Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What should be the primary deciding factor in combat?
4507
Member UncommonPosts: 351
Before someone says they want a mix of these... I deliberately didn't include a mix option because that would result in very unhelpful data. Obviously any combat system can't function well with 100% one of these, so the options are for the primary deciding factor, that is, the factor that matters the most in combat. It could be 26% of what matters while each other option is 24.67%, or it could matter a great deal more, but the main point is that it is the primary deciding factor.
Comments
Why can't a combat system be 100% skill based?
Isn't "character skill" pretty much luck-based, for example?
And "player skill" can cover a wide array of systems, as well. This could mean anything from FPS-targetting to manual block/dodge mechanis to simple strategic use of spell choices. It could be anything from shooter to tab-target games, etc. Even most "character skill" systems have an element of player skill involved.
Still, I generally prefer "player skill" to be a factor regardless of the system being used.
I generally hate "luck" being a major factor, all around.
If you don't use any of the above then you will be just cannon fodder.
It is not obvious at first, but when you think about it - it is the only logical answer.
Player skill, character level and gear should matter, but when you overrate one of it you get either:
- reflex race with 13yo
- speed run to max and then get bored
- raid, raid, raid. And farmers.
So skills, level and gear should be balanced. And when you balance it right the deciding factor that is left is luck.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
If you can execute complex keyboard combo's without even looking at the keys, while accurately controlling the mouse with the other hand, you will pwn !
Knowing exactly what do is useless if you cannot do it in a split second...
As long as they can't stop the bots and cheating there really is no way to have any skill during combat other than speed which is why we have bots.
― George Carlin
Your logic is so very flawed.
Core principles of MMORPGs? What are those exactly? Here, let me pull out my MMORPG Creator's Guidebook and turn to the chapter on 'Core Principles'.
MMORPG - is a term coined to succinctly define a genre of games with similar attributes. It IS NOT a mold, schematic, or otherwise set-in-stone methodology to creating or designing a game. If MMORPG applies to a game's design, as it is the most appropriate moniker for the genre of said game, then that game will likely be called an MMORPG.
This question comes down to opinion, not fact. Every game I have played, for any significant amount of time, that involved vertical progression (WoW, SWTOR, ESO, Asheron's Call, SWG etc.) required both character AND player skill. For me, and I believe many others (based on the poll results), if player skill is not a significant factor in the outcome of combat, then it is not enjoyable. A great example of this is getting ganked, if you are a level 10 and a level 100 comes up and whacks you in the face once killing you, that is not good design or fun. However, if you are level 10 and a level 100 comes up and starts to whack you in the face, but you use a dodge ability and get a few hits in, and the fight ends (still with you dead) but you got him down a good amount of health...that is a better design.
EDIT: Not to mention one of the biggest first generation MMORPGs was EverQuest and it was the first Themepark MMORPG. 'Themepark' did not evolve from MMORPGs, the 'Themepark' has always been one subset of the genre.
Why can't games run the spectrum (kinda like they do now). I mean, at one end you have games like Quake, where "characters" are homogenzied and it's 100% player skill based, and when you improve your game improves. On the other end, you have games like Diablo where advancement is nearly entirely character development (levels and gear), and player skill isn't so much a factor at all. And then you have everything in between.
Personally, I suck, so I prefer games closer on the character development side of the scale. Sure, I have room for improvement, but I just can't physically improve my own game play to a point where I enjoy the skill-based games as much. For me to "advance", I have more fun advancing a character, because I can accomplish some measurable improvement there, whereas personally my improvement is slow, frustrating, and I don't have a lot of the time that it requires to work at any longer. But I can understand people who like the personal challenge, and I applaud those people, it's just that I'm not one of them.
It's not like it has to be an either/or for the entire industry. There is no "right" answer.
You are mistaken in assuming that RPG's main principle is vertical character development.
Horizontal progression and player skill is not blurring genres. Genres are not locked into a certain subset of features and designs. Asheron's Call was one of the first generation MMORPGs and back in 1999 it had skill-based combat interaction via the ability to dodge projectiles (arrows) and spells. Planetside released before World of Warcraft. To be frank, I think your understanding of the genre is a bit skewed by your own narrow experiences with the genre.
A taxi is a taxi, and is called such because of what it does (taxis people around), not for the means by which it does it. Therefore an MMORPG is an MMORPG, and is called such because of what it does (brings players together in a large world, incorporating character-driven gameplay), not for the means by which it does it.
The question that the OP stated is not asking the exclusive factor, but the most important one. If the most important factor of combat was vertical progression or character development a duel between two level 100's one with 99 agility the other with 100 agility, would always see the 100 agility character as the victor (this is bad design).
The cornerstone of RPGs is that skills and attributes provide an interpretation of the skill and physical characteristics of a player character, but RPGs have ALWAYS incorporated both player skill and luck into the equation (read: decision making and die rolls). You interpret player skill as being defined by "mashing buttons" whereas I interpret player skill as being defined as the aptitude a player has for making decisions and using actions to the advantage of their character.
An MMORPG is about bringing large groups of players in a single world in which those players can assume roles of characters. Fact, not opinion.
If you are so easily insulted (by your logic to be called flawed) I would suggest not frequenting forums, or the internet for that matter.
I'm not interested in playing a game where one class loses to another class 80% of the time because of what they chose on the character select screen. I'm also not interested in playing a game where I lose because of a gear disparity so large that I stand no chance of winning.
So with that said, I can't stand the majority of PVP in MMORPGs. Blade&Soul has the best PVP (arena) in the entire genre when it comes to balance. Player skill > everything in B&S.
I'd love an open world sandbox-ish PVP game i.e. Archeage or BDO, but class balance in both are atrocious, and in both games, gear > skill every time, which is also a huge turnoff.
Traditionally the reward for superior player skills is nerfing key character skills to keep a level playing field. The system is designed to keep everyone normal with a slight advantage to make players feel a little good about themselves, sometimes.
And the primary deciding factor in combat should be fluid and intuitive combat mechanics.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
However just about any game mechanic in an MMO environment will lead to it mostly being luck. Catching your target when they are busy, being over leveled/geared/whatever compared to your target, catching your target while they are resting, know X event will happen, or similar. Most PvPer in MMO games is mostly to attempting to set up the board so that more factors are hopefully in your favor. (In a more limited game like a board game such mechanics wouldn't really be luck, but in an MMO I really feel that they are since unlike in the board game you don't have control/witness/influence over the entire game or your possible enemies)
_______________________
Which is why MOBAs have been really popular. Because you can have an awesome experience that you know is different every time.
Though MMOs will have a pretty neat resurgence when devs finally figure out procedural generation, and how to apply it to NPC personalities/stories/quests.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
The further you move away from player skill (which includes not only reflexes for dodging, movement and aiming, but also in selecting the right skills to use at the right time, co-ordinating with other people, prediction of opponents attacks etc), the more combat becomes observational and can no longer be called gameplay.
For example, if the outcome of combat was 100% about character skill, then combat would be a case of two characters approaching one another, pressing a button to initiate combat, at which point the outcome is known and one wins, the other loses. I can't see how anyone could find that fun, it certainly can't be called gameplay.
Gear is the same as character skill - if the outcome was 100% about gear, then player input and character progression become entirely meaningless and combat, again, boils down to just watching what your character does, rather than, you know, playing the game.
These days, its all a balancing act. Character skill and gear deliberately unbalance combat and reduce the importance of player skill. But, the question is what *should* be the deciding factor, and it should be player skill.
So much of mmo combat (pvp) plays as you describe above: unless the two players have similar gear/levels the outcome is a forgone conclusion and is generally a miserable experience for the undergeared player.
Similarly with pve, I think it is fair to say the majority of players are looking for some sort of challenge: there is a point where no amount of player skill can compensate for being undergeared (which will differ depending on the mechanics of the game), and a point when it becomes so easy that it is boring.
So in both pvp and pve, you can basically measure the fun factor of a game by the extent to which it facilitates allowing a player to succeed through using their skill to overcome challenges.
One difference between pve and pvp, is that some pvp players revel in the feeling of power they get from easily killing undergeared players, and mmo pvp mostly caters to this crowd.
I have never seen people boasting of how their max level toon sporting all epic gear and the best consumables took out massive groups of low level pve trash mobs in a starter area: but for pvp, people will make videos of equivalent pvp actions and think its really cool.