Sidd maybe your reaction to the negativty of my words is correct, I put it pretty bluntly and if it hit a nerve there Im sorry but you have to understand that these games arent in fact something you should have to cheat at nor complain about the complexity of the present tasks and situations developers put before you.
Let me try to be more plain and omit the sarcasm and satire for you.
I don't see anyone here complaining about how hard today's MMOGs are. In fact, YOU are the person who started this entire thread with - a complaint! YOU are complaining they are too easy. And to be extra plain for you: *I* do not find today's MMOGs too hard, nor do I cheat at them or, here or on any other forum, do I complain about their difficulty.
There hasnt been one mmo made to this day that requires a college degree or high school education to play, to make them yes probably but to play them no.
The real irony here is that you seem to want a game that requires a high school or college education, yet mastery of English spelling and grammar (or maybe just typing) seems to still elude you.
I just fail to see why a player would take the easy ways out of a game.
There's the problem right there, you fail to see. *I* understand why some people want a very challenging, high risk/high reward online game - I'd probably enjoy one too, if it was actually a good game, and I don't doubt that there will eventually be a niche market for such games, too. But complaining about the differences between casual and hardcore, like YOU are complaining, accomplishes nothing.
Not many gamers and companys do not wish to do that and it takes so long to make those things as well, It might take several months for that stuff to be made. that's why you don't see much mmorpgs like world of warcraft and EVE.
Originally posted by SiddGames Yes, I omitted RTS and such, but I'm speaking specifically around MMOGs.
"FPS/Fighting games" are not MMORPGs. Aside from planetside, none of them are even MMOGs. If your speaking specifically, limit yourself to what you're speaking specifically about and avoid listing single player and non-massive online games.
I suppose there could be an MMOG that was RTS implemented on a grand scale, but that's beyond the scope of what we're discussing I think.
It's certainly not anything even vaguely related to what I was discussing.
Originally posted by Pantastic "FPS/Fighting games" are not MMORPGs. Aside from planetside, none of them are even MMOGs. If your speaking specifically, limit yourself to what you're speaking specifically about and avoid listing single player and non-massive online games.
Perhaps I wasn't saying it effectively, but that's what I was trying to get at. There AREN'T any FPS/Fighting MMOGs. A significant factor in RPGs are character skills. You used an example of how player skill is required to play well in a traditional RPG - I don't debate that. But, for all the decision making the player does, it still boils down to the character who must execute those actions. You can strategize all you want about how to assault each group of orcs, but if your character lacks the skill, or simply fails to execute on it due to the vagaries of random numbers, the player skill was moot. You can make good decisions about trying to ally with NPCs or avoiding confrontation, but again, if your character fails at the task, the player skill was moot. A GM can arbitrate anything he wants, of course, but I doubt we'll see an MMOG any time soon in which GMs are on hand to arbitrate every decision the players make.
FPS/fighting games do not use statistics to determine how well each player is hitting each other. The moves (or weapon attacks) are defined and sequenced based on the skill of the player at inputing them. That's why I place this genre at the far end of the player vs character skill spectrum, not necessarily because they are based on twitch skills.
RTS games are clearly player-skill based, and not twitch based (although one could argue the better players are extremely adept at micromanaging their forces and that skill is enhanced by twitch skills), but unless the game includes character development it can't be an MMORPG. If it does include character development, then that means the game probably uses character skill ratings somewhere in its task resolution system. If it does that, then player skill is no longer the sole criteria on which the outcome is decided.
Anyway, I may just be confusing the issue more -- my thesis statement in that post was "It's very difficult to simulate a very fluid, real-time event like combat in what is essentially a number-crunching, statistical, and "impulse-based" game system." The more statistics your character tracks in-game, the bigger effect it has in the outcome of task resolution compared to player skill. I'm not saying player skill doesn't have a role.
And now I just reviewed the original post and I can't even recall how we got this far off topic, heh.
Originally posted by Pantastic "FPS/Fighting games" are not MMORPGs. Aside from planetside, none of them are even MMOGs. If your speaking specifically, limit yourself to what you're speaking specifically about and avoid listing single player and non-massive online games.
Perhaps I wasn't saying it effectively, but that's what I was trying to get at. There AREN'T any FPS/Fighting MMOGs. A significant factor in RPGs are character skills. You used an example of how player skill is required to play well in a traditional RPG - I don't debate that. But, for all the decision making the player does, it still boils down to the character who must execute those actions. You can strategize all you want about how to assault each group of orcs, but if your character lacks the skill, or simply fails to execute on it due to the vagaries of random numbers, the player skill was moot. You can make good decisions about trying to ally with NPCs or avoiding confrontation, but again, if your character fails at the task, the player skill was moot. A GM can arbitrate anything he wants, of course, but I doubt we'll see an MMOG any time soon in which GMs are on hand to arbitrate every decision the players make.
FPS/fighting games do not use statistics to determine how well each player is hitting each other. The moves (or weapon attacks) are defined and sequenced based on the skill of the player at inputing them. That's why I place this genre at the far end of the player vs character skill spectrum, not necessarily because they are based on twitch skills.
RTS games are clearly player-skill based, and not twitch based (although one could argue the better players are extremely adept at micromanaging their forces and that skill is enhanced by twitch skills), but unless the game includes character development it can't be an MMORPG. If it does include character development, then that means the game probably uses character skill ratings somewhere in its task resolution system. If it does that, then player skill is no longer the sole criteria on which the outcome is decided.
Anyway, I may just be confusing the issue more -- my thesis statement in that post was "It's very difficult to simulate a very fluid, real-time event like combat in what is essentially a number-crunching, statistical, and "impulse-based" game system." The more statistics your character tracks in-game, the bigger effect it has in the outcome of task resolution compared to player skill. I'm not saying player skill doesn't have a role.
And now I just reviewed the original post and I can't even recall how we got this far off topic, heh.
You got mad thats how
My points... and yes maybe my grammer and all that isnt the greatest but it gets the point across and thats enough. But go back and reread the post that upset you, it never mentions anyones name in specific nor would any onesided post like that ever include such... as its more of a generalization towards the mindset of many of the gamers playing mmos today which is to say they want everything handed to them and what YOU fail to see is that it IS that mentality floating around mmos today that is driving mmos to the ground.
Not sure who that is directed at, as nothing on these forums upsets me or makes me mad, heh.
I'm not sure what your working definition of "driving mmos to the ground" might be. Blizzard expects 1 BILLION dollars in revenue this year, a significant chunk of which will be profit. Mythic, Cryptic, NCSoft, SOE and I'm sure many others are running MMOGs and are solvent. If WoW is your poster child for "handing everything to the players" then clearly, it is a profitable proposition.
Now, if you meant to refer to just the MMOGs that have come and gone out of business, well, I'd argue poor game systems, poor programming, weak art, generic theme, and a host of other issues are what drove those games into the ground. Difficulty and challenge may or may not be a factor in some of these failures, but it is FAR from being the only, or even main, reason.
Comments
Or perhaps an empathy test where the most social people rule the less social ones?
What's a good combat system? Solving equations or speedtyping?
Um, sure the "power gamers" who want to be "teh bestest at PvP!!" all go 2-3 certain builds. But the joy of skill based is that you don't have to be the same build as those people. In SWG, for instance, I was Master Ranger/Rifleman for a long time (if anyone played rifleman early, they will remember many deaths to melee and not being able to hit anything..OH, and the warping mobs of doom! lol). It matched the role I wanted to play in the game...later in the game idiots would run around with cookie cutter builds that allowed them to take almost no damage. They would hold "teh bestest PvPer evar!!!" tournaments and some fights (1v1) would go on for 30+ minutes...fun for them I guess, but I could still explore all the planets and shoot some badies in the face and PvP in the real game world.
I'm with the OP, when did replacing many skill based possibilities/combinations with few generic classes become a good idea for an MMORPG?
I, for one, blame consoles!
There is no doubt that having enegery gun skills maxed and Minmatar shipps maxed is pretty much gonna gimp you.
But there is also a whole whole lot of wiggle room. There are tons of builds for the same purpose and there are many jobs that will require different builds.
Sure there are standard Blasterthron builds. But that is not the be all end all close combat build. There are many many kinds of combat builds in Eve. And there is certainly no agreement on what is the Uberest. And even in a blasterthron build there is variation between people.
There is absolutely no way you can give me the one Uber buld to rule them all in Eve. There isn't even an uber build to rule all battleship pvp fights. Sure a lot of people use Ravens and Eve is by no means perfect, and things like EW are controversal.
But there is a very wide vairety of fighting builds, some of which are even very close in function.
No one in their right mind really thinks there is some way to make every single possible combination of skill points in a game come out to be exactly even.
But there are a wide variety of builds in Eve, and there is even a good bit of disagreement about what is the best for certain roles.
The fact is Eve doesn't have the oh you just do 80 is sword and 80 in healing and 80 in fire magic and you are teh uberest, that is THE build.
There is nothing wrong with trends in a skill system, the problem that occurs in some is that they do not actually turn out to be diverse even though there are many skills because every just use the same 3 skills to the same levels.
Eve has many many diverse builds even within a restricted field such as pvp fighting. Part of this is because of the ship system. There is no guarantee that without the ship/skill interactions there wouldn't be some uberest skill setup. But there isn't there are many things you can try to do.
Eve is not balanced on skills, Eve is balanced on ships. Eve is a game that busts up a lot of misconceptions about skills system. The cookie cutter misconception and the hard to balance misconcpetion.
In Eve you can only be as uber as whatever ships exist. You can never get more uber with other skills once you ahve those ship's skill maxed.
I'm not saying skills aren't important, but without a ship your skills mean nothing for fighting. Being awesome at projectile turrets means nothing if you have hybrid turrets on your ships (although there is some synergy).
In a UO type game being awesome at earth magic and fire magic means you get both, because that is what the skills give you. The balance is different because you ahve to make sure the entire system jives together.
In Eve as long as the ships are designed right there are as many things you can be as there are ships. Granted some ships in Eve are not so hot. But there are enough good ones that there actually are a lot of different and various things going on.
Some people say the ships are the equivalent to classes, whatever.
3E class/feats isn't much different from WoW class/talents, other than general feats being more available to anyone. The end result is the same, however: core classes that are then tweaked to emphasize certain capabilities or playstyles. A lot of people seem to knock WoW around here, but I think their talent system creates subtle (or not so subtle) but significant differences in how the builds play. I am a very non-cookie-cutter player and I have "weird" builds on almost all my characters and am perfectly happy with how they perform - they don't "feel" gimped, and anyone else's opinion on how I play and enjoy the game I pay for is meaningless to me.
Well I don't consider WoW's system as open as 3rd ed D&D. And certainly not sa flexible. In WoW there are too many feats that all members of a class get.
For fighters specifically you could wind up being quite different from one another. You could be a dex tank or a heavy armor tank, you could multi class in a little rogue or whatever. You could be a knockdown/attack of opportunity with some rogue spalshed in to get the sneak attack. Or go for super crits etc.
All in all it was possible to get some interesting and novel builds out of the system just with feats. Some classes were very cookie cutter though.
Actually I kind of like how a paladin was very cookie cutter but fighters had a lot of freedom by getting lots of class feats. And you could really make a fighter and rogue be fairly similar combat wise, (although you would never get certain things like pick lock or whatever)
Also 1st ed to 3rd ed they made it so that armor was no longer purely class based. You could be a wizard wearing a plate armor, you just fail spells a lot.
The thing I was trying to capture here is that a lot of this stuff people are arguing about is not really based on skills versuses classes.
I really think the Guild Wars system is really nice and its not really skills based at all. Its really a great and unique system.
In the end its about elegant and effective restrictions, but at the same time giving nice choices.
What often happens is that classes are extremely narrowly defined, restrictive and controling. Very much like 1st ed AD&D. But they really don't have to be, 3rd ed made them much more flexible and customizable. But still kept alot of the flavor of the classes. By putting in various types of class restriction or bonuses. Fighter got free feats, rogues get skills only they have access too, etc.
You can make a very free customizable class/feat system. You can also make a very restrictive skill system, although it may not appear restrictive at first.
I like skill systems personally because I do not like the one-dimensional level aptitude, but I think a nice open class/feat system is good too. But the fact is the problems people assign to class system can apply to skill systems and the problem that are assigned to skill systems can apply to class systems.
The thing is that classes tend to be to confined and skills tend to not be confined enough or not be confined correctly. But if you are good enough to moderate things either one is good.
Um... isn't this contradictory, here and and in relation to your other points? Do you want combat to be more challenging or less challenging? A good /stick function makes fighting easier, not more interactive, which is what I thought you wanted.
No I said a target lock not a stick.. When I mean target lock.. perhaps I should describe it as a face lock. Because camera tend to be messy in any MMO. The intelligent follow can get a tree stuck in your way so you can't see. So I just meant a way to keep facing the target so you can worry about the other combat buttons.. Dodge, kick, block, step back to avoid a hit, dodge to side aka strafing.
Now a skill based system that also worked was SWG to a degree.. I'm talking a hybrid skill/level system. Ok so everyones number 1 complaint about skill based system is you cap it and eventually everyone will be the same. But that is where you cap the skill it should than branch off into a tree choice like SWG. Now you start on a different path for the same skill.. Someone wielding sword might focus on more specialized variety of sword type skills..
I'm sure if people brainstormed ideas would come but let's just throw an idea out.. dumb example but an example never the less. You capped your sword skill than you start on another path.. One path could be a multi oppponent style attacks, while another could be duel wielding. Both have it's advantages. Now if you played AC1 you know how long it took to cap your skill.. Now a new path of skill opens up for you to choose.. AC 1 only allowed so many skill points to buy skills some were cheaper others were more expensive so nobody could get all the skills even at level 150+. That could just be one skill tree your working on.. you may also have blunt weapons, armor skills (armor types), shields, pikes, ect.. You could almost think of maxing your skills as going to the next level.. and starting a new branch from there. A good skill based system is a combination of both class/level/skills and skills only go up by using them.. not just leveling up.
But the dumbed down class/level based system is totally boring and gives no feeling of accomplishment at all. Oh boy I leveled now I can use this ability that I never used before. But a skill based system you will get that new ability based on your level but it's going to be very very innefective and require alot of practice to make it even useful. Just as you can go purchase a musical instrument but if you don't practice you never will sound good on it. Same with wielding weapons and wearing different types of armor.
I soloed tons of stuff in WOW, I loved doing red ('impossible') and elite (allegedly requires a group) quests on my druid in WOW while leveling. I spent a good chunk of my playtime doing things solo that I 'shouldn't' be able to do, spending some time at level cap messing around to avoid using a group to snag something doesn't exactly impress me with the level of challenge. Especially since you spent far longer grinding your way to 50 and camping for the various items you need than you did on the part that's supposedly more challenging than WOW.
Bumbling around the map to try to guess where the developers set up a safe path is not the kind of challenge I'm talking about here. Seriously, do you guys even think about how dumb some of these 'challenges' sound? If you described the game to someone who doesn't already play MMOs, do you think detailing this part of the game would make them more or less likely to be interested in the game?
I think what it really comes down to is the games need more, but ever since wow the companys try to compete therefor, your going to have a cookie cutter, now I cannot say for the future but I know for sure neverwinter nights 2 will offer more of people are looking for and its free online, in my opinion games need to be more like oblivion except online with varations, this way you can get exploration, deep fantasy with rich story lines, well thought out quests, unique customizations in classes and looks, interaction with the environment, atleast 70 more percent then wow and im talking about not only combat but non combat as well, make the mechanics more based on skill then gear.
Give the npcs and mobs more personality and act more realistic, and if any pvp at all make it more fullfilling like in daoc or cov/coh were you take over kingdoms or bases. I do not want to make thiis any longer im sure anyone could list more if they wish, but I think if a game company did this all in one game it would deffinatly dominate games like wow and etc.
I am not a game designer so im not sure how something like this can work, but for how long mmorpgs have been developing you would think someone could of done this by now...
Player skill already dominates in non-FPS/Fighting games, MMORPGs are a tiny subset of games where 'willingness to spend hours repetitively repeating tasks in the game' is what dominates. RTSs, TBSs, and other entire genres of games are dominated by player skill, to say nothing of non-computer games. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that 'player skill' is 'twitch', which is not the case - reflexes are one kind of player skill, but not the only one.
In traditional RPGs, player skill is massively important - the character's skills determine a lot of game effects, but using those skills effectively is critically important (for example, selecting which spells to memorize for a D&D wizard or deciding how to position a fighter to effectively use a reach weapon). In a well-run traditional RPG game, the player will not be able to simply walk up to a field of orcs, select one as a target, then keep repeating the exact same attacks forever. If you walk up to every encounter and simply do the same thing, then a good DM will need to be sure to throw some encounters your way for which it just doesn't work. Plus traditional RPGs include a lot more RP anyway, the player skill of deciding to try to ally with a given NPC instead of just killing them can often completely dominate how multiple sessions go.
AA in Everquest II is nearly pointless, I think there are a few good skills there you can get with it that are truly worth it to use. Either way, they are hardly anything to justify giving players a large choice in being unique.
Anyways, I agree with the OP. I too am waiting for a bit more intuitive combat system.
Me too, but like I said, it never felt like a major challenge.
Sorry Pan but your entire post just feels like your going out of your way to start an argument with a few lightly veiled insults thrown in for good measure.
Feel free to have the last word
i believe that is an accurate and full compendium of gamers feelings towards video gaming in the 21st century.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
If so, then the game design itself is flawed, not the idea of a skill based deveolpment. There are a few skill based games, that actually do a fine job in promoting diversity (meaning everyone can find their favourite role without one being better over the other).
They act merely as an "anchor point" for the unimaginative, or for those that want to get fast into the game without getting into the gameworld first. It's the same with p&p rpgs, as with mmos. The problem, is that a lot of uniqueness (in p&p rpgs) is often roleplayed, something that computer rpgs, especially mmorpgs generally, don't support that well (no, /dance etc, is not what I mean). Players should define their characters by their actions and their skills, not some one word description with artificial restrictions/bonuses.
Someone should be called a warrior if he wears heavy armor and bashes heads with a [insert wepaon of choice], a magician should be called so if he uses mainly magic to get his way, a warrior mage should be called so if he mixes the two, and a Rogue is a Rogue, if he tries to avoid frontal assaults, and does things more ..... "elusive" style - and not because a label above the character's head says so. Of course some people would be hard to categorize, but that exactly would make it so real and immersive. Instead of "Warrior Level 46" you would see a "big guy with chainmail and a sword". He might be a warrior, but who says he isn't a mage appearing as warrior, who will blast you with his arcane power?
Another big advantage of skill based systems is that you can change the course of your character. Don't like the mage you are now? Then train your combat or your craft skills up a bit, and change your gameplay. With classes you are stuck, which again is against immersion. People change, not necessarily only get better, and an rpg should offer that possibility too. And no, "untrain classes" or " untrain class talents/skills" would not be the same, for obvious reasons. That "blanks" your development and history. People are a lot the sum of the experiences they made, and for characters it's the same. Taking that away leaves nothing but an empty shell.
Where would be the difference to a pure level based development? Eg D&D uses exatly the same concept, and D&D is one of the most level driven games out there. It's about how your character advances, not necessarily how you can raise the skills skills for him.
But the general idea of mixing level and skill based development might work. There was a p&p RPG called Alternity which had a similar concept. You had levels and classes, but each level raise earned you a certain amount of development points which you used to "purchase" skills, advantages, etc. Plus your Hit points did not change directly from leveling up. So a high level character would avoid injury by his better skills and experience, not by having more hitpoints.
@ topic: People's view of Roleplaying was severly distorted by games like Diablo and the like. They seem to think that Roleplayinggames are about beating up monsters, getting powerful fast and having the best weapon, best armor. And the gaming industry is giving them that. Those who seem to miss the Roleplaying part in MMORPGs are viewed as weirdos who cling to "old times". Additionally the economy that sprung up around MMOs certainly did its share to worsen the MMO community as whole.
------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mandolin
Designers need to move away from the old D&D level-based model which was never designed for player vs player combat in the first place.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I'll tellya what happened to todays gamers... they're pu$$ies! lol
Buncha no grindin, no time vestin, no pvp'n, third party prog usin rookie gamers usin daddies credit card who want everything handed to them. They think developers owe them the easy way since thier daddy pays 15 bucks per month for them to be ubar! lameass gamer wannabees i tellya! No skill,no patience and no dedication.
Yes, I omitted RTS and such, but I'm speaking specifically around MMOGs. I suppose there could be an MMOG that was RTS implemented on a grand scale, but that's beyond the scope of what we're discussing I think. That's part of what appeals to me in the upcoming Gods & Heroes, though, is the prominent use of squad-based minion control for some encounters. (I'm quick becoming a fanboi for G&H.) But note that that game still features a "the player is represented by a single character" model.
Hey, if you enjoy "patience" and "dedication" as a requirement in your free time computer gaming, then more power to you! But there are lots of players who don't. I think maybe it boils down to the difference between people who like MMOGs as a GAME vs those who like them as a HOBBY?
Could be dude... why tho? Did I hit a nerve there?
Gaming IS a HOBBY, if it wasnt would people play them 4-6 hours?10-15 hours? Would people sit there honestly if it wasnt?
People can make all the generalizations they want about hardcore and casual but there isnt much difference between the guy who works and comes home and goes strait to the mmo of choice and the guy who plays allday continuously( effin bum), theres only one problem there, one has the skill to progress and the other wants the skill given to him which of the two would be which I have no clue and dont care to know.
Look at games now ...you can buy frikkin skill for crying out loud and if you cant buy the skill you can buy the account or the gold,credits, weapons pretty much whatever you want. Shit like that ruins gaming dude seriously. Games should be fun but they should also be a challenge and people like the ones i mentioned above should find something easier to do because obviously they cant handle something as simple as playing a frikkin game for gods sake.
everything in life takes patience and dedication if your doing anything that doesnt require those two or one in the least of the two I think its safe to say your not aiming too high and most likely a slacker who really does want everything handed to him.
So for many people watching TV is a hobby? (Sadly, that's probably true...)
Maybe people who want to dedicate several hours per day to an activity that tries to frustrate them and requires research and dedication to excel at should go find something harder to do since something as simple as playing a frikkin game doesn't satisfy them for gods sake? Like, I don't know, high-altitude mountain climbing or archaeology or cage fighting or something. If you don't have the patience and dedication to excel at those things, then you most likely are a slacker who really does want everything handed to you.
Thank you and good night!
You trying to argue, wait I not got clue what the hell your trying to argue.
lol yea, i didnt get much of his point either but his reaction to my earlier post definantly shows he somehow disagrees with it, Sidd maybe your reaction to the negativty of my words is correct, I put it pretty bluntly and if it hit a nerve there Im sorry but you have to understand that these games arent in fact something you should have to cheat at nor complain about the complexity of the present tasks and situations developers put before you.
There hasnt been one mmo made to this day that requires a college degree or high school education to play, to make them yes probably but to play them no. I just fail to see why a player would take the easy ways out of a game. Games are made for you to enjoy and developers approach that in several different ways but not one developer takes the mindset of making a game to frustrate you and if your frustrated because your having problems aquiring and manipulating pixels then yes maybe you should infact try something else like mountain climbing but think about this ...if you cant handle something as easy as sitting in a chair mashing buttons how in heck are you going to be able to handle climbing the andes?
Let me try to be more plain and omit the sarcasm and satire for you.
I don't see anyone here complaining about how hard today's MMOGs are. In fact, YOU are the person who started this entire thread with - a complaint! YOU are complaining they are too easy. And to be extra plain for you: *I* do not find today's MMOGs too hard, nor do I cheat at them or, here or on any other forum, do I complain about their difficulty.
The real irony here is that you seem to want a game that requires a high school or college education, yet mastery of English spelling and grammar (or maybe just typing) seems to still elude you.
There's the problem right there, you fail to see. *I* understand why some people want a very challenging, high risk/high reward online game - I'd probably enjoy one too, if it was actually a good game, and I don't doubt that there will eventually be a niche market for such games, too. But complaining about the differences between casual and hardcore, like YOU are complaining, accomplishes nothing.
"FPS/Fighting games" are not MMORPGs. Aside from planetside, none of them are even MMOGs. If your speaking specifically, limit yourself to what you're speaking specifically about and avoid listing single player and non-massive online games.
It's certainly not anything even vaguely related to what I was discussing.
Perhaps I wasn't saying it effectively, but that's what I was trying to get at. There AREN'T any FPS/Fighting MMOGs. A significant factor in RPGs are character skills. You used an example of how player skill is required to play well in a traditional RPG - I don't debate that. But, for all the decision making the player does, it still boils down to the character who must execute those actions. You can strategize all you want about how to assault each group of orcs, but if your character lacks the skill, or simply fails to execute on it due to the vagaries of random numbers, the player skill was moot. You can make good decisions about trying to ally with NPCs or avoiding confrontation, but again, if your character fails at the task, the player skill was moot. A GM can arbitrate anything he wants, of course, but I doubt we'll see an MMOG any time soon in which GMs are on hand to arbitrate every decision the players make.
FPS/fighting games do not use statistics to determine how well each player is hitting each other. The moves (or weapon attacks) are defined and sequenced based on the skill of the player at inputing them. That's why I place this genre at the far end of the player vs character skill spectrum, not necessarily because they are based on twitch skills.
RTS games are clearly player-skill based, and not twitch based (although one could argue the better players are extremely adept at micromanaging their forces and that skill is enhanced by twitch skills), but unless the game includes character development it can't be an MMORPG. If it does include character development, then that means the game probably uses character skill ratings somewhere in its task resolution system. If it does that, then player skill is no longer the sole criteria on which the outcome is decided.
Anyway, I may just be confusing the issue more -- my thesis statement in that post was "It's very difficult to simulate a very fluid, real-time event like combat in what is essentially a number-crunching, statistical, and "impulse-based" game system." The more statistics your character tracks in-game, the bigger effect it has in the outcome of task resolution compared to player skill. I'm not saying player skill doesn't have a role.
And now I just reviewed the original post and I can't even recall how we got this far off topic, heh.
Perhaps I wasn't saying it effectively, but that's what I was trying to get at. There AREN'T any FPS/Fighting MMOGs. A significant factor in RPGs are character skills. You used an example of how player skill is required to play well in a traditional RPG - I don't debate that. But, for all the decision making the player does, it still boils down to the character who must execute those actions. You can strategize all you want about how to assault each group of orcs, but if your character lacks the skill, or simply fails to execute on it due to the vagaries of random numbers, the player skill was moot. You can make good decisions about trying to ally with NPCs or avoiding confrontation, but again, if your character fails at the task, the player skill was moot. A GM can arbitrate anything he wants, of course, but I doubt we'll see an MMOG any time soon in which GMs are on hand to arbitrate every decision the players make.
FPS/fighting games do not use statistics to determine how well each player is hitting each other. The moves (or weapon attacks) are defined and sequenced based on the skill of the player at inputing them. That's why I place this genre at the far end of the player vs character skill spectrum, not necessarily because they are based on twitch skills.
RTS games are clearly player-skill based, and not twitch based (although one could argue the better players are extremely adept at micromanaging their forces and that skill is enhanced by twitch skills), but unless the game includes character development it can't be an MMORPG. If it does include character development, then that means the game probably uses character skill ratings somewhere in its task resolution system. If it does that, then player skill is no longer the sole criteria on which the outcome is decided.
Anyway, I may just be confusing the issue more -- my thesis statement in that post was "It's very difficult to simulate a very fluid, real-time event like combat in what is essentially a number-crunching, statistical, and "impulse-based" game system." The more statistics your character tracks in-game, the bigger effect it has in the outcome of task resolution compared to player skill. I'm not saying player skill doesn't have a role.
And now I just reviewed the original post and I can't even recall how we got this far off topic, heh.
You got mad thats how
My points... and yes maybe my grammer and all that isnt the greatest but it gets the point across and thats enough. But go back and reread the post that upset you, it never mentions anyones name in specific nor would any onesided post like that ever include such... as its more of a generalization towards the mindset of many of the gamers playing mmos today which is to say they want everything handed to them and what YOU fail to see is that it IS that mentality floating around mmos today that is driving mmos to the ground.
Not sure who that is directed at, as nothing on these forums upsets me or makes me mad, heh.
I'm not sure what your working definition of "driving mmos to the ground" might be. Blizzard expects 1 BILLION dollars in revenue this year, a significant chunk of which will be profit. Mythic, Cryptic, NCSoft, SOE and I'm sure many others are running MMOGs and are solvent. If WoW is your poster child for "handing everything to the players" then clearly, it is a profitable proposition.
Now, if you meant to refer to just the MMOGs that have come and gone out of business, well, I'd argue poor game systems, poor programming, weak art, generic theme, and a host of other issues are what drove those games into the ground. Difficulty and challenge may or may not be a factor in some of these failures, but it is FAR from being the only, or even main, reason.