Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Character Skill vs Player Skill in MMORPGs
JoeyNipps
Member Posts: 186
This is a topic I see gets mentioned by some people from time to time and actually has a great deal of impact on any current or (most importantly) future MMORPG product - so I will see if we can get it discussed a bit.
The basic question is: "Do you WANT many/most/all of the actions available to a character in an MMORPG to be based on character skills (developed through game play) OR based on actual player skills OR some combination thereof (please be specific in examples for discussion sake). Let me give an example to get it started so everybody can see where I am coming from.
If we look at the origin of RPGs in general (and thus MMORPGs as a current rendition of an RPG), pen and paper and early RPGs (Wizardry, etc.) were all based on systems that did NOT require any special player skills to perform most activities (except some brain power 
.). For instance, playing a warrior required NO eye hand coordination, fast reflexes, etc. on the part of the player - these were all (to one degree or another) represented by stats and skills of the character itself - THUS the concept of roleplaying a character that one could NOT be in real life.
More and more I see MMORPGs (and even CRPGs) tending toward player skill requirements (much like computer shooters). While I enjoy a good first person shooter against other players (such as Rainbow Six as an example) where ONLY my personal skills come into play - I find these not fully satisfying (which is why I tend to move toward RPGs in general). More importantly, I find them ultimately to not satisfy me because I have never been nor am I now any GOOD at them. I do NOT have good eye hand coordination, nor do I have fast reflexes - thus I tend to stop playing them after a short time simply because I cannot compete at all and they stop being fun for me and/or my opponents.
What RPGs in general (and I have always hoped MMORPGs) have supplied is the ability to play a character with skills, stats, abilities, etc. that I (personally) do not and can not embody. My personal feeling is that a quality MMORPG SHOULD embody that desire - that is it should be based soley (as much as possible) on character built skills, etc. ONLY. The challenge SHOULD be (as I see it) in developing a quality set of skills, etc. for the character and playing this character with and against a background of NPCs and other PCs. BTW, this would allow for competitive play between many, many more players than the current trendy model does.
Thoughts?
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
Comments
if you want twitch based, go play an FPS...
i DO think there should be a slight element of twitch and all that, but i think pure build/level/equipment (mostly build) should play a much bigger factor...
character skill/build = player skill...
--------------------------------
Games Played - Lineage, Lineage 2, Helbreath, RuneScape, Priston Tale, Tibia, RYL, Dark Eden, Savage Eden, Astonia III, Ashen Empires, El Kardian, Fung Wan Online, Project Entropia, Ultima Online, Ragnarok Online, Redmoon, Thesa, Conquer Online, Deloria, Fairyland, MU Online, Legends...
--------------------------------------
In an MMORPG I want to be able to do things that I cant in real life. I can't do jump kicks, impressive sword play or cast spells in real life, and I like the chance to perform these online. From this perspective, there should be a lot of character skill involved. As I play and progress my character, no matter how bad I play, I want to have improved significantly. It isn't just me who is playing, but the character I have created, and I want the experience (not numbers, actually knowledge experience) that he has gained on his travels, from all the times he has fought, or crafted etc, to be reflected.
However. I want to improve as a player as well, I want to be able to play better after 3 years, than someone who is familar with the controls but hasnt played more than a month who has just sat down at the controls to my character. Of course if we both played my character, I would have the advantage of knowing what suits my character, but I dont want that to be the extent of it.
I think MMORPG combat needs spicing up. I think combat should be more involving, and if it was, then I think that a lot more player skill will be required. Im talking about vulnerabilities, specificly targeted attacks (such as jabbing at the monsters head). These add tactics, and mean that you could just click auto attack and make no attempt to be involved, OR you could continuously play depending on how the fight turns out, and if you play well, you will probably do more damage and recieve a better outcome.
Asheron's Call 1 had a vulnerability system. Damage was elemental or physical (electric/lightning, acid, piercing, bludgeoning etc.) Different weapons and spells did one of these types of damage. Different monsters had different resistances to these different attacks. In addition, melee and missile fighters could choose from another set of semi variables. Melee fighters could choose to attack 'high' 'medium' or 'low' (in terms of height). They could also place a bar on a slider which at one end had 'speed' of attack, and the other 'power' of attack. An archer, or any other missile user, didn't have 'high', 'medium' or 'low', but they could move a slider between a 'accurate' shot and a 'fast' shot. A player could be effective without properly using these tools, but if they knew how to use them, and knew the vulnerabilities of the creatures they were fighting, then they wielded an advantage.
This is what I would like to see more of. In AC2 they scrapped these elemental vulnerabilities to some degree. They introduced 'vulnerabilty' moments, in which golden light would sometimes shine from the monsters body indicating that the creature was vulnerable to critical hits. At that point you would hammer the cue for your best special critical hit move, and hope it landed in time.
Vulnerabilties mean reactions or twitch aren't required. You aren't reacting to anything that the monster has just thrown at you. I would like to see a small amount of this, slightly more player skill based, rather than player knowledge. This could include having to make changes to types of attacks used, or areas being attacked, depending on how the creature reacts.
Combat heavily based in twitch isn't a brilliant idea, but I'm definitely up for more player involvement!
-------------------------------------------
MMORPGs: Treadmills that make you fatter.
www.silkyvenom.com <-- a good site for Vanguard information
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
In AC1 there wasn't (to my knowledge) any reason why you would change from one height setting to another during a fight. Each monster had set vulnerabilities to different types of attacks (electric etc.) and set vulnerabilities to different heights of attack. If you knew the best height for the monster, you would set that as the attack height, and auto attack until it was dead. This meant though it was a little better than other games, combat wasn't particularly involving. If you didn't know the vulnerabilities of a monster, then you just had to experiment with different settings, or ask around a bit.
What I am suggesting is that perhaps a player should have to adjust the settings during combat. It wouldn't require a swift action to fit in an impossibly small window of oppertunity .. or at least not always. It would be a little bit like EQ2s 'heroic oppertunities' system. From what I understand, certain combinations of actions can cause a 'heroic oppertunity' to be activated, in which the players must execute a series of moves that, if pulled off correctly, will have a devestating effect.
About your less abled player getting frustrated. Well obviously, you want to help them out. You will do this by resting this slightly more involving combat on top of a basic auto attack cue special move system perhaps. Take AC2s basic vuln system as a quick example of this. All players could auto attack, and use special moves on cue, but if they wanted to, they could put in extra effort to use a special move during a critter's vulnerability, therefore doing more damage. It would be similar to that. A less abled player would by no means be rendered useless, but more to the point, it would give incentive to attempt to improve themselves through practice, so that they can they use this advantage to their own purposes.
-------------------------------------------
MMORPGs: Treadmills that make you fatter.
www.silkyvenom.com <-- a good site for Vanguard information
Skill based MMORPGs will dispappear relatively quickly. Why? They aren't for everyone. Less mass appeal=smaller customer base=less money=bad. There will of course be a small market for it, but skill based MMORPGs will never be mainstream.
People want dynamics in a game...but as soon as someone else can be better than them without knowledge of the game (aka beginner's luck/skill from somewhere else) after they've dedicated so much, they'll hate it.
AHH! Run away from the monster! He's going to eat us!
Socializer 80% Explorer 73% Achiever 33% Killer 13%
Killer 100% Socializer 40% Explorer 33% Achiever 27%
Hey there. This is kind of a funny discussion. The ultimate instance of a game which requires character skill would not even require your input. An example of this is progress quest. You run it in the background and your character just levels up on his own in an imaginary world.
Even pen and paper rpgs needed some Player skill to play, or else the player would have no input. Sandwhich games are pretty close to the amount of players skill (more like strategy) to play the game.
The truth is these games are just boring. In a pen and paper game you had to be rolling dice etc while doing stuff and you were right next to your friends who you could joke around with the whole time. This just doesn't translate into a computer game. You don't have your friends and you don't have to do anything involving random determination or calculations.
And furthermore without elements of really complex strategies or twitch skills then in games with many people it quickly turns into a game where everyone knows the absolute best strategy to beat others and everyone does the exact same thing. I guess really the only thing to be said is if you don't like it your only alternative is to go back to playing pen and paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
yep... i think if you spent the time, thought it out, worked with the numbers and really built a great character build, you should be rewarded for this... there always has to be an element of twitch just to keep things exciting, but it should not be as big a factor as the build/equipment/level of the character... this is why i liked Lineage 2, it was the character level/equipment (although it was kind of missing the "build" part) that played the bigger factor in PvP... you had to pick and choose which skills you used and when and such but 80% of the time the person with the better character would win...
--------------------------------
Games Played - Lineage, Lineage 2, Helbreath, RuneScape, EVE Online, Rubies of Eventide, Priston Tale, Tibia, RYL, Dark Eden, Savage Eden, Astonia III, Ashen Empires, El Kardian, Fung Wan Online, Project Entropia, Ultima Online, Ragnarok Online, Redmoon, Star Wars Galaxies, Thesa, Conquer Online, Deloria, Fairyland, MU Online, Legends...
--------------------------------------
No, not at all - but I see where you might think that so it might be a good idea to define properly what we are talking about with "skills".
Character skills means that the character (not the player) has the ability and knowledge necessary to perform actions. Further, the character's success at any given action is dependent upon those skills. For example: the character may have an archery skill of 85% or he might have a bowmaking skill of 80%. These numbers then represent the character's knowledge and skill in performing those two actions.
However (and this is the important distinction), the character does NOT (in the game) perform these actions without the direct intervention of the player. The player need have NO knowledge (save some very rudementary knowledge) of how to shoot a bow or how to make a bow BUT the player is the one who decides when, where, at what (etc.) the bow shooting shall be performed by his character.
Thus one must make a distinction between character skills and player knowledge or "cognitive" skills. The player has and exhibits many if not most of the cognitive skills (as he tended to do in pen and paper games). Further, the player is the initiator of all character actions - but need not have those particular skills to progress in the game.
And yes, it the more "tactical" elements are added to a game the more the player MUST be involved and the more the player must gain greater "cognitive" skills to further his character in the game.
The MMORPG in no way can "run" itself. In fact, the ability in many of more recent games to add "bots" via a rudementary programming language is a bad thing as it does lead to this self running game.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
If all else in life fails you, buy a vowel.
I love EQ and DAoC. There are so many tatics available specially for group plays. For pulling, an example is root pulling, tank pulling, and so on. Groups are most fun when the group hunt the highest level mob that the group can handle. Since these mobs are higher lvl than the group, good tactics are important and necessary. Tanks have to be alert and protect the casters and healers from agro. Aside from keeping the group alive, healers have to manage their mana properly to minimize downtime and maximize xp. Agro control are also important.
Imo, ppl who says that non-fps style mmorpg (like EQ or DAoC) combat system are boring, have not been fighting high enough level mobs. I have been in alot of groups that requires full attention from everybody, where someone watching tv while playing could get the whole group wipe out.
Well the idea behind progress quest is that its assumed you want the character to progress in the game. Thats the extent of player intervention. From there the character does whatever is necessary to progress.
In a sandwhich style game the player initiative governs a little more. You might decide when your character attacks when he uses a medkit or a special attack etc. But he still does all these things on his own and a statistical skill governs how well he does. In an fps you do alot more stuff and control how well it done with your own skill but then stuff like opening doors still the character does on his own.
So where do you want to draw the line exactly? I agree there should be a line. I would say the more the player is responsible for the better, but then I have seen this become a problem in RTS games. Its usually impossible to control tons of different units all over the map not just because its hard to physically point to all of them but there is a limit to how much a person can comprehend and process at one time. I think FPS mmorpgs are about the right amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Where to draw the line on this topic?
Well lets look at EQ2. As said by an SOE official in part 1 of the Fansite event documentation, 'A player can turn on auto-attack and go make a sandwich, but they might not be entirely happy with the result' (not an exact quote). EQ2 employs their 'heroic oppertunities' system, which requires a little bit of tactics and a little bit of twitch. I wouldn't say its the perfect balance, but it sounds pretty good. A player will need some skill to hit their upmost abilities. You can survive without skill, but wont do as well. The more you adapt, learn, and improve as a player, the better you can handle your character in these heroic oppertunities. This is the kind of system I was describing before, though I would perhaps like to see maybe a pinch more player skill and involvement.
-------------------------------------------
MMORPGs: Treadmills that make you fatter.
www.silkyvenom.com <-- a good site for Vanguard information
I believe that a good combat system would involve both kinds of skills. I mean what would you rather have, two great kinds of combat at the same time, or just one kind???? I believe for a good combat system you can look back to the good ol' days of the SNES, for a game called Secret of Evermore. This game took stats and your reflexes and made a game that made you level up to be powerful and challenged your hand/eye coordination. I believe if a game could come up with a good compromise like SOE, then they would have a hit on their hands
I'm sure this was mentioned before, but I believe that player skill is relied upon by character skill. Most MMORPG's, this player skill is hardly noticable, they are very linear in their character development. But, for example EVE Online, the possibilities for your character are nearly endless, character skill wise. There are bad combinations of skills, and good ones, and it takes the players skill to find the good combinations. More open ended MMORPG's rely on player skills, even when in the actual game it would appear it's all about character skill.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Lag is way too much of a factor to trust any player skills.
player skill does NOT necessarily mean "twitch".
I played Everquest for a year, and the only thing that kept me playing through the terrible PR and expansion packs was it was the first and only RPG I had ever played that required strategy and coordination. By that I mean, while raiding, crowd controllers had to crowd control perfectly, pick their targets, debuff and control... melees had to help the main tank pin, protect the clerics.... Healers had to assist heal anyone who was getting beaten on and worry about their own hides at the same time, whatever. Everyone had their job, and they had to be proffessional and careful about it. If they didn't, the raid would fail and you wouldn't get the benefit or the satisfaction. it was that kind of cutthroat competition and difficulty that made the game fun.
I think it is important that a player has skill for these gmaes. But this should be brainpower and intelligence rather than the ability to move his mouse and hit keys in the correct order.
To earn a level you should have to use your intelligence to make your character do things in the way the game expects your character too. Just because you know stabbing monster x in the knee will kill him instantly doesnt mean that your mage will do this, because it is too risky. Your mage would still choose to sit back and burn monster x intensively for a few mins because it is saferand more in character.
That is where your player skill come into it. You should select your target and click on the autoattack function. Your character will then perform the basic attack, which you can alter. For example one mage may basic attack with energy blasts, and another with fireballs. You would set your distance and your character would try and keep that distance (your skill at running away would have nothing to do with it, this would be based on how fast and agile your character was, and the game would make your character run in almost circles to prevent you sprinting in a straight line away from the eneemy) the only thing you would do is to maybe alter the distance or put in the odd special attack or cast a different spell. There would be no real need for timing. You would have to choose a tactic that worked on your characters strengths, and it would have more or less nothing to do with how good you were. If you used your characters skills well then you would probably prevail. It also means you would not be able to beat a higher level mob simply because you were a really good quake player and could jump about and run in circles.
These types of manouvers have no place in RPG's. Your character should determine what happens. If my character is better than yours then i will win the fight unless i try and do something stupid. This is regardless of how skillful you are or how many times you can click the mouse.
Every action should be like this. You tell your character what to do, and if he has the skills he will do it, or he may try and fail, or he may have no idea how to even start trying.
Your character should have stats, with numbers from 1-100, and this is your % chance of doing something. You will get special skills and attacks which will be used passively (automatically by the AI) rather than by yourself. Basically all you would do is point your character in the right direction.
Your main involvement is in helping your character grow. The skill involve would be in what you choose to make your character do, and in putting your characters skills and abilities together so that he will grow into a character that you can use.
MUAHAHAHAHAHA
MUAHAHAHAHAHA
So, if you would allow me to attempt to summarize your dream system, it would be this:
You hunt and fight and improve your character. When you hunt and fight, you use and auto attack, and simple cues for different moves and manuvers, that once activated, the character attempts to carry out. A set of variables and fixed variables, change how effective these moves are. When you are successful at using your moves, you will be rewarded with character progression.
To me, it seems that as a player you have very little to do. You activate combat, and set off some moves. Due to the dependancy on your skills, you will have fairly predictable results. The player has little variation in combat, encounter to encounter, fighting one orc will become indistinguishable from fighting another. The player has little involvement in the process and outcome of the combat. Combat remains as a grind.
You can say that the player involvement comes in the advancement of the character, but really, if the character advancement comes from the combat results (xp) and the player has very little combat involvment (because its all left down to the character's skill) then there is a cycle that includes very little player involvement, let alone player skill.
The cue system is how most games work now. You have an auto attack, and then when you feel like it, you let off some moves that your character has learnt. This is how AC2 mainly works, for example. AC2 employs a little bit more player skill/involvement in the progression side of things, by having a skill tree that forces players to make choices about different routes.
Personally, as you might have guessed, I dislike this system. I feel that player involvement is very important, and not only does the basic cue system remove the neccesity for large amounts of skill and thought on the side of the player, but it also makes combat far far less involving. I have played too many games where the level grind forces me to fight the same monster over and over at a certain level, and the skill tree and character progression system have cause me to use the same moves, over and over whilst I fight. I think that if you are forced to fight the same fight over and over then you will get bored. Its just not fun. Though your character might eventually improve and get better, and perhaps move onto a different type of monster, I still think that this system causes too much grinding and should be swapped for something that involves the player more, and requires them to make choices and decisions during a fight.
Too many systems let you make a sandwich whilst your character does all the work. If the game is really intended to be immersive, then the player must feel like they do play a role in things, and can, if they try, really have an effect the results of actions.
I think there are a few different types of player skill.
- Player knowledge. (Knowing what attacks to use, against what creatures. Where to aim for, etc.)
- Player techniques (I wasnt sure what to call this, what I mean is how the player knows the game and can react to variables etc in their own time, before the fight starts, such as character placement.)
- Player reflexes. (Timing, and coordination to execute certain manuvers, perhaps reacting to certain monster actions or responses. etc.)
I think they are the main ones, and I think a balance should be established between them. A player should have to learn how to 'play' the game as it were. They should have to pick up techniques and knowledge, and should improve themselves at responding to the way a fight is heading. A player should be able to fight only with an auto-attack, or with some cue moves too, but I think on top of that, combat should yield interesting variations from time to time, that the player can attempt to respond to. Depending on how they respond they might put themselves in a much better position, or a worse one.
I would really like to see a system that requires the player to actually get involved with what is happening, not just be a spectator. The character will still be present in abundance, as on their own the player could never do these amazing moves, but with a little bit of practice they can prompt the character to execute them.
Do you not think that systems like the 'heroic oppertunities' are a good step in the direction of far more involving, interactive, enjoyable combat? Or would you prefer to stick with monotone combat that does not change or cary significantly for long periods of time?
-------------------------------------------
MMORPGs: Treadmills that make you fatter.
www.silkyvenom.com <-- a good site for Vanguard information
Wait a minute.. I thought this was twitch based vs. point and click.
Well, sort of, but only if you consider 'player skill' to only represent a twitch element. If the element that is used to increase player involvement through additional requirements for player skill is still fairly light, then no one will have a huge advantage. A better player will practice and improve until they can do what ever is required. If players adapt to perform functions then it is fair, as everyone has the ability to try. Sure, you might not be quite as good as another player due to less coordination, but it wont totally put you out, and besides, every one is playing by the same rules, there will be plenty of others with varying abilities that will fall on all sorts of places on the spectrum. All you need to do is practice and improve at it.
People keep saying this same thing. That if you are not as coordinated as someone else they they have an unfair advantage. Well if we aren't going to let more coordinated people have an advantage with a reaction based element, what should we do to the people who are good at other things, such as better logic and planning abilities. They will be able to formulate better tactics. What about players who have better memories, what should be done to counter the fact that they can remember all of a creatures vulnerabilities and recall them instantly. All players are different, and as long as it doesn't require total reliance on one human attribute or ability, then I think it would be fair to say the system is fair.
-------------------------------------------
MMORPGs: Treadmills that make you fatter.
www.silkyvenom.com <-- a good site for Vanguard information
My personal opinion is there should be a healthy middle.
Just hitting an attack button and watching your character do all the work just is not fun. That was one of the things that turned me away from Everquest in the end. Fighter sits there swinging and you occasionally hit kick or bash, Healers just sat there watching health and occasionally standing up to hit a heal button and Nukers would sit there meditating and occasionally stand up to cast a nuke spell. Not much variety.
Dark Age of Camelot had one of my favorite systems for battle. You got to choose which attack to use rather than just sitting there letting the computer do all the work. As you leveled you got new attacks. Saga of Ryzom has something similar with their customizable brick system that I really like.
One thing I hope MMOG's do avoid is something like the original Diablo. While I loved Diablo, it did have a fatal flaw where the rate of your attacks was decided by whether you could click the mouse fast. I fear a day where something like that sneaks its way into a MMORPG.