You guys have to realize, Kylotan believes that a game calling for any sort of skill or reflexes is made for little autistic children.

No you fool, what I believe is that different people play different games to suit different needs. The people who want to play games that reward player skills rather than character skills are the people who are off playing Counterstrike and Unreal Tournament already, not stat-raising MMORPGs. What I object to is someone saying something like "this is ideal" when it clearly is not. It is a different type of playing style which is already well catered for by other genres. Saying that somehow you''re going to make Dark Age of Camelot into a more ''ideal'' game by changing it into Counterstrike with swords is making a judgement about what is ''good'' and what is ''bad'' gameplay that holds absolutely zero weight.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]

quote:

---

Original post by Bandecko
So while I may be slaying dragons, I''ll have to work at it and learn the ins and outs... not just build up my stats to the point where I can stand in front of it and beat it silly.

...

So why do we insult someone by creating a system and a game where all they have to do is mindlessly whack monsters to become all powerful? Why can''t there be a certain level of skill involved?

---

When it comes down to it, there are only 2 types of skill. Character skill and player skill. Personally I like one extreme or the other. This is because you know precisely the degree of control that you have. It would be unsatisfying to land your fighter plane perfectly only to have it crash because the pilot''s flying skill was too low. On the other hand, if I crashed it due to my own failing, I could accept that and continue practising. And if it crashed because the system was 100% stat-based, again it''s ok as I can just work on the stats. Combining the two gives an added sense of helplessness which translates into less enjoyment for most people who seek positive feedback from a game.

quote:

---

So why can''t there be a system where you can fight dragons, where you can do all the things you want to do, but the requirements aren''t necessarily "time invested" to do these things?

---

Two reasons:

1) playing time is money for the developers. If a really skilled player could come in and do it all from the start, they''d earn less money.

2) it''s an RPG norm to work on character skill rather than player skill. People who play RPGs expect this and feel cheated if it works the other way around. The reverse is true on many FPS games. And RTS games often have a bit of both. People who play RPG games are generally those who like to see reward for steady effort. To provide alternative routes to that same reward is going to make those players feel that the game is unfair.

quote:

---

So I COULD fight the dragon with my newly made character... it wouldn''t be wise because the odds are stacked against me... but if I joined a raiding party, then nobody would call me a worthless fool. Suddenly every man counts regardless of how long they''ve "invested" in the game.

---

I agree with the principle of reducing power differentials in character skills. I think it would be good if 5 newbies would be equal to 1 mid-level character. But the differential still has to exist, in order to encourage people to keep playing, and the differential can''t be so small that player skill is made important enough to alienate those players mentioned above.

quote:

---

This is one of the biggest things that hamper new players. They want the power, they want to see the things that make the game WORTH playing. They don''t want to be forced to spend hours on end killing the same damned moldy skeletons until they magically get stronger and smarter and faster in game.

---

I don''t agree with the above. But on the flipside, one of the things that keeps people coming back is the prospect of more stats and an improvement, leading to new opportunities. You can''t have one without the other.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]

[qoute](big difference between intel and knowledge)
Haha, you have to give it up to Bandecko for that. I totally agree: There is a BIG difference between Intel and knowledge.

Well, anyways, I'm not a big MMORPG player, but I was thinking. Wouldn't it be fun to be in a LOTR enviroment (generic, but that seems to be the best example) where you could be either a human, an elf, a dwarf, etc.

If you chose a certain race, you would get bonuses (I will mention what kind). So, for example, if you chose human, you would be a good swordfighter, elf archer, and dwarf axeman.

I think it would be good if there was a little bit of that building up your strengths, but you would do combat by: sword - holding a mouse button down and swinging a sword; bow - holding a mouse button down to pull back the arrow and manually aim it; axe - holding a mouse button down and swinging (maybe some combo for throwing it like a boomerang, since axes are the shortest range weapon).

Then, it would be a little bit of a FPS (without the 'S'). You would gain a tiny bit of points or something towards your character, and a little bit of money to buy other stuff. You would know how good someone would be by their character points (experience or charisma or HP or whatever), but that wouldn't totally dominate the fight. Sure, they may have a more expensive sword and a little bit more character points, but it would ultimately come down to skill. But I'm sure you could vary the character/skill balance.

It would also be a bit more tactical, because you could ambush someone or travel in groups, but you could vary the tactics/strategy balance too.

Also, maybe it would be cool if there was a MMORPG that would promote making friends, because you could exchange information, make alliances, trade, etc.

And if you say that all the potential skill based RPG players are playing Counter-Strike, you might be wrong. I'm sure that most people would enjoy a bit of a hybrid. Just because it hasn't been done yet don't say that there's no market for it, because there isn't... yet.

edit: Fixed the quote.

[edited by - tuxx on June 8, 2002 7:20:19 PM]

Ok, some of you are suffering from a complete inabiltity to see anything in context of either CounterStrike or Dungeons and Dragons.

I''m not even talking a hybrid.

The game wouldn''t play like a First Person shooter, but the "player skill" involved would be in where they positon themselves, what attacks they use, what skills they perform.

This coupled with a delicately balanced system of humanizing EVERYONE, is what I''m talking about.

Try dropping all preconceptions you hold about what games are and how they should be played.

Take all of the standard conventions of any other MMORPG out there. The character walks up, and enters "combat mode". It doesn''t HAVE to be attack, wait, recieve damage, attack, press button, wait, attack again.

Why can''t the character start swinging, and you give him input as to what kinds of attacks you wish to give him. Such as a combat command pad that can be customized.

I''m not talking about a quickbar, I''m talking about a pad that''s laid out like the keys on the numpad (only you click on them.)

So you enter combat. And you press overhand, and the character will start swinging overhand MORE often than any attacks. The enemy will parry and block a good portion of the attacks... but you can switch up your attacks mid combat, or perhaps even initiate special attacks or combos that you can customize and put in the combat pad.

Now let''s say through the hail of attacks and block and parries, you actually land a blow. Let''s say you strike them in the arm (side attack), then your sword damage (let''s say it''s 2) is compared to the armor. Let''s say it''s not a person, but an animal with no armor value. So your damage 2 is applied in full to the arm of the animal. Now, all of a sudden, the monster''s arm is really unfunctional. Remember 4 damage levels. Non wounded, wounded, severely wounded, and destroyed, so now the monsters are is wounded severely, (or red).

So the fight continues, but it''s a little easier because the monster can''t use the one arm to block or attack with as easily. So now the monster strikes you in the chest with it''s claw. Let''s say that you''re wearing class 1 armor (leather). The monster''s claws have a damage value of 1 (like your sword). So your armor is no match for the dainty little claws of the monster and you take no wound.

Now let''s say that everything has a range of strength from 1-10. When you are in melee damage, str 5 would get no chance for bonus, since you''re average strength. Str 6 would get you a 20% chance for a +1 to your ending damage value when you strike, 7 is 30%, 8 is 40% 9 50% and 10 would be a 60%. So then now let''s say the monster has a strength of 6 and actually makes the 20% check for a +1. So now you get a wound in your chest, nothing to worry about, it''s only a gash. But you''ll have to avoid another wound or you''ll be unable to breathe as well, and thus have your attacks slowed, or movement slowed or whatever.

So, having taken damage, you choose to move, except in your combat pad, you have a skill that allows you to leep back instead of just simply walk. So you jump backwards and the monster has to close in again, but you choose another command that allows you to lunge forward with a thrusting attack. So you hit the creature in the chest. The lunge attack gives a natural plus 1 to damage (but perhaps a lower percentage to hit, although in this example its'' a hit, and since the monster was moving forward, has a lowered ability to block). The weapon, which is a damage 2 weapon, is now a damage 3, and let''s say (just to wrap up the example) your strength is 7 and you get the +1 bonus. So the creature takes 4 damage to it''s chest. It''s "destroyed" which means it''s dead.

Combat lasts maybe 1-2 minutes and is still based on a broad range of "equality with slight variations".

This same system can be applied to a pvp situation, and while the more experienced player will have more options in his combat pad than a lower level player, there will still be a chance depending on how skillfully the new player chooses his attacks, or where he chooses to place his character in relation to the other.

No twitch or FPS skills are needed, and the combat still follows an rpg flow. It may seem like an action game, but beneath the surface there is a complex structure of "hit/miss" being played with constantly shifting to-hit percentages.

But in this game, there will be a great deal of "misses" which will be a mix of wiffs and blocks. But when you DO hit, it counts, and it matters.

So you see, everyone is equal, with difference, combat requires skill, but decision making skill instead of twitch skill.

I hope that really clears it up now, as I''ve added that little chunk into my overal design (again I''m not really making this game) and I''m pretty happy with how it fits.

Another example would be a pvp situation. You are a small group of three "low level" players who are ambushed by one extremely skilled fighter (or "high level").

Now all four begin to fight. Since the higher level fighter is fighting three other people he isn''t simply annihlating any of you because a lot of his attacks are being divided up and his percentages are bein adjusted for blocking and defence rather than simply attacking. Now let''s say the situation is getting worse as the high level player is using his attacks and skills wisely and rolling/tumbling, swiping, etc to the point where it looks like you may start to have the tide turn on you. Which happens. The high level player lands a blow on one of your friends. Now your armor isn''t nearly as high as his, so your friend''s leg is destroyed by the superior quality sword the enemy is using against the low quality armor your friend is wearing. You break combat, but your other friends manages to continue the fight. You rush behind the other character and perform your same lunge attack. Now let''s say this severely wounds one of the high level players arms. The high level player is not at a slight disadvantage.

The fight continues, and manages to actually kill one of your friends, severely wound another, but you continue to skillfully use your positioning and attacks to finally slay the high level player.

This means that everyone can suffer only the same amount of wounds, and nobody is impervious to attacks. Fighting someone who has played longer than you will be HARDER than someone who has played less, but not IMPOSSIBLE. I could fight a dragon, but It''d probably take a really long time as I jab, then run, then dodge, and then jab again.

Now of course like any other rpg, there will be methods of healing yourself so you''ll never "lose a limb" if a limb is "destroyed".

I think I''ve explained this enough for right now, I''ll give you all some time to chew on it while I think about ranged combat and magic combat.

I still think my method''s cooler! :D

This is an interesting combat system but I''m having trouble seeing the "strategy" of the combat. How are the attacks being made? Does the character just start going bug$hit and you up the percentage of his spinning jump kick attack? So far, it sounds too unpredictable. It would seem annoying that your character is out of control.

I''m not trying to shoot your idea down. I actually think you are on to something. I''m just trying to understand it.

I''m thinking this:
Let''s put two characters head-to-head. Now, I''m removing ALL stats... no strength, dexterity, nothing. These are two equal characters. One is attacking with a dagger (he''s a newbie) and the other has a giant sword (been playin'' a while). Weilding the Giant sword is slow but the dagger attack is quick. Therefore, Newbie puts more "focus" on dodging and therefore his dodging ability is enhanced. However, his attack is a bit sloppier. Sword guy can''t hit him and leeeeet''s saaaay he gets tired from weilding the sword and attacks slower. Newbie sees this opportunity, drops his guard, ups his critical attack and goes in for the kill. And the winner is...

Am I close?

There''s another prob I see here. Most RPG worlds are supposed to be explored. However, after months or even years of designing and building a world, you don''t want your players to see it all at once. You want them to earn what you''ve worked hard for, of course. It''s also much more fun for the user once they''ve unveiled an area they''ve never seen before. Therefore, you have to make it impossible for newbs to explore the Mountain of Doom. Usually, you have to have the fighting skill to be able to defeat the monsters in that area to be in that area or you''re toast.

A cool solution would be to make the user have to unlock the "secret" strategy for the monsters in that area or for specific monster types. Perhaps, a monster is guarding a bridge that is very tough to beat, however, you find out elsewhere that trolls are afraid of fire (I''m really wingin'' it here). After all the unsuccessful tries to defeat him, you realize that the simple torch you were carrying in your backpack was the secret.

- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan
When it comes down to it, there are only 2 types of skill. Character skill and player skill. Personally I like one extreme or the other. This is because you know precisely the degree of control that you have.

---

I hope you realize that basically every game ever made combines both of these things.

For example, in any racing game the car you can drive counts as "character skill." If I choose a Ferrari and you choose a BMW those are two different sets of character skills.

Same with every fighting game ever made.

Same with basically ANY game that gives you a choice in vehicles, characters, stats, skills, items, etc.

Characters don''t have "skills." They have attributes. There is NO SUCH THING as a game based purely on character skill. Such a game would play itself.

The way MMORPG''s work is very simple:

#1: Stats are all that really matters
#2: Time spent is how you get stats.
#3: Therefore time spent is all that really matters.

A game that requires no skill isn''t a game; maybe it''s an interactive movie - most likely it''s crap. Any game where the sole determining factor is time spent is garbage.

What''s wrong with asking that, if someone really wants to be good at a MMORPG, they actually LEARN how to play the damn game and get good at it? Player skill isn''t just aiming or jumping or whatever. A game can require player skill without being a crazed FPS.

A game that requires no player skill essentially requires no real player choice or input. It''s garbage. The whole "kill 500 rats to earn 1 skill point" paradigm is utterly pointless. If you have the time you can kill 500 rats, if not you can''t. It really is that simple. The question comes down to how much of an outside life do you not have? The more the better....

It makes sense that when two players of about equal skill meet, the victor might be determined by stats. But in general good skill (and skill includes things like decision making) should be the main factor.

So it seems that we all agree what''s bad, but no one really agrees what is good... I read Bandecko''s post over again, and I think that''s a pretty good idea, except, as coderx stated, a newbie can do the same thing as a master. I like that idea with the puzzles (trolls and fire), but I think it would also need something else... besides the puzzle thing, because that seems to Myst...

Ewww! Does seem a little bit Myst, doesn''t it =b

Okay, I''m gonna get silly here and compare this to Mike Tyson''s Punchout. Your character NEVER changes but your opponents get stronger and faster. It requires you to know their movements before you can beat them. Bandecko''s monster''s could have something similar (but not as corny). Some monsters may require a specific mix of timing, strategy and equipment but the newb COULD beat the final boss monster... it''s just very very very very unlikely =b

I really like this idea but it''d take a LOT of plannning to get it right. This can go either way. It could be a fun game if well thought out or it be a completely annoying system. I like to be on my toes when I play a game. It''s funny how whenever I see people playing MMORPG''s, their sitting back looking kinda bored, clicking away at the mouse to attack. WooOOOoooOOOH! The excitement is more than I can take! =b

- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!