A guess a major question is how do you make a game skill based while still allowing for character progression?

I think the simple answer is just allow for some progression but prevent the order of magnitude differences you see now. The way most games work a level 1 character can barely touch a level 50. Maybe character progression would mean more customization, more options that help in some circumstances but not an overwhelming advantage. The main is that if you soundly outplay someone you should be able to beat them.

Of course a big problem with MMORPGs is that they take very little skill or even input, especially non-magic classes. Generally you click on an enemy and combat basically takes care of itself. There isn''t much room there for much distinction based on skill. It isn''t clear to me how a skilled player in most MMORPGs would really play a fighter any differently than an unskilled player, other than extreme basics like knowing when to heal and when to run.

A good example of this is Diablo. If you play a fighter the only real skill is hitting the heal potion hotkey at the right time. (Diablo 1 at least, haven''t played 2)

I think the idea is that characters may progress with equipment. But even that would be very limited if hits are only a few points. The experienced player would still be at an advantage if he''s wearing a plate mail and the newb is wearing nothing. But, like I said in my last post, the exp''d player is slowing himself down by wearing that armor. Anyway, this is just my assumption of what Bandecko is getting at. But I totally dig that idea! =)

- 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 Bandecko
Ok, some of you are suffering from a complete inability 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.

---

We just disagree as to whether this is really ''different'' or not. Positioning, planning, weapon choice, and so on is very important in Counterstrike. (Much less so in, say, Quake 2.)

I would still say it is essentially a hybrid, and you wouldn''t. Oh well.

quote:

---

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.

---

Funny, I''ve already written a game (text-based, admittedly) where you can do exactly that. So please don''t suggest I am heavily limited by preconceptions

I still feel my above criticisms stand. When you move more towards player skill (twitch or otherwise), you potentially reduce game longevity for a large proportion of RPG players. This doesn''t make the game any worse, but it may or may not be what you really want.


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

quote:

---

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

---

Of course. What''s the problem? The difference from game to game is, of course, the ratio.

quote:

---

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.

---

*shrug* something can be 1% player skill. The main thing is whether it''s character or player skill which is predominant.

"Character skill" is a decent enough term for it. Consider it an abstraction of the way the character''s attributes affect the game system. "Skill" in my dictionary is defined as "the ability to do something well". Those attributes tend to dictate how well the character can do something, so the term sounds accurate and useful to me.

And the stats = time analogy is true enough, but not really relevant. Real life player skill is acquired through time, also. Intelligence is a function of time.

quote:

---

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?

---

Nothing is wrong with that. But if the ability to play the game is limited by the real-life player''s ability, you reduce your market. Maybe this is a good thing, maybe not. Also, if the ability to do well is significantly increased by the player''s appreciation of the system, then this may reduce their desire to stay in the game since they can master it more easily. Again, this may or may not be what you want. Most games want as many players as possible, and to keep them as long as possible.

quote:

---

The whole "kill 500 rats to earn 1 skill point" paradigm is utterly pointless.

---

That''s just a personal value judgement, and one which many hundreds of thousands of MMORPG players disagree with.

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

Pardon a guy if he wants to make a game on his own terms, rather than mechanically catering to a target market of eyes-glazed-over MMORPG drones.

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan

And the stats = time analogy is true enough, but not really relevant. Real life player skill is acquired through time, also. Intelligence is a function of time.

---

No. There is a very important distinction you are totally glossing over. Real life skill is a factor of time only in part. The amount of effort spent during that time, how quickly the person learns or how athletic they are, also plays a large role.

As time progresses people DON''T always get more intelligent or more athletic. They do during their formative years but after that it is effort and will, not just growth.

The fact is most people could halfheartedly practice basketball all day long every day and not be nearly as good as Kobe Bryant. But in the typical RPG you CAN become super-powered with JUST time.

In real life time spent is A factor, but not THE factor. Spending time on something in real life does not assure you of becoming any better at it, unless you are a novice at it. Once you reach a certain level time alone does nothing for you.

quote:

---

But if the ability to play the game is limited by the real-life player''s ability, you reduce your market.

---

No you don''t. Maybe your market now is missing players that *have* real-life ability but don''t play your game because it doesn''t reward that. The decision to make a game totally devoid of any skill might attract some people but might also drive away others.

I understand what you are saying, that people might play these games as an escape and don''t want to worry about real life, skills or otherwise. But just be aware that the decision to cater to those people might drive away others. There isn''t anything wrong with some games doing that, but right now basically *every* MMORPG is set up to reward time spent well above anything else.

Honestly, this is the Windows generation of computer lusers. Trying to create the next revolutionary step in games is pretty risky business, but hey, someones gotta have some balls. I keep seeing people posting ideas (some very interesting) and other people saying, "no, you can''t do that because it won''t make money!" There was a discussion not long ago about whether games were art or not. This shined a light on the hippocritical people of this board. In one discussion, they scream at a person because they won''t make money, but then on another thread, say that games should be an art? Art has made very few people in this world rich. Accept that.

[bitch]
If ANYONE says that an idea shouldn''t be considered because it won''t make money, delete your graphics and sound libraries, remove any 3D modeling software from your system and go find a forum on writing business software. This is the "Game Design" forum, not "The Business of Game Development" forum. The purpose of these discussions should be to sit down a pick apart ideas and try to improve game ideas... which the industry desparately needs! Not throw out more of the same of what we''ve already heard. Not only that, but these are just ideas. You think these will ever come to fruition? Probably not, but if we had a few productive discussions then the chances would be greater for success. Either way, it''s not to be taken so seriously. We''re just throwing around ideas. Chip in and help.
[/bitch]

BTW, where IS Bandecko? I think he gave up on us =b hehehehe

- 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 Misogynator
Pardon a guy if he wants to make a game on his own terms, rather than mechanically catering to a target market of eyes-glazed-over MMORPG drones.

---

Are you ever gonna stop being a troll?

I clearly used disclaimers such as "this may or may not be what you want" in my post above. If it is what you want, then fine. No big deal. Some people program games entirely for themselves, and don''t care if others like it. But other people -probably most - prefer to make games that others will actually play. And therefore there are inherent risks in calling something an MMORPG when in fact only the MMO bit is accurate because the RPG has been replaced by something else.



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

quote:

---

Original post by AnonPoster
No. There is a very important distinction you are totally glossing over. Real life skill is a factor of time only in part. The amount of effort spent during that time, how quickly the person learns or how athletic they are, also plays a large role.

...

Once you reach a certain level time alone does nothing for you.

---

So, let''s say you need specialist training or whatever too. It''s still just another time-based resource. But even if we disagree on that, it''s still Just A Resource. Time, money, education, physical strength, whatever. Most people who play RPGs value "game time" as the relevant resource, and feel that people who use other resources (such as money to buy items on eBay) are somehow cheating. That is the nature of RPG-like games, just as Quake players would be very dissatisfied if their perfect shot was judged to do zero damage because their character''s Aiming skill was only 1%.

quote:

---

Maybe your market now is missing players that *have* real-life ability but don''t play your game because it doesn''t reward that. The decision to make a game totally devoid of any skill might attract some people but might also drive away others.

I understand what you are saying, that people might play these games as an escape and don''t want to worry about real life, skills or otherwise. But just be aware that the decision to cater to those people might drive away others. There isn''t anything wrong with some games doing that, but right now basically *every* MMORPG is set up to reward time spent well above anything else.

---

You''re right, but not really following my point (which was made several posts earlier, admittedly). The more you add towards the real-life ability at the expense of in-character ability, the further from the RPG paradigm you move. You are correct in saying that games of such a type (and therefore, the players that would enjoy them) are underrepresented, but if you tried to pass such a game off as an MMORPG then you would probably not do so well, as the label is misleading. The game would not play like an RPG.

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

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan
You're right, but not really following my point (which was made several posts earlier, admittedly). The more you add towards the real-life ability at the expense of in-character ability, the further from the RPG paradigm you move. You are correct in saying that games of such a type (and therefore, the players that would enjoy them) are underrepresented, but if you tried to pass such a game off as an MMORPG then you would probably not do so well, as the label is misleading. The game would not play like an RPG.

---

This depends on how you interpret the original idea. Bandecko's been silent so who knows. =b

I understand the idea to be that the combat system relies on the characters fighting abilities and the players strategic abilities. However, the character abilities are not experience but would probably be a balance speed and power. You can have a quick character or a strong character. Either way, it's how you play the strategy that decides the battle, not experience points. So, assuming that this is the idea, what do you think? I agree that a system completely based on player skill would not be an RPG but an adventure game. On the other hand, I think this may fall under a RPG/RTS hybrid. Either way, I personally like the idea of adding a little more than just standing there hitting the attack button.

- 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!


[edited by - coderx75 on June 11, 2002 10:52:03 PM]