Do levels suck?

[Krakrok]

Given a sufficiently popular game there's going to be at least one other player with exactly the same skill choices as you and lot's of players with characters that are practically indistinguishable from yours. Without the structure afforded by classes, talent trees and levels it just isn't so readily apparent. You just like to pretend you're a unique snowflake.

You might think that but the math doesn't holds up. I'm going to trot Eve and Planetside out here and say I have a much better chance of being a special snowflake in both of those games than I do in a level cockblock game. I give myself between 1 in 10 and 1 in 250 chance of being a unique snowflake skillwise at any given time in Eve with a standard character. When there are non-combat elements not everything can be distilled down to damage per second.

[Alkiera]

Given a sufficiently popular game there's going to be at least one other player with exactly the same skill choices as you and lot's of players with characters that are practically indistinguishable from yours. Without the structure afforded by classes, talent trees and levels it just isn't so readily apparent. You just like to pretend you're a unique snowflake.

It is not so much the chance to be a unique snowflake; it is more that a broad skill system allows me to focus on whatever aspect of character progression interests me most without level restrictions. There are far fewer cockblocks.

One thing I think UO did right in that regard, was that crafting skills were just as much of your 700 skill points as your combat skills.  Ideally, crafting would be as interesting as combat, and should, thusly, be as much a part of a character's development.

The idea of being a super warrior AND a master alchemist is a bit odd, imo.  It's one thing to know a little about some craft or other... but most Master Craftsmen in fantasy stories aren't master fighters at the same time.  Usually they are has-beens, who may have some skill, but aren't masters anymore.

Alkiera

[Nebu]

I think the biggest problem with skill tree vs level games is that it takes a lot more attention to detail to attempt balance between skills.  Ultimately players will find the few skills that will empower their avatar and create "preferred builds".  When it all boils down to it, the number of "preferred builds" will be significantly smaller than the number of skill iterations.  In essence, the game that had skill trees eventually distills to a class system with the illusion of greater variety.

When someone can offer a game where all skill options produce viable avatars, that's when the leap from the old class system will occur. 

[WayAbvPar]

I think the biggest problem with skill tree vs level games is that it takes a lot more attention to detail to attempt balance between skills.  Ultimately players will find the few skills that will empower their avatar and create "preferred builds".  When it all boils down to it, the number of "preferred builds" will be significantly smaller than the number of skill iterations.  In essence, the game that had skill trees eventually distills to a class system with the illusion of greater variety.

When someone can offer a game where all skill options produce viable avatars, that's when the leap from the old class system will occur. 

Agreed. With a system like UO (with the small number of skills and skill point cap), preferred/optimal builds are inevitable.I am still an Eve n00b, so I may be off, but it seems the closest to the 'any skill set is useful'  utopia of anything I have played. Each skill has some sort of benefit, and there is no limit (other than time) on which skills can be learned. Nothing atrophies- I can learn a skill now and have it ready to go at the same level of usefulness in 6 months. Every second I spend toward learning a skill is retained- I can switch skills at the drop of hat and go back to learning the old one later with no loss.

[Akkori]

Skill-based systems rock! The problem is that the games I have played that use(d) a skill-based system allow you too many skills, and worse, no limit on how much you can learn. R/P/S is great, but if you get to be 2 of the 3, its less fun. Fun to me would be splitting Rock/Paper/Scissors into 12 seperate sections (4 per category), and I get to pick 3 out of one category. To make it interesting, I can get really, REALLY good at 1 of them, and proficient at the other 2. And the learning curve is steeper the better I get. AND its based on something OTHER than friggin XP gain.

[Cyrrex]

Fun to me would be splitting Rock/Paper/Scissors into 12 seperate sections (4 per category), and I get to pick 3 out of one category.

This is my thinking as well...levels within levels, though your simple analogy explains it better.  I know that some games attempt to do things like this...It doesn't change that fact that my Rogue (WoW example) will always be a sneaky bugger who likes to creep up on mobs and stab them in the back.   Investing my "talent" points differently probably isn't going to change that too any major degree.

Such variations exist in lots of games, but the degree of variance is not enough.

[stupid newbie]

Well, in my experience, skill games usually open up more playstyles. But in most cases it's usually boring to advance through most skills when there aren't many different fun, entertaining or creative opportunities to use them.

Although I'm sure levels can be done good if done well, somehow.

[Akkori]

its boring to advance because its almost always either : Go kill 10 lizards and return... OR make 5000 paper clips and come back.

Thats why I think adding Time into the mix would help. If people weren't so obssesed with gringing to "master" in new record times, maybe they would take some time to smell the roses.