In my 17 years of MMOing I have yet to see a skill based game not turn into a nerf bat game. Where the above scenario I mentioned does not happen. Its not about doing a skill based game well. Its just not possible to make a fair balanced game that way. Much like RL where you can learn any skill is not fair. There is rich and poor. Powerful and pray. Its why the majority of MMO use a class system. Bundled skill sets are a batter project for a balanced game.
and in those 17 years of gaming how many skill based systems have you played? 1 maybe 2?
the principles I have illustrated are sound as far as i am concerned and i have very much enjoyed the skill based games I played and I now no longer play class based games and when I see them it reminds of antiquated systems and that has been my 'MO' now for more than 4 years.
What i fail to understand is why people can not conceptualize on anything other than exactly without deviation only what they have personally experienced.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In my 17 years of MMOing I have yet to see a skill based game not turn into a nerf bat game. Where the above scenario I mentioned does not happen. Its not about doing a skill based game well. Its just not possible to make a fair balanced game that way. Much like RL where you can learn any skill is not fair. There is rich and poor. Powerful and pray. Its why the majority of MMO use a class system. Bundled skill sets are a batter project for a balanced game.
and in those 17 years of gaming how many skill based systems have you played? 1 maybe 2?
the principles I have illustrated are sound as far as i am concerned and i have very much enjoyed the skill based games I played and I now no longer play class based games and when I see them it reminds of antiquated systems and that has been my 'MO' now for more than 4 years.
What i fail to understand is why people can not conceptualize on anything other than exactly without deviation only what they have personally experienced.
Why more than that. FACT: Less skill based games are made because of the problems they entail. Matter of fact, SWG launched as a skill based game and they dropped it in a patch for classes. Skill-based games are something as gamers all hope to see but as of yet never been done well because of the problems that come packaged with it. With skill-based games you have only 2 options.
1. Nerf skills as people find combos that are OP. Making skill combo that used the same skills nerfed as well. Lowering the number of options people have from the skills.
2. Dont nerf skills as people find OP options. Doing this forces people to pick the OP skill sets to play at the same level as anyone else. Lowering the number of options people have to make their desired skill sets.
So in the end you are better off with a class game as you end up with more options and a better balanced game.
In my 17 years of MMOing I have yet to see a skill based game not turn into a nerf bat game. Where the above scenario I mentioned does not happen. Its not about doing a skill based game well. Its just not possible to make a fair balanced game that way. Much like RL where you can learn any skill is not fair. There is rich and poor. Powerful and pray. Its why the majority of MMO use a class system. Bundled skill sets are a batter project for a balanced game.
and in those 17 years of gaming how many skill based systems have you played? 1 maybe 2?
the principles I have illustrated are sound as far as i am concerned and i have very much enjoyed the skill based games I played and I now no longer play class based games and when I see them it reminds of antiquated systems and that has been my 'MO' now for more than 4 years.
What i fail to understand is why people can not conceptualize on anything other than exactly without deviation only what they have personally experienced.
Why more than that. FACT: Less skill based games are made because of the problems they entail. Matter of fact,
how is the fuck is that 'a fact', sorry but I am ending conversation now before it gets out of hand. I cant have patience in a discussion with so called 'facts' laid out as you have so for the both of us I am moving on. oh and your stated fact by the way is not even accurate but regardless I am not getting into it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In my 17 years of MMOing I have yet to see a skill based game not turn into a nerf bat game. Where the above scenario I mentioned does not happen. Its not about doing a skill based game well. Its just not possible to make a fair balanced game that way. Much like RL where you can learn any skill is not fair. There is rich and poor. Powerful and pray. Its why the majority of MMO use a class system. Bundled skill sets are a batter project for a balanced game.
and in those 17 years of gaming how many skill based systems have you played? 1 maybe 2?
the principles I have illustrated are sound as far as i am concerned and i have very much enjoyed the skill based games I played and I now no longer play class based games and when I see them it reminds of antiquated systems and that has been my 'MO' now for more than 4 years.
What i fail to understand is why people can not conceptualize on anything other than exactly without deviation only what they have personally experienced.
Why more than that. FACT: Less skill based games are made because of the problems they entail. Matter of fact,
how is the fuck is that 'a fact', sorry but I am ending conversation now before it gets out of hand. I cant have patience in a discussion with so called 'facts' laid out as you have so for the both of us I am moving on. oh and your stated fact by the way is not even accurate but regardless I am not getting into it.
Your not getting into it because you have nothing to reply with. You cut everything out of my post that backs that FACT up because you have nothing to stand on. So move on is your only option. lol good day sir!
In my 17 years of MMOing I have yet to see a skill based game not turn into a nerf bat game. Where the above scenario I mentioned does not happen. Its not about doing a skill based game well. Its just not possible to make a fair balanced game that way. Much like RL where you can learn any skill is not fair. There is rich and poor. Powerful and pray. Its why the majority of MMO use a class system. Bundled skill sets are a batter project for a balanced game.
and in those 17 years of gaming how many skill based systems have you played? 1 maybe 2?
the principles I have illustrated are sound as far as i am concerned and i have very much enjoyed the skill based games I played and I now no longer play class based games and when I see them it reminds of antiquated systems and that has been my 'MO' now for more than 4 years.
What i fail to understand is why people can not conceptualize on anything other than exactly without deviation only what they have personally experienced.
Why more than that. FACT: Less skill based games are made because of the problems they entail. Matter of fact,
how is the fuck is that 'a fact', sorry but I am ending conversation now before it gets out of hand. I cant have patience in a discussion with so called 'facts' laid out as you have so for the both of us I am moving on. oh and your stated fact by the way is not even accurate but regardless I am not getting into it.
Your not getting into it because you have nothing to reply with. You cut everything out of my post that backs that FACT up because you have nothing to stand on. So move on is your only option. lol good day sir!
no its because I dont want to get into whole myth of economic model that teaches young people that everything is exactly because every option has been battle tested and the econmic choices represent what people want....horseshit
it gets old and boring. its not true, its at best only half true. what is mostly true is that people will buy what they are told too and that is why marketing works.
but I really dont want to get into all that yet again.
oh and that and the whole 'AAA companies never try to inovate and when an indie does with the 10 dollars in his pocket and 2 developers anything new idea he does represents any and all possible attempts at it for now until the ends of time.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I have personally always seen classes as a crutch for designers who can't balance a skill-based system, but lately I've been seeing people saying things like 'X game needs more diverse and intersting classes', 'X game's classes are so generic', 'X game will fail because it has bad classes', etc. A properly designed and balanced skill system intrinsically gives the ultimate freedom and diversity of choices that no class system could ever rival, so I'd like to know what the point of classes is; why are people demanding better classes over no classes?
Skill-based systems are just consistently worse than class-based ones.
The words you're tossing around (bland, generic, uninteresting) apply more to skill-based systems than class-based ones.
You seem to confuse the fact that if you do something bad or generic, it's going to suck regardless of whether your system is skill-based or class-based.
Nobody would argue that skill-based systems don't provide more freedom. But it's exactly that freedom which causes them to be more bland than class-based systems.
Whereas classes can be designed as very distinct sets of capabilities that feel different from one another. In WOW, Warrior tanks play very differently from Death Knights. Warriors mitigate a ton of damage but have weaker self-healing, whereas Death Knights are the opposite. In a skill-based game players would simply choose the Warrior's mitigation skill with the DK's healing skill and all tanks would use that combination of the two best abilities. But as two distinct classes they're able to be different.
While I am a big fan of skill-based systems, I am in agreement with Axehilt here. Classes (which many in this thread have confused or conflated with roles) allow the developers to provide a distinct sense of differentiation and uniqueness where as skill-based systems leave that up to the player.
Take for example the guardian or tank role. Most players want that say "I want to play a tank" aren't looking to create the tank. They want a set of skills and abilities available to them that make them the best tank they can be. Skill-based systems are for the player that wants to create a tank and not be bound by the restrictions of a class-based tank.
Both have their good and bad sides. However, classes provide the direction and tools that most players seem to want in order to maximize their enjoyment of the role.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
In my 17 years of MMOing I have yet to see a skill based game not turn into a nerf bat game. Where the above scenario I mentioned does not happen. Its not about doing a skill based game well. Its just not possible to make a fair balanced game that way. Much like RL where you can learn any skill is not fair. There is rich and poor. Powerful and pray. Its why the majority of MMO use a class system. Bundled skill sets are a batter project for a balanced game.
and in those 17 years of gaming how many skill based systems have you played? 1 maybe 2?
the principles I have illustrated are sound as far as i am concerned and i have very much enjoyed the skill based games I played and I now no longer play class based games and when I see them it reminds of antiquated systems and that has been my 'MO' now for more than 4 years.
What i fail to understand is why people can not conceptualize on anything other than exactly without deviation only what they have personally experienced.
Why more than that. FACT: Less skill based games are made because of the problems they entail. Matter of fact, SWG launched as a skill based game and they dropped it in a patch for classes. Skill-based games are something as gamers all hope to see but as of yet never been done well because of the problems that come packaged with it. With skill-based games you have only 2 options.
1. Nerf skills as people find combos that are OP. Making skill combo that used the same skills nerfed as well. Lowering the number of options people have from the skills.
2. Dont nerf skills as people find OP options. Doing this forces people to pick the OP skill sets to play at the same level as anyone else. Lowering the number of options people have to make their desired skill sets.
So in the end you are better off with a class game as you end up with more options and a better balanced game.
I have certainly found this to be true in skill-based systems where there is no limit to the number of skills you can master.
But, once there is a limit put in place (such as skill points in SWG, or number of skills on toolbar in ESO) then things start getting a bit more interesting as you stop being a 1-person god and start having to make meaningful choices. In those systems, the players pretty much define their own roles through the choices they have to make.
They end up not being much different from games with classes as there becomes optimal setups for each role, there is just the illusion of freedom / the ability to gimp yourself along the way.
It also comes down to the overall game. If you want a really tightly balanced, deep combat system in your game then you are better off going for classes, but if you're more living world, jack-of-all-trades type game then skill-based is probably better.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Classes prevent everyone from having the same cookie cutter builds by forcing diversity.
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
In my 17 years of MMOing I have yet to see a skill based game not turn into a nerf bat game. Where the above scenario I mentioned does not happen. Its not about doing a skill based game well. Its just not possible to make a fair balanced game that way. Much like RL where you can learn any skill is not fair. There is rich and poor. Powerful and pray. Its why the majority of MMO use a class system. Bundled skill sets are a batter project for a balanced game.
and in those 17 years of gaming how many skill based systems have you played? 1 maybe 2?
the principles I have illustrated are sound as far as i am concerned and i have very much enjoyed the skill based games I played and I now no longer play class based games and when I see them it reminds of antiquated systems and that has been my 'MO' now for more than 4 years.
What i fail to understand is why people can not conceptualize on anything other than exactly without deviation only what they have personally experienced.
Why more than that. FACT: Less skill based games are made because of the problems they entail. Matter of fact,
how is the fuck is that 'a fact', sorry but I am ending conversation now before it gets out of hand. I cant have patience in a discussion with so called 'facts' laid out as you have so for the both of us I am moving on. oh and your stated fact by the way is not even accurate but regardless I am not getting into it.
Your not getting into it because you have nothing to reply with. You cut everything out of my post that backs that FACT up because you have nothing to stand on. So move on is your only option. lol good day sir!
no its because I dont want to get into whole myth of economic model that teaches young people that everything is exactly because every option has been battle tested and the econmic choices represent what people want....horseshit
it gets old and boring. its not true, its at best only half true. what is mostly true is that people will buy what they are told too and that is why marketing works.
but I really dont want to get into all that yet again.
oh and that and the whole 'AAA companies never try to inovate and when an indie does with the 10 dollars in his pocket and 2 developers anything new idea he does represents any and all possible attempts at it for now until the ends of time.
My points had nothing to do with marketing. Its about what happens when you design a game thats a skill based model. To many options to balance so things just get nerfed. Its much like in class based games talent tree's are going away. Why? To hard to balance when you give people real options. People find OP builds and then 90% of the people play that cookie cutter build. Same thing happens with skill based games on a grander scale. I have given many reasons why skill based games dont work. I have pointed to a game that was a big deal that dropped skill base system (SWG). You have given jack all on why you think they can work. Even if you did, the industry by how most games are designed, disagree with you.
I have played more than a few skill based games. First year is every month or few weeks they nerf skills trying to balance things. People get upset and leave. The game is left with a core of players that dwindle much faster than class games because they get sick of the cookie cutter builds they are forces to play. The game company is scared to release new skills as they will need to start the nerf bat process all over again and when they lose enough players they are forced to add new content. It starts all over again.
no its because I dont want to get into whole myth of economic model that teaches young people that everything is exactly because every option has been battle tested and the econmic choices represent what people want....horseshit
it gets old and boring. its not true, its at best only half true. what is mostly true is that people will buy what they are told too and that is why marketing works.
but I really dont want to get into all that yet again.
oh and that and the whole 'AAA companies never try to inovate and when an indie does with the 10 dollars in his pocket and 2 developers anything new idea he does represents any and all possible attempts at it for now until the ends of time.
My points had nothing to do with marketing.
yes it does
1. The market outcome of a AAA million dollar project with 50+ developers compared to the market outcome of a indie project with 5 developers and no advertising is almost never going to be the same regardless of what system is created. 2. Games fail for a whole variety of reasons not just ones that you want them to fail because of. 3. an indie game with 5 developers dose not need to be as popular as WoW to in fact be very successful. what you see as a 'failure' because its not wow is often times actually a huge success and much more per developer and per dollar spent then WoW is. 4. Marketing DOES affect what people 'like' and their perception of game value
in short, Marketing and high budget compared to low budget and no marketing is ALWAYS going to appear as if the high budget is the better game but it isnt always true.
what you consider a failure is basically not
Fallen Earth is a fine game, it has one of the best crafting systems I have seen in a large MMO. Wurm Online is a fantastic game and a good skill based approach. Eve is a very popular skill based game in which would take you 20 years to max all skills Darkfall as was one of the best game I have ever played in the MMO space and even though everyone was in fact the same it was still a fuck ton better than the bullshit called 'holy trinity'
however none of those games have marketing targeted toward tweens
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In my 17 years of MMOing I have yet to see a skill based game not turn into a nerf bat game. Where the above scenario I mentioned does not happen. Its not about doing a skill based game well. Its just not possible to make a fair balanced game that way. Much like RL where you can learn any skill is not fair. There is rich and poor. Powerful and pray. Its why the majority of MMO use a class system. Bundled skill sets are a batter project for a balanced game.
and in those 17 years of gaming how many skill based systems have you played? 1 maybe 2?
the principles I have illustrated are sound as far as i am concerned and i have very much enjoyed the skill based games I played and I now no longer play class based games and when I see them it reminds of antiquated systems and that has been my 'MO' now for more than 4 years.
What i fail to understand is why people can not conceptualize on anything other than exactly without deviation only what they have personally experienced.
Why more than that. FACT: Less skill based games are made because of the problems they entail. Matter of fact,
how is the fuck is that 'a fact', sorry but I am ending conversation now before it gets out of hand. I cant have patience in a discussion with so called 'facts' laid out as you have so for the both of us I am moving on. oh and your stated fact by the way is not even accurate but regardless I am not getting into it.
Your not getting into it because you have nothing to reply with. You cut everything out of my post that backs that FACT up because you have nothing to stand on. So move on is your only option. lol good day sir!
no its because I dont want to get into whole myth of economic model that teaches young people that everything is exactly because every option has been battle tested and the econmic choices represent what people want....horseshit
it gets old and boring. its not true, its at best only half true. what is mostly true is that people will buy what they are told too and that is why marketing works.
but I really dont want to get into all that yet again.
oh and that and the whole 'AAA companies never try to inovate and when an indie does with the 10 dollars in his pocket and 2 developers anything new idea he does represents any and all possible attempts at it for now until the ends of time.
My points had nothing to do with marketing.
yes it does
1. The market outcome of a AAA million dollar project with 50+ developers compared to the market outcome of a indie project with 5 developers and no advertising is almost never going to be the same regardless of what system is created. 2. Games fail for a whole variety of reasons not just ones that you want them to fail because of. 3. an indie game with 5 developers dose not need to be as popular as WoW to in fact be very successful. what you see as a 'failure' because its not wow is often times actually a huge success and much more per developer and per dollar spent then WoW is. 4. Marketing DOES affect what people 'like' and their perception of game value
in short, Marketing and high budget compared to low budget and no marketing is ALWAYS going to appear as if the high budget is the better game but it isnt always true.
what you consider a failure is basically not
I never talked about any of that. You said you dont want to talk about that subject and yet here you are doing just that. All the while ignoring every point I posted on why a class system does not work and most likely never will. Will a small group of people play a broken game. Yes. Does that make it not broken? No, still just as screwed up.
PS: I find the way you chop peoples posts down to little chunks and reply to just what suits you best a little rude. Use the strike through if you want to disreguard everything I posted so the next person reading it can see what you are doing over it looking like I have given you shallow 1 line comments.
1. The market outcome of a AAA million dollar project with 50+ developers compared to the market outcome of a indie project with 5 developers and no advertising is almost never going to be the same regardless of what system is created. 2. Games fail for a whole variety of reasons not just ones that you want them to fail because of. 3. an indie game with 5 developers dose not need to be as popular as WoW to in fact be very successful. what you see as a 'failure' because its not wow is often times actually a huge success and much more per developer and per dollar spent then WoW is. 4. Marketing DOES affect what people 'like' and their perception of game value
in short, Marketing and high budget compared to low budget and no marketing is ALWAYS going to appear as if the high budget is the better game but it isnt always true.
what you consider a failure is basically not
I never talked about any of that. You said you dont want to talk about that subject and yet here you are doing just that. All the while ignoring every point I posted on why a class system does not work and most likely never will. Will a small group of people play a broken game. Yes. Does that make it not broken? No, still just as screwed up.
you did indirectly.
... You would suggest that if skill based systems did well then they would be more popular. ...
I am trying to explain to you that this line of logic is wrong for a multiple of reasons I am here illustrating for you.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. The market outcome of a AAA million dollar project with 50+ developers compared to the market outcome of a indie project with 5 developers and no advertising is almost never going to be the same regardless of what system is created. 2. Games fail for a whole variety of reasons not just ones that you want them to fail because of. 3. an indie game with 5 developers dose not need to be as popular as WoW to in fact be very successful. what you see as a 'failure' because its not wow is often times actually a huge success and much more per developer and per dollar spent then WoW is. 4. Marketing DOES affect what people 'like' and their perception of game value
in short, Marketing and high budget compared to low budget and no marketing is ALWAYS going to appear as if the high budget is the better game but it isnt always true.
what you consider a failure is basically not
I never talked about any of that. You said you dont want to talk about that subject and yet here you are doing just that. All the while ignoring every point I posted on why a class system does not work and most likely never will. Will a small group of people play a broken game. Yes. Does that make it not broken? No, still just as screwed up.
you did indirectly.
... You would suggest that if skill based systems did well then they would be more popular. ...
I am trying to explain to you that this line of logic is wrong for a multiple of reasons I am here illustrating for you.
Fine give me a reasoning that shows skill games dont boil down to cookie cutter or nerf bat games. Have yet to see one that didnt. Unless it was a solo RPG
1. The market outcome of a AAA million dollar project with 50+ developers compared to the market outcome of a indie project with 5 developers and no advertising is almost never going to be the same regardless of what system is created. 2. Games fail for a whole variety of reasons not just ones that you want them to fail because of. 3. an indie game with 5 developers dose not need to be as popular as WoW to in fact be very successful. what you see as a 'failure' because its not wow is often times actually a huge success and much more per developer and per dollar spent then WoW is. 4. Marketing DOES affect what people 'like' and their perception of game value
in short, Marketing and high budget compared to low budget and no marketing is ALWAYS going to appear as if the high budget is the better game but it isnt always true.
what you consider a failure is basically not
I never talked about any of that. You said you dont want to talk about that subject and yet here you are doing just that. All the while ignoring every point I posted on why a class system does not work and most likely never will. Will a small group of people play a broken game. Yes. Does that make it not broken? No, still just as screwed up.
you did indirectly.
... You would suggest that if skill based systems did well then they would be more popular. ...
I am trying to explain to you that this line of logic is wrong for a multiple of reasons I am here illustrating for you.
Fine give me a reasoning that shows skill games dont boil down to cookie cutter or nerf bat games. Have yet to see one that didnt. Unless it was a solo RPG
I would not suggest that they dont. I would however suggest that class based systems by design are exactly that without the possiblity of it not being that way, skill based however makes it physically possible to not be that way.
In short, by definition 'cookie cutter or nerf bat games' this describes a class based system
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Classes prevent everyone from having the same cookie cutter builds by forcing diversity.
That argument comes up a lot. Have we seen many skill-based MMOs where everyone had the same "cookie cutter" build?
Every skill based game I have played over the 17 years of my gaming time has. I used to seek out skill based MMOs because I thought they were the gold standard and should replace class systems. When you give people real options, people find combinations that end up being way more powerful than intended. So you have to play them or get left behind. Its much like talent tree's for classes but with many more options so many more possible OP builds.
Classes prevent everyone from having the same cookie cutter builds by forcing diversity.
That argument comes up a lot. Have we seen many skill-based MMOs where everyone had the same "cookie cutter" build?
Every skill based game I have played over the 17 years of my gaming time has. I used to seek out skill based MMOs because I thought they were the gold standard and should replace class systems. When you give people real options, people find combinations that end up being way more powerful than intended. So you have to play them or get left behind. Its much like talent tree's for classes but with many more options so many more possible OP builds.
every single Class based system I have played has been more 'cookie cutter' then any skill based game I have played. in addition all class based games I have played have been extreemly limited in scope. One of many examples, instead of a healer, tank, DPS I want to play a 'debuffer' hmmm what the hell is that? I rest my case. (hint darkfall).
So not only are class based system limited in what you can do but they are also limited in the number of roles aviable as an option.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. The market outcome of a AAA million dollar project with 50+ developers compared to the market outcome of a indie project with 5 developers and no advertising is almost never going to be the same regardless of what system is created. 2. Games fail for a whole variety of reasons not just ones that you want them to fail because of. 3. an indie game with 5 developers dose not need to be as popular as WoW to in fact be very successful. what you see as a 'failure' because its not wow is often times actually a huge success and much more per developer and per dollar spent then WoW is. 4. Marketing DOES affect what people 'like' and their perception of game value
in short, Marketing and high budget compared to low budget and no marketing is ALWAYS going to appear as if the high budget is the better game but it isnt always true.
what you consider a failure is basically not
I never talked about any of that. You said you dont want to talk about that subject and yet here you are doing just that. All the while ignoring every point I posted on why a class system does not work and most likely never will. Will a small group of people play a broken game. Yes. Does that make it not broken? No, still just as screwed up.
you did indirectly.
... You would suggest that if skill based systems did well then they would be more popular. ...
I am trying to explain to you that this line of logic is wrong for a multiple of reasons I am here illustrating for you.
Fine give me a reasoning that shows skill games dont boil down to cookie cutter or nerf bat games. Have yet to see one that didnt. Unless it was a solo RPG
I would not suggest that they dont. I would however suggest that class based systems by design are exactly that without the possiblity of it not being that way, skill based however makes it physically possible to not be that way.
In short, by definition 'cookie cutter or nerf bat games' this describes a class based system
Chocolate flavoring = cookie cutter and nerf bat Class system would be an ice cream cone with chocolate swirl Skill based game would be an ice cream cone that the ice cream is chocolate, dipped in chocolate with chocolate sprinkles and a chocolate bar shoved on top.
If you like that chocolate, go for it. IMO there is more real options and diversity in a class system.
In my 17 years of MMOing I have yet to see a skill based game not turn into a nerf bat game. Where the above scenario I mentioned does not happen. Its not about doing a skill based game well. Its just not possible to make a fair balanced game that way. Much like RL where you can learn any skill is not fair. There is rich and poor. Powerful and pray. Its why the majority of MMO use a class system. Bundled skill sets are a batter project for a balanced game.
and in those 17 years of gaming how many skill based systems have you played? 1 maybe 2?
the principles I have illustrated are sound as far as i am concerned and i have very much enjoyed the skill based games I played and I now no longer play class based games and when I see them it reminds of antiquated systems and that has been my 'MO' now for more than 4 years.
What i fail to understand is why people can not conceptualize on anything other than exactly without deviation only what they have personally experienced.
Why more than that. FACT: Less skill based games are made because of the problems they entail. Matter of fact,
how is the fuck is that 'a fact', sorry but I am ending conversation now before it gets out of hand. I cant have patience in a discussion with so called 'facts' laid out as you have so for the both of us I am moving on. oh and your stated fact by the way is not even accurate but regardless I am not getting into it.
Your not getting into it because you have nothing to reply with. You cut everything out of my post that backs that FACT up because you have nothing to stand on. So move on is your only option. lol good day sir!
no its because I dont want to get into whole myth of economic model that teaches young people that everything is exactly because every option has been battle tested and the econmic choices represent what people want....horseshit
it gets old and boring. its not true, its at best only half true. what is mostly true is that people will buy what they are told too and that is why marketing works.
but I really dont want to get into all that yet again.
oh and that and the whole 'AAA companies never try to inovate and when an indie does with the 10 dollars in his pocket and 2 developers anything new idea he does represents any and all possible attempts at it for now until the ends of time.
My points had nothing to do with marketing. Its about what happens when you design a game thats a skill based model. To many options to balance so things just get nerfed. Its much like in class based games talent tree's are going away. Why? To hard to balance when you give people real options. People find OP builds and then 90% of the people play that cookie cutter build. Same thing happens with skill based games on a grander scale. I have given many reasons why skill based games dont work. I have pointed to a game that was a big deal that dropped skill base system (SWG). You have given jack all on why you think they can work. Even if you did, the industry by how most games are designed, disagree with you.
I have played more than a few skill based games. First year is every month or few weeks they nerf skills trying to balance things. People get upset and leave. The game is left with a core of players that dwindle much faster than class games because they get sick of the cookie cutter builds they are forces to play. The game company is scared to release new skills as they will need to start the nerf bat process all over again and when they lose enough players they are forced to add new content. It starts all over again.
Even if you could provide a perfectly balanced skill based system (balanced by math proof) there still could exist synergy of skill combinations that would unbalance the system again.
Imaging two characters. Both have +15% movement skill. One has an archery range bonus while the other has a shield bonus skill that requires standing still to use. The archer's skills have synergy and is a nice advantage.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
1. The market outcome of a AAA million dollar project with 50+ developers compared to the market outcome of a indie project with 5 developers and no advertising is almost never going to be the same regardless of what system is created. 2. Games fail for a whole variety of reasons not just ones that you want them to fail because of. 3. an indie game with 5 developers dose not need to be as popular as WoW to in fact be very successful. what you see as a 'failure' because its not wow is often times actually a huge success and much more per developer and per dollar spent then WoW is. 4. Marketing DOES affect what people 'like' and their perception of game value
in short, Marketing and high budget compared to low budget and no marketing is ALWAYS going to appear as if the high budget is the better game but it isnt always true.
what you consider a failure is basically not
I never talked about any of that. You said you dont want to talk about that subject and yet here you are doing just that. All the while ignoring every point I posted on why a class system does not work and most likely never will. Will a small group of people play a broken game. Yes. Does that make it not broken? No, still just as screwed up.
you did indirectly.
... You would suggest that if skill based systems did well then they would be more popular. ...
I am trying to explain to you that this line of logic is wrong for a multiple of reasons I am here illustrating for you.
Fine give me a reasoning that shows skill games dont boil down to cookie cutter or nerf bat games. Have yet to see one that didnt. Unless it was a solo RPG
I would not suggest that they dont. I would however suggest that class based systems by design are exactly that without the possiblity of it not being that way, skill based however makes it physically possible to not be that way.
In short, by definition 'cookie cutter or nerf bat games' this describes a class based system
Chocolate flavoring = cookie cutter and nerf bat Class system would be an ice cream cone with chocolate swirl Skill based game would be an ice cream cone that the ice cream is chocolate, dipped in chocolate with chocolate sprinkles and a chocolate bar shoved on top.
my experience has been this
1. class based systems is the very definition of 'cookie cutter' 2. not only are class based systems very limited in what you can do they are also even more limited in what your possible choices are.
Its like walking into the same store all over the country that looks exactly the same with only 3 options and those three options being exactly the same in every single store all over the country I think we are at a point of stalemate dont you?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Classes prevent everyone from having the same cookie cutter builds by forcing diversity.
That argument comes up a lot. Have we seen many skill-based MMOs where everyone had the same "cookie cutter" build?
Every skill based game I have played over the 17 years of my gaming time has. I used to seek out skill based MMOs because I thought they were the gold standard and should replace class systems. When you give people real options, people find combinations that end up being way more powerful than intended. So you have to play them or get left behind. Its much like talent tree's for classes but with many more options so many more possible OP builds.
The answer seems to always be either citing UO's tank mages from 15 years ago or "every skill based game." If you can't cite even one example, that's fine.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
The biggest problem is that you have so little flexibility with todays classes. Look at Guild Wars or Diablo II for a system with classes but a lot of freedom within these limits. Today there is usually only one way to play a certain class. If there are more, the other skills etc. are useless.
Like so often, the problem lies not with the actual system used, but on how it is used. You can do great games with both systems as many games have shown. And i'd actually consider the TES games (don't know about ESO) a bad example because you really *can* have everything, compared to most other games, especially MMO. Still, most skills and such are useless there.
Also, one of the strongest proponent of a class based system, D&D allows multi-classing, ofters so many classes that you can almost always choose a middle-ground between any two classes, and allows you to pick your own skills, abilities and talents, and usually allows multiple weapons for all classes. In fact, classes usually do not really limit your equipment, only your stats. Still it's hard to play a fully armored arcane mage.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
1. The market outcome of a AAA million dollar project with 50+ developers compared to the market outcome of a indie project with 5 developers and no advertising is almost never going to be the same regardless of what system is created. 2. Games fail for a whole variety of reasons not just ones that you want them to fail because of. 3. an indie game with 5 developers dose not need to be as popular as WoW to in fact be very successful. what you see as a 'failure' because its not wow is often times actually a huge success and much more per developer and per dollar spent then WoW is. 4. Marketing DOES affect what people 'like' and their perception of game value
in short, Marketing and high budget compared to low budget and no marketing is ALWAYS going to appear as if the high budget is the better game but it isnt always true.
what you consider a failure is basically not
I never talked about any of that. You said you dont want to talk about that subject and yet here you are doing just that. All the while ignoring every point I posted on why a class system does not work and most likely never will. Will a small group of people play a broken game. Yes. Does that make it not broken? No, still just as screwed up.
you did indirectly.
... You would suggest that if skill based systems did well then they would be more popular. ...
I am trying to explain to you that this line of logic is wrong for a multiple of reasons I am here illustrating for you.
Fine give me a reasoning that shows skill games dont boil down to cookie cutter or nerf bat games. Have yet to see one that didnt. Unless it was a solo RPG
I would not suggest that they dont. I would however suggest that class based systems by design are exactly that without the possiblity of it not being that way, skill based however makes it physically possible to not be that way.
In short, by definition 'cookie cutter or nerf bat games' this describes a class based system
Chocolate flavoring = cookie cutter and nerf bat Class system would be an ice cream cone with chocolate swirl Skill based game would be an ice cream cone that the ice cream is chocolate, dipped in chocolate with chocolate sprinkles and a chocolate bar shoved on top.
my experience has been this
1. class based systems is the very definition of 'cookie cutter' 2. not only are class based systems very limited in what you can do they are also even more limited in what your possible choices are.
Its like walking into the same store all over the country that looks exactly the same with only 3 options and those three options being exactly the same in every single store all over the country I think we are at a point of stalemate dont you?
That is the case when you look on the surface of each char. But when you look over the whole game its not. In a skill game you end up with cookie cutter of the week and most people play that to keep up with whats OP. So game wide you end up playing with and vs the same few cookie cutter builds allot. With a class system you have as many set classes as the game picks. DAoC was dozens. So right off the top you have in theory more options of real gameplay in a class game. Now each class ends up with its cookie cutters but at least each class is its own thing. In a skill based game. Options are mostly an illusion.
Comments
the principles I have illustrated are sound as far as i am concerned and i have very much enjoyed the skill based games I played and I now no longer play class based games and when I see them it reminds of antiquated systems and that has been my 'MO' now for more than 4 years.
What i fail to understand is why people can not conceptualize on anything other than exactly without deviation only what they have personally experienced.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1. Nerf skills as people find combos that are OP. Making skill combo that used the same skills nerfed as well. Lowering the number of options people have from the skills.
2. Dont nerf skills as people find OP options. Doing this forces people to pick the OP skill sets to play at the same level as anyone else. Lowering the number of options people have to make their desired skill sets.
So in the end you are better off with a class game as you end up with more options and a better balanced game.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
it gets old and boring. its not true, its at best only half true. what is mostly true is that people will buy what they are told too and that is why marketing works.
but I really dont want to get into all that yet again.
oh and that and the whole 'AAA companies never try to inovate and when an indie does with the 10 dollars in his pocket and 2 developers anything new idea he does represents any and all possible attempts at it for now until the ends of time.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Take for example the guardian or tank role. Most players want that say "I want to play a tank" aren't looking to create the tank. They want a set of skills and abilities available to them that make them the best tank they can be. Skill-based systems are for the player that wants to create a tank and not be bound by the restrictions of a class-based tank.
Both have their good and bad sides. However, classes provide the direction and tools that most players seem to want in order to maximize their enjoyment of the role.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
But, once there is a limit put in place (such as skill points in SWG, or number of skills on toolbar in ESO) then things start getting a bit more interesting as you stop being a 1-person god and start having to make meaningful choices. In those systems, the players pretty much define their own roles through the choices they have to make.
They end up not being much different from games with classes as there becomes optimal setups for each role, there is just the illusion of freedom / the ability to gimp yourself along the way.
It also comes down to the overall game. If you want a really tightly balanced, deep combat system in your game then you are better off going for classes, but if you're more living world, jack-of-all-trades type game then skill-based is probably better.
I have played more than a few skill based games. First year is every month or few weeks they nerf skills trying to balance things. People get upset and leave. The game is left with a core of players that dwindle much faster than class games because they get sick of the cookie cutter builds they are forces to play. The game company is scared to release new skills as they will need to start the nerf bat process all over again and when they lose enough players they are forced to add new content. It starts all over again.
1. The market outcome of a AAA million dollar project with 50+ developers compared to the market outcome of a indie project with 5 developers and no advertising is almost never going to be the same regardless of what system is created.
2. Games fail for a whole variety of reasons not just ones that you want them to fail because of.
3. an indie game with 5 developers dose not need to be as popular as WoW to in fact be very successful. what you see as a 'failure' because its not wow is often times actually a huge success and much more per developer and per dollar spent then WoW is.
4. Marketing DOES affect what people 'like' and their perception of game value
in short, Marketing and high budget compared to low budget and no marketing is ALWAYS going to appear as if the high budget is the better game but it isnt always true.
what you consider a failure is basically not
Fallen Earth is a fine game, it has one of the best crafting systems I have seen in a large MMO.
Wurm Online is a fantastic game and a good skill based approach.
Eve is a very popular skill based game in which would take you 20 years to max all skills
Darkfall as was one of the best game I have ever played in the MMO space and even though everyone was in fact the same it was still a fuck ton better than the bullshit called 'holy trinity'
however none of those games have marketing targeted toward tweens
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
PS: I find the way you chop peoples posts down to little chunks and reply to just what suits you best a little rude. Use the strike through if you want to disreguard everything I posted so the next person reading it can see what you are doing over it looking like I have given you shallow 1 line comments.
... You would suggest that if skill based systems did well then they would be more popular. ...
I am trying to explain to you that this line of logic is wrong for a multiple of reasons I am here illustrating for you.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I would however suggest that class based systems by design are exactly that without the possiblity of it not being that way, skill based however makes it physically possible to not be that way.
In short, by definition
'cookie cutter or nerf bat games'
this describes a class based system
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I rest my case. (hint darkfall).
So not only are class based system limited in what you can do but they are also limited in the number of roles aviable as an option.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Class system would be an ice cream cone with chocolate swirl
Skill based game would be an ice cream cone that the ice cream is chocolate, dipped in chocolate with chocolate sprinkles and a chocolate bar shoved on top.
If you like that chocolate, go for it. IMO there is more real options and diversity in a class system.
Even if you could provide a perfectly balanced skill based system (balanced by math proof) there still could exist synergy of skill combinations that would unbalance the system again.
Imaging two characters. Both have +15% movement skill. One has an archery range bonus while the other has a shield bonus skill that requires standing still to use. The archer's skills have synergy and is a nice advantage.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
1. class based systems is the very definition of 'cookie cutter'
2. not only are class based systems very limited in what you can do they are also even more limited in what your possible choices are.
Its like walking into the same store all over the country that looks exactly the same with only 3 options and those three options being exactly the same in every single store all over the country
I think we are at a point of stalemate dont you?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Did not realize this whole time it was actually a way for lazy developers to hold back mah skillz.
Who ever introduced positions into sports is a lazy mofo too.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Like so often, the problem lies not with the actual system used, but on how it is used. You can do great games with both systems as many games have shown. And i'd actually consider the TES games (don't know about ESO) a bad example because you really *can* have everything, compared to most other games, especially MMO. Still, most skills and such are useless there.
Also, one of the strongest proponent of a class based system, D&D allows multi-classing, ofters so many classes that you can almost always choose a middle-ground between any two classes, and allows you to pick your own skills, abilities and talents, and usually allows multiple weapons for all classes. In fact, classes usually do not really limit your equipment, only your stats. Still it's hard to play a fully armored arcane mage.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore