Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 05:35:53 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Skill based game design without classes, does it work? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Skill based game design without classes, does it work?  (Read 26323 times)
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


on: November 19, 2009, 08:28:26 AM

Hi

I was talking with friends of mine (ex UO, WoW, SWG and DAoC players) and we started discussing the problems of classes and archtypes in MMORPGs. I quite liked the system in Star Wars Galaxies (on release) where I could choose to learn skills from several classes and combine them like (Rifleman + Ranger für camping big time  awesome, for real). I didn't play UO myself (started with DAoC short after release) and from then on only played titles with classes (and SWG) but I think that a game with skill sets instead of classes would work out well while it would create a lot of new problems.

1. What skill-based MMOs are out there?
I heard about Darkfall but I didn't start to play that so I don't know how they did it.

2. Do you think skill-based MMOs stand a chance over "we had that before"-class based games with warriors, healers, thiefs and casters?
I do (as I play pen&paper roleplaygames without classes as well).

3. What major problems will a game without classes encounter?
I think that one problem might be finding groups. People will start asking for specific skills (like "Greater Heal VI" and "Bull's Strength IX") and many not so mainstream skill combinations will encounter harsh difficulties finding adventure groups. Group setup will be a major problem without classes (and levels).

Another problem would be to judge the challenge rating of an encounter. Player A has some skills that help him fight with swords, heavy armor and dunno... fire magic. He can output some nice melee damage and blasts a fireball into the face of his enemy every now and then. Same enemy is encountered by Player B who decided to spend the same amount of skill points into his lute, rapier and fancy dancing skills. Will the enemy con the same challenge level as to the other player or will he be displayed as a difficult encounter since the combat skills of Player B are less than those of Player A? What if Player C spent the same amount of skill points into more or less useless combat skills and can't fight like shit on his own, because all his skills are group based (attacking an enemy from behind while he is otherwise occupied)?
You could do some math with the statts, combat orientated skills (solo/group) and the skill categories chosen but still the challenge level would be hard to determine.




P.S.: I used the search and didn't find this topic (not counting game specific topics) on the first two pages. If there is a thread like this, feel free do redirect me and I will participate in that discussion.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 05:52:40 AM by element_of_void »

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Draegan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10043


Reply #1 on: November 19, 2009, 08:29:30 AM

I love your thread title.
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #2 on: November 19, 2009, 08:40:50 AM

I agree with everything this post says.

if at last you do succeed, never try again
Brogarn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1372


Reply #3 on: November 19, 2009, 08:42:11 AM

Hi.
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #4 on: November 19, 2009, 08:43:35 AM

Apparently he missed the Game Design/Development forum.   Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #5 on: November 19, 2009, 08:44:36 AM

Apparently I did. I'll take my sorry ass over there.  Ohhhhh, I see.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440

2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST


WWW
Reply #6 on: November 19, 2009, 10:06:35 AM

Awesome, I hate getting out of the Moderator Recliner.

Why am I homeless?  Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question.
They called it The Prayer, its answer was law
Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
WayAbvPar
Moderator
Posts: 19268


Reply #7 on: November 19, 2009, 10:28:16 AM

I agree with everything this post says.

Ugh not I. Level-based advancement has been done to death and just leads to cookie cutter characters. Give me something that allows characters breadth and depth rather than pigeonholing them into a role from the start.

And moving this to the proper subforum.

When speaking of the MMOG industry, the glass may be half full, but it's full of urine. HaemishM

Always wear clean underwear because you never know when a Tory Government is going to fuck you.- Ironwood

Libertarians make fun of everyone because they can't see beyond the event horizons of their own assholes Surlyboi
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #8 on: November 19, 2009, 10:32:47 AM

thanks for moving this thread over here.  Heart

I am currently reading other threads on this topic but I would still love to get replies here because the other interesting thread I'm reading right now is not only about skill vs class but also screwing diku to get a new level of mmorpg. Thats more than I hope for. ^^

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440

2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST


WWW
Reply #9 on: November 19, 2009, 10:49:49 AM

Hmm, well, as long as I don't have to get up....

Psychochild had a good followup.  I think the article was complaining about use-based gain of skill rather than a skill-based system in general.  Personally, I prefer the choice of a skill-based system, plus I'm not some asshole that cries about "balance", whatever that is.  Part of that choice is that a player has to figure out challenge levels on their own rather than counting on some abstract and unified numbering system.  Some people probably would rather not have to do this.

Another example for your list: Fallen Earth is a mix of levels and skills in that levels and quests give you points to put into skills and stats.  You could be level 20 and have crap combat skill, if you wanted.

Why am I homeless?  Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question.
They called it The Prayer, its answer was law
Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
Draegan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10043


Reply #10 on: November 19, 2009, 10:58:07 AM

Do away with levels.  I think an achievement based advancement scheme would work best with determining rank/level/power and skill allotment. 
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #11 on: November 19, 2009, 11:13:20 AM

I'd get rid of classes and levels.
Have Skills ans Skillsets (or Skilltrees or whatever) and if you train a skill, it raises attributes used for the skill. Training fighting with a sword would raise my strength and some dexterity/agility while casting fireball over and over will to some extend increase my intelligence (or some attribute like logic or intuition or whatever)

A spellcaster would have lower health because he trained less body boosting stuff. Should he decide to become some sort of melee/caster he should train ... dunno ... wearing some sort of armor (and moving with said armor) and do some workout.

The equipment should to some extend limit what a character can do. Heavy armor increasing casting time or blocking some higher tier spells etc.

I'm not sure about hitpoints though. I dislike hitpoints in the high thousands... thats absurd. I'd like newbies to be able to participate in the game with more experienced players (or crafters going on the hunt with their friends) without them being a nuisance to better skilled players (combat wise).



Could you clarify what you mean by achievement based advancement?



*edit*

Quote from: Nerf
Then came the class selection, except instead of the standard diku mag/cle/thf/war/rog/cle/mnk/sor/pony was an extensive list of skills, the options to train/untrain/specialize in different skills and a few "suggestions" that could be modified to your hearts contentment.
    As you leveled, your skills raised both automatically by use, or you could choose to spend XP anywhere you like, including stats which act as modifiers against different schools.  Total freedom.

That was 8..9 years ago, and not a single mmorpg has even come close to the level of customization that we had in one of the very first MMOs on the market.
source

well, that sounds promising... why did I play DAoC and not AC... dammit
« Last Edit: November 19, 2009, 11:21:03 AM by element_of_void »

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #12 on: November 19, 2009, 11:41:26 AM

I'd get rid of classes and levels.
Have Skills ans Skillsets (or Skilltrees or whatever) and if you train a skill, it raises attributes used for the skill. Training fighting with a sword would raise my strength and some dexterity/agility while casting fireball over and over will to some extend increase my intelligence (or some attribute like logic or intuition or whatever)

Having skills and skill sets will result in the same thing as having classes without the possibility of your playerbase gimping themselves accidentally.  This is particularly true in a pvp game. 

It's almost impossible to balance skill sets on their own and even more difficult when you begin to attempt to balance synergy between sets.  This leads players down the path of choosing skill sets that maximize abilities.  It becomes further complicated if you have players use their skills to gain skills.  Ultimately your players will determine which sets are most powerful and focus on those.  Players will then separate themselves into gameplay styles based about that subset of your skill sets resulting in an artificial construction of a class-based game.

 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
AutomaticZen
Terracotta Army
Posts: 768


Reply #13 on: November 19, 2009, 12:34:57 PM

Having skills and skill sets will result in the same thing as having classes without the possibility of your playerbase gimping themselves accidentally.  This is particularly true in a pvp game. 

It's almost impossible to balance skill sets on their own and even more difficult when you begin to attempt to balance synergy between sets.  This leads players down the path of choosing skill sets that maximize abilities.  It becomes further complicated if you have players use their skills to gain skills.  Ultimately your players will determine which sets are most powerful and focus on those.  Players will then separate themselves into gameplay styles based about that subset of your skill sets resulting in an artificial construction of a class-based game.  

Or, like in CO, everyone's a DPS with a single defensive ability, and combat is nothing but a dogpile of DPS.

But yes, classes are there because players will recreate them on their own given time.  The question is do you want to allow the outliers to feel like a special snowflake.  The is some fun to be had in player creating those 'classes' in semi-interesting ways, like the SelfHealTank, but after awhile, there will be optimum builds.  And the balancing of skills will probably be a nightmare.
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #14 on: November 19, 2009, 12:38:07 PM

This discussion seems to focus on combat related skills only. Not all skill based games are combat focused. The larger design layer also directly affects issues of a skill based system.

Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #15 on: November 19, 2009, 12:40:18 PM

This discussion seems to focus on combat related skills only. Not all skill based games are combat focused. The larger design layer also directly affects issues of a skill based system.

If combat exists in your game it will be primary to everything else.  I didn't invent this.  It's the natural progression that will occur.  Why do crafting mules exist?  To make your combat character better.  Ultimately any game with combat will have gameplay and an economy that revolves around that combat.  

Now if you're wanting to make a game that is like ATitD done right (no combat), count me in. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #16 on: November 19, 2009, 12:47:49 PM

I can point to one where it uses a usebased/skill system, and combat is very much secondary. But I would be shilling, and its not necessarily an example of "OMG successful!". It is however successful for reasons not tied to combat.

EDIT: Fuckit. Wurm online. Yes, I am working on it. But over the months that I have been working with them, and learning the player base, for the majority, combat is not the motivator. It was surprising to me. I only bring it up, because I think its an interesting difference in a combat DESIGN focused skill system, and a non-combat DESIGNED one. Point, The Game design layer is important in a topic like this.

I get more requests for things NOT combat related, than for it. We even have siege engines and you can bun down whole towns....
« Last Edit: November 19, 2009, 01:00:26 PM by Mrbloodworth »

Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #17 on: November 19, 2009, 12:50:31 PM

Don't try to WURM your way out of this discussion.

"Me am play gods"
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #18 on: November 19, 2009, 12:55:28 PM

*edit* I misunderstood your reply... you are right about min/maxing. I'll leave my post as it is anyway *end of edit*

I think you misunderstood me (or I used the wrong words).
With Skill Sets I was referring to categories. Instead of having one thousand unorganised skills, put skills into categories. Have a category for 1handed swords for example. Now organize the skill categorie by complexity of skill (tier) and prerequisites as well as a good amount of choices and have lots of categories: all weapon types (like swords, maces, polearms, 2handed swords, bows etc) types of magic (for example 4 elements, healing, control or whatever... breaking apart magic into categories is a whole new story) crafting skills (not like smith, fletcher but more like working with materials / tools etc) and let different skill sets work together and combine into new skills (for example having trained swords, fire magic and a skill to add magic to attacks opens up for a whole world of combat magic).
Add some skill trees with stuff like athletics (running, swimming, climbing, jumping) and knowledge skills (theory of magic, anatomy, combat basics, tactics, survival and stuff) as well as trainable resistances, invulnerability to certain effects and such.

Now I can decide to play a ranger by learning to wield a knife, a bow, learn tracking, learn survival, learn herbology, animal knowledge and whatnot.
I can decide to play a fighter by learning all sorts of weapons and how to move in a heavy armor and basic tactics.
A Warrior could decide to become a paladin of sorts by learning divine magic or go berserker and learn how to wield 2 heavy weapons while wearing nothing but a loincloth.

You could help newbies with tutorials that guide you to certain skills (you wanna squisch toast? take this sword and learn those skills first) or make skill combinations available that help people get a grip on the basics and then dive into skill diversification.

Make skills "unlearnable" to free skill points and you can respec on your own. Chosen the wrong skills? No need to reroll your barbarian. Klick forget and you will unlearn this skill over time.



My idea for skill trees would be somehow like this (sorry for those looking like wow talents, I used those spreadsheets before)

choosing a skill makes it useable. Entry skills are allways available. You start at 0% proficiency.


Using that skill increases the proficiency. Once you are used to swinging the sword, you can learn to make special attacks and tier 1 opens for you. Some skills are grayed out, because you don't have the prerequisite skill.


you go on using your skills and learn more and more skills from that skill tree along more skills in other trees.


you can choose to learn only some skills and have a broad set of skills available to you or you can choose to master a skill tree to get some rare and difficult skills.



Those skill trees are a) in german (sorry) b) simplified to explain a concept and c) kind of old. Sorry for recycling them for this thread.





I just read the replies that came while I was typing my reply...
I would use the same use-based skill system for crafting, entertainment, politics, trade and stuff. The point about cookie cutter builds is viable non the less, I learned that so far. Is there any way to implement a skill based system so that it will not end in people reading post after post how to make the uber DPS?
« Last Edit: November 19, 2009, 12:59:15 PM by element_of_void »

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #19 on: November 19, 2009, 12:56:06 PM

Don't try to WURM your way out of this discussion.

Heh. I just didn't want to come off as shilling. I just think, for what i can bring to this discussion, I may have a unique take on this now.

But I think it is really important to consider the game design principles when discussing skill based systems. Nebu is 100% correct in that a combat focused (because there is no other impact on the games world, combat is the only real dynamic feature) combat skills are primary.

We even have religion and meditation for fucks sake. lol.

I do not, by any means, mean that there are not players that focus on combat.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2009, 12:58:57 PM by Mrbloodworth »

Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
AutomaticZen
Terracotta Army
Posts: 768


Reply #20 on: November 19, 2009, 01:16:11 PM

Is there any way to implement a skill based system so that it will not end in people reading post after post how to make the uber DPS?

No.  Players will maximize rewards and minimize risk as much as they can within the rules you've established.  Picking the wrong spec is a risk. 

Now your game may have different ways to do uber DPS, but eventually there will be an optimum spec.  You'll nerf whatever skill synergy is creating that optimum spec, and then they'll theorycraft and test another.
KallDrexx
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3510


Reply #21 on: November 19, 2009, 01:30:45 PM

No.  Players will maximize rewards and minimize risk as much as they can within the rules you've established.  Picking the wrong spec is a risk. 

Now your game may have different ways to do uber DPS, but eventually there will be an optimum spec.  You'll nerf whatever skill synergy is creating that optimum spec, and then they'll theorycraft and test another.

Unless respeccing is low cost (which imo, should be the case anyways).  If it's easy to respec then while you will have some players who flock to forums, a lot of players will experiment and have some fun with the flexibility.  That's what happened in Guild Wars.
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #22 on: November 19, 2009, 01:54:02 PM

I'd make respeccing sort of free. Everybody is free to unlearn skills he has learned so far. Then hi can learn new skills. I'd make once learned skills easier to relearn again to lessen the skill grind after respeccing to an old build.

Balancing is a bitch anyway but in a skill based design it seems impossible. There will always be choices that are "bad" in a minmaxing way of thinking. You will always have groups say "you skilled dancing and music? Sorry, we don't take sissies with us, go find a dance combat group and 'rock on' with them!" Non the less would I want to have bards in a game that learned to play music, instruments and sing long before they learned the first combat song that helps their comrades.

A character that doesn't spent all his skill points into combat orientated skills is "gimped" in the general view of games. How to fix that? Separate combat and crafting/entertainment/politics skill points? Might be counterproductive but until I hear a better idea thats what I would aim for.
A character that has less favored skills? Give him something that other skill sets don't have, a nice little party buff or something like this.
Introduce enough "special skills" so that a less popular skill combination still has its viability without making it necessary for every party.

a little anecdote:
In DAoC i played a mana mentalist. People would make a party without a bard but bards were popular because of additional healing, some dps and songs to regen mana and lessen the downtime. I often got replies like "you don't deal enough dmg" or stuff like that but nearly all the groups I played with were amazed of my mana regen buff, the nice additional healing and my dps in longer fights stacking dots and small damage spells. I even saved our ass from time to time with crowd control. People often only took special classes for their abilities(tank, dps, healing, crowd control) but having only my mana regen was enough to get me into some groups (even though they were happy when they realized that I could do more.

I know that in some games people took less popular classes because one single spell/buff/ability because it added to their gameplay/performance. Shouldn't that be possible with a skill based design as well? Sure, you can't put a gem into every skill tree but you can buff less popular ones to be a viable choice.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Slyfeind
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2037


Reply #23 on: November 19, 2009, 02:01:55 PM

This is why I hate game balance as a whole. It's ok to control a player's effectiveness in general, but not compared to other players. If I want to play a shoemaker, I fully expect devs to control my shoemaking skills. However, I don't want someone's barbarian to be as good at making shoes as I am. Likewise, as a barbarian, I expect my hacking and slashing to be balanced, but the shoemaker shouldn't be as good as I am.

"Role playing in an MMO is more like an open orchestra with no conductor, anyone of any skill level can walk in at any time, and everyone brings their own instrument and plays whatever song they want.  Then toss PvP into the mix and things REALLY get ugly!" -Count Nerfedalot
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11838


Reply #24 on: November 19, 2009, 02:04:46 PM



Jesus fucking christ, you just invented SWG.

Stop doing that.

This is entirely wrong because (like SWG) the numbers on the right imply overweighting the mastery box.

As SWG demonstrated this turns your game into 'pick two classes to combine and grind them to master before they are any use at all'.



Also, EVE says hi.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #25 on: November 19, 2009, 02:13:50 PM

I know that in some games people took less popular classes because one single spell/buff/ability because it added to their gameplay/performance. Shouldn't that be possible with a skill based design as well? Sure, you can't put a gem into every skill tree but you can buff less popular ones to be a viable choice.
Most people don't want to be a one-trick pony. Otherwise people start appending "-bot" to their featured skill and they get treated less like a hero and more like a machine. Players have to understand what purpose their characters serve in game terms, and need to believe those services are as worthwhile. They want to be wanted.

if at last you do succeed, never try again
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #26 on: November 19, 2009, 02:17:02 PM

Jesus fucking christ, you just invented SWG.

Stop doing that.

This is entirely wrong because (like SWG) the numbers on the right imply overweighting the mastery box.

As SWG demonstrated this turns your game into 'pick two classes to combine and grind them to master before they are any use at all'.



Also, EVE says hi.
might be because I played and liked it and now I am biased.
I don't want people to pick 2 or 3 but more likely about 10ish skill trees. I don't know whether that makes a real difference. How would you solve the problem of people only picking the "end tier" skills and leaving out the rest?

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
IainC
Developers
Posts: 6538

Wargaming.net


WWW
Reply #27 on: November 19, 2009, 02:21:14 PM

No.  Players will maximize rewards and minimize risk as much as they can within the rules you've established.  Picking the wrong spec is a risk. 

Now your game may have different ways to do uber DPS, but eventually there will be an optimum spec.  You'll nerf whatever skill synergy is creating that optimum spec, and then they'll theorycraft and test another.

Unless respeccing is low cost (which imo, should be the case anyways).  If it's easy to respec then while you will have some players who flock to forums, a lot of players will experiment and have some fun with the flexibility.  That's what happened in Guild Wars.

Respeccing is only necessary if skills are a finite resource. If you have a cap on the amount you can learn then players should be able to unlearn things. If learning new things is just a case of time or grinding then not so much.

- And in stranger Iains, even Death may die -

SerialForeigner Photography.
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #28 on: November 19, 2009, 02:23:54 PM

Most people don't want to be a one-trick pony. Otherwise people start appending "-bot" to their featured skill and they get treated less like a hero and more like a machine. Players have to understand what purpose their characters serve in game terms, and need to believe those services are as worthwhile. They want to be wanted.
which sounds to me like an argument in favor of enabling every combat specced player to contribute to the performance of the group. How exactly?

(taking the bard like player as an example)
Having a bard in your group means having one player that deals less damage but adds some buffs or whatever to the group. Make it not one or two buffs but something that changes the way the party plays. Either the effect is so small that the "bard" will not be taken because his "slot" in the party could be used better or the effect is big enough to define the bard. Making such a big effect for all skill sets might be hard. Making the effect based on one or a few skills makes the thing to be bot-ish again.

@IainC: I think having an unlimited amount of skill points doesn't work well for every game unless you make it real time depending and thats the last thing I'd want in a game. (I didn't like the idea in eve BUT I have to say I never played eve so it's not my place to judge)
« Last Edit: November 19, 2009, 02:31:07 PM by element_of_void »

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #29 on: November 19, 2009, 02:30:49 PM

Either the [buff's] effect is so small that the "bard" will not be taken because his "slot" in the party could be used better or the effect is big enough to define the bard and be bot-ish again.
If there is as much exclusive content available to somebody who wants to be a bard playing ballads in bars as there is for somebody who wants to be a barbarian knocking heads together, then this whole question is beside the point. If 99% of the content available to bards is combat-oriented, then there's no reason to play a bard at unless it's a 99% combat class.

That's where Entertainers failed in SWG. As much as some people enjoyed the class, most of the game took place outside cantinas.

if at last you do succeed, never try again
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #30 on: November 19, 2009, 02:44:13 PM

I never understood why entertainers weren't able to perform in a big camp like they did in the cantina.
Taking entertainers and "the bard" a step further... I'd give a bard combat and non combat abilities. If you wanna play a bard as an entertainer, be my guest. If you want to play a barbarian who can sing like hell and entertain people why not play a singing barbarian. If said barbarian wants to use his talent in combat, give him combat orientated bard skills like battle chants, shouts, songs, inspiring recite and such.

If you have a dancer then he will be a good entertainer. Want to dance in the battlefield? Give him a unique set of weapons and combat dances that add to the group, define his way in combat and he will have fun playing.

I'm all for that Shoemaker, Bard, Barbarian argument. I played a dedicated smith in vanguard on release and spent like 30 levels on armor crafting for my friends. Some day I put the smith hammer to the side and started with some pve content and that was good. I even played a wookie dancer in SWG and had fun without any combat at all.

Most MMOs are combat oriented. Limiting the Pve/PvP skills by choosing a craft will result in crafting/entertainer/politic alts. Splitting combat skill points and non-combat skill points should be something to consider. Maybe with an option to trade some combat skill points for dedicated crafters or something like that. (the other way around would gimp the whole idea because most groups wouldn't take a dedicated crafter with less then 100% combat skill points to high end content. I don't think a smith would say to the shoemaker "I won't buy your leather straps, you spent to many of your points on combat skills")

Crafters, traders and politics will have content available to them. How do you make an entertainer viable? Combining non-combat and combat skills (like battle bards and combat dancers) adds some flavor I think most people would like. Furthermore there should be some viability in their non combat skills (a recovery bonus, removing fatigue, adding combat buffs) and making those skills available in taverns (high effect) and on campsites (smaller effect) is more or less what SWG tried. Wanna give that another shot?


one other thing... even with classes removed from the game people will still think along "tank spank heal" and define skill sets with this paradigm.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2009, 02:47:30 PM by element_of_void »

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #31 on: November 19, 2009, 04:41:10 PM

Ultimately it doesn't matter what the player wants, it matters what the game provides. I can play a bard in Diablo II, stay in the first town and sing songs rather than running off to right wrongs with the power of slaughter. That doesn't change the fact that I'll only see a tiny portion of the game, and am more or less inventing any fun I have out of whole cloth. One wonders why I bought the game at all, when I could have a more enriching time playing the same character I'd constructed with Legos.

Quote
I don't think a smith would say to the shoemaker "I won't buy your leather straps, you spent to many of your points on combat skills"
Only in a game without any depth to crafting. She'll take any leather strap because a leather strap is just a [Leather Strap]: There's no imperfect curing, there's no quality of stitch, there's no varying toughness or pliability depending upon which portion of hide of which animal he used. If skill in crafting allows a player to identify and exploit complex features then the smith may get picky about whether she accepts leather straps from a shoemaker who moonlights as a barbarian... or she may demand it, because only barbarians have the skills required to identify which members within a herd of wild beasts will provide the choicest hides. Or perhaps she demands shoemakers who moonlight as mages, or cares less about who cut the strap than who butchered the creature and how. She may want entirely different leather straps depending on whether she's making a handle for a shield, the grip of a sword, or the straps for a set of greaves... seeking practitioners of different skills for each. Probably she uses different materials based on whether she wants something quick and dirty to outfit the front line troops or a great effort suitable for rune-worked enchanting.

If that sort of speciality requires skill points, and skill points are a limited resource, then yes, she might be upset to find out you'd spent half of yours on martial arts. If honing those skills leads all over the map, introduces unique gameplay and quests, and passes the time in as entertaining a way as anything else in the game then somebody might actually play a dedicated shoemaker. If it feels like crafting is an afterthought in a game about exploring and killing then nobody will.

Substitute any other skillset you care to for "shoemaker".

if at last you do succeed, never try again
Count Nerfedalot
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1041


Reply #32 on: November 19, 2009, 04:54:00 PM

This discussion seems to focus on combat related skills only. Not all skill based games are combat focused. The larger design layer also directly affects issues of a skill based system.

If combat exists in your game it will be primary to everything else.  I didn't invent this.  It's the natural progression that will occur.  Why do crafting mules exist?  To make your combat character better.  Ultimately any game with combat will have gameplay and an economy that revolves around that combat.  

It's not necessarily a bad thing that combat is primary.  What is a bad thing though is when participating in non-combat portions of the game reduces your ability in combat!

You should NEVER have to choose between a combat skill and a crafting skill.  Provide separate experience pools, and crafting becomes a viable option for eveyone, not just those few willing to gimp themselves in combat or roll another alt.  IMHO this was pre-CU SWG's biggest design flaw.  Not only did learning crafting mean you gimped your combat potential, but they rubbed salt in the wound with their stupid one-character per account policy!  So if you enjoyed both crafting and fighting and actually wanted to be better than mediocre at either, you not only had to have two characters, you had to pay for two accounts!   Tantrum  Until and unless Raph repents of that asinine confluence of bad design choices I'm going to be very wary of anything else he's involved in.

AC (I'm not sure but maybe also UO?) had the same problem of crafters being handicapped in combat by the very fact that they had chosen to craft, without the single-character/account stupidity.  In fact, I can't think of any skill-based systems that don't penalize crafters that way.  Which is odd, because it's easy enough to avoid.  EQ2 separates combat and crafting advancement properly, but in a class-based system.  You can have very low level adventurers who are max-level crafters.  I don't think it would be possible to be a level 1 adventurer while max-level crafter, but only because you would level a couple times just from the explore experience you would pick up along the way!  cheesy  I can't see any obstacles to implementing a dual-tracked system similar to EQ2's but using skills instead of levels.

Other games like WoW and LoTRO made crafting advance separately from combat, but then deliberately blocked progress in crafting at certain stages (sometimes every level) making it impossible to raise your crafting level (much) beyond your adventure level.

Yes, I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
AutomaticZen
Terracotta Army
Posts: 768


Reply #33 on: November 19, 2009, 07:12:37 PM

You should NEVER have to choose between a combat skill and a crafting skill.  Provide separate experience pools, and crafting becomes a viable option for eveyone, not just those few willing to gimp themselves in combat or roll another alt.  IMHO this was pre-CU SWG's biggest design flaw.  Not only did learning crafting mean you gimped your combat potential, but they rubbed salt in the wound with their stupid one-character per account policy!  So if you enjoyed both crafting and fighting and actually wanted to be better than mediocre at either, you not only had to have two characters, you had to pay for two accounts!   Tantrum  Until and unless Raph repents of that asinine confluence of bad design choices I'm going to be very wary of anything else he's involved in.

This was pretty much my thought.
Rendakor
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10131


Reply #34 on: November 19, 2009, 09:50:44 PM

Count Nerfedalot, even EQ2 falls into the familiar trap with its AAs; there are crafting based AAs, but you need a Dual Spec AA Mirror in order to take them without detracting from your combat abiliity. There are also crafting-based racial abilities that much be chosen instead of combat-oriented ones.

Which isn't to say that I don't agree with the seperation of crafting and adventuring levels/classes/skillsets/wtfever.

"i can't be a star citizen. they won't even give me a star green card"
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Skill based game design without classes, does it work?  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC