Green Monster Games - Curt Schilling
- Thread starter Lord Thanos_foh
- Start date
Why would I come up with something that I know would either suck or be impossible to implement given contraints on technology, resources and time?
Anyone can sit here and dream up the perfect MMO but creating that is another matter entirely. Reference VG and Brad"s visions of grandeur and how lacking the final product was despite over 5 years and nearly 40 million dollars.
Anyone can sit here and dream up the perfect MMO but creating that is another matter entirely. Reference VG and Brad"s visions of grandeur and how lacking the final product was despite over 5 years and nearly 40 million dollars.
I"m happy with the class system just like it is in WOW. I don"t like the EQ2 system. I have yet to find a skill based system I like. There are people here saying the if a skill based system "DONE RIGHT" would alleviate the need for certain classes or whatever.
No one has given me a solution only pointed out the problems in their eyes. I say a skill based system wouldn"t work because people would gravitate to certain setups and it might as well be classes anyway. I say that 27 classes is a bad idea because of the development and gameplay behind it.
Thats my whole argument. I"d be happy with the WOW style in class set up for any MMO. The burden of proof lies with the person who thinks the system is broken.
No one has given me a solution only pointed out the problems in their eyes. I say a skill based system wouldn"t work because people would gravitate to certain setups and it might as well be classes anyway. I say that 27 classes is a bad idea because of the development and gameplay behind it.
Thats my whole argument. I"d be happy with the WOW style in class set up for any MMO. The burden of proof lies with the person who thinks the system is broken.
After writing a re-writing what could otherwise be a few essays on the subject, and having a proof reader flag most of it, I have decided instead to post a limited synopsis and deal with the fact that no matter what you will not like how vague I must be in this? So here goes.
Instead of going into how I would do these, I must opt to point out the obvious instead?
Sorry to disappoint you.
Instead of going into how I would do these, I must opt to point out the obvious instead?
Obviously certain skills will require prerequisites that prevent multiple specialties. If the game focuses enough on diversity in its content then no single specialty will dominate, and thus by default no particular combination of skills will enable dominance over all others.Draegan said:
Elemental/magical resistances and Melee damage types/styles perhaps? Seriously though, using ones imagination can salve this problem in a myriad of ways, only a slew of which are as obvious as the ones I posted. Unfortunately, I must omit exactly how I would go about IMPLEMENTING it.Draegan said:
Sorry to disappoint you.
Trick question?Draegan said:
Well I hope your sekret design docs are awesome because you still havn"t answered anything about how you take away the classical archtype roles associated with Fantasy gameplay, healer, dps and tank.
Elemental resists? C"mon. Ok I don"t cast fireball, I cast iceball. You"re still nuking. No matter, you"re still good as "casting".
Unless you can design a game where everyone can take damage, repair damage, and do damage you will have specialties or classes. And now we"re back at ground one. And if we"re not even worrying about damage or anything associated with it, then we"re not playing an MMORPG, you"re playing Second Life which is a type of game I have no interest in.
Elemental resists? C"mon. Ok I don"t cast fireball, I cast iceball. You"re still nuking. No matter, you"re still good as "casting".
Unless you can design a game where everyone can take damage, repair damage, and do damage you will have specialties or classes. And now we"re back at ground one. And if we"re not even worrying about damage or anything associated with it, then we"re not playing an MMORPG, you"re playing Second Life which is a type of game I have no interest in.
So once again you"re posting nothing of value, just saying "do what everyone else has already done, but balance it well!" Color me underwhelmed.grimsark said:
Your "obvious" solutions describe WoW talents (skills with pre-req"s that prohibit multiple specialties) & WoW"s combat system (elemental resists, weapon styles). Well done, very original.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
This conversation needs to be restarted with the proper basic premises.Draegan said:
(1) Every system is a skill system. Pure class systems are simply static skill systems where players are required to select the specific set of skills (aka the class) that he can use upon character creation.
(2) WoW is a hybrid class system where the player has to select a specific set of skills (his class) upon character creation but also gets to choose additional skills as he levels (talent trees and profession skills). These additional skills are dynamic in that the player always has the option of replacing them with different profession skills or different skills from his class" talent trees.
(3) EQ is also something of a hybrid class system (professions and AA in addition to basic class picks though there isn"t the option to dynamically switch AAs that exists in WoW). [At some point we should probably come up with terms to differentiate a pure dynamic skill system (able to change through some mechanism) from the other types of skill systems if we"re going to keep talking about them].
The static skill class system has two advantages over dynamic skill systems (a) ease of identification when forming groups and (b) role playing. It is probably more fun to role-play a Paladin then "toon that has selected various melee, healing and buffing skills from amongst those available to all players".
* * *
So your basic premise is wrong. Skill systems have worked and continue to work in MMOs including in WoW.
What you are really asking is whether a dynamic skill system can be created that is better than a static skill system. That is can a dynamic skill system (a) allow for easy identification to other players when forming groups or (b) be as easy to role-play when you can"t automaticall call yourself a "ninja, monk, paladin, pirate, and/or pirate-ninja"
As to (a) if, as you state, that skill systems ultimately evolve into Build of the Week (which, lets face it, is really not that different from the static skill sets in standard classes) than identification becomes easy. When LFG you just go "LFG Healer-build/Tank-build" The assumption being that Healer-build will have the BotW.
As to (b) a solution is presented by LOTRO style titles. The roleplay element comes from finishing deeds, gaining titles and having those titles impact the game (much moreso than in LOTRO). E.g create a heirarchy of titles and have one of the long-term goals of this MMO to be to move up the heirarchy.
Having noted the advantages of a static skill system over dynamic skill syetems I would be remiss in noting that dynamic skill systems have one advantage over static skill systems (classes) in that you can, within whatever limiting system the designers put on the system (points) design a character that does what you want it to do. If you want a character that can feign-death and tank using plate armor -- you can, within reason, create that.
* * *
Now all the above has been based in a standard archetype world. What bongk and others were trying to drill into your and 2bits head was that the content drives skill systems (whether static class systems or dynamic skills systems) and skill systems drive content. I thought swimming was a bad example -- as it should be a skill available to all (a la EQ). A better example is simple invisibility. If invisibility is a skill available to characters (whether or not we are in a dynamic or static skill situation) that skill by itself drives content design just as much as healing/tanking/dps. Every dungeon designer must take it into account. One option might be to make undead always see simple invisibility -- requring an additional skill (inviz to undead). Similarly, designers could create different mountain gradients and make some gradients climable by non, some climable only by players with the "mountain climbing skill" and others climable by all players (no different really then creating content that is accesible only if you have a flying mount and the flying mount skill).
My biggest issue with WoW was that they put some skills in (Hunter FD) and then wrote code so they wouldn"t have to deal with the skill in dungeons (no splt pulling in MC--this is still the case right?).
Players should have the widest number of skills with which to tackle a dungeon under any system (static/dynamic). Not only does it make it more interesting for the players in figuring out how to beat encounters it gives the designer more flexibility in designing encounters.
Post has reached max length+1 so I"lll end it here.
Much of your post was semantics making it difficult to read. You"re not a lawyer are you? Damn.
Anyway, can we stick with Class System and a Skill System. Class system meaning that you are a specific archtype that fills a specific role. Skill system meaning you can go any path you wish within the limits of pre-reqs, levels, points or whatever.
Is half your post about looking for groups and easy identification? I would agree if it would be cool if you could /who Shadow Priest in WOW. But is that your argument?
I"m not too sure what you"re talking about with titles? How does this effect gameplay? Is this just some silly roleplay element not having anything to do with your character at all other than have a "Mr Fancypants" tag above your characters head? Titles systems would be a great system to add customization to your character if the provided buffs, aura etc. However thats not even part of the character development discussion or at least at the core of it.
What I"m asking is if you can create content that remains challenging and useful if you don"t have the tank/healer/dps archtypes? If you can, what kind of content is that and what kind of character development scheme would you propose?
I have no prejudice to either system. Just whatever works the best. Right now the best system, in my opinion, happens to be WOW. Simple and effective.
Anyway, can we stick with Class System and a Skill System. Class system meaning that you are a specific archtype that fills a specific role. Skill system meaning you can go any path you wish within the limits of pre-reqs, levels, points or whatever.
Is half your post about looking for groups and easy identification? I would agree if it would be cool if you could /who Shadow Priest in WOW. But is that your argument?
I"m not too sure what you"re talking about with titles? How does this effect gameplay? Is this just some silly roleplay element not having anything to do with your character at all other than have a "Mr Fancypants" tag above your characters head? Titles systems would be a great system to add customization to your character if the provided buffs, aura etc. However thats not even part of the character development discussion or at least at the core of it.
Rewrite this. I"m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that because people have certain skills, developers have to take that into account? Well of course they do. Just like they have to account for a tank/healer/dps class or the assumption of their availability, or the availability of a grouping a skills some folks should have trained.
What I"m asking is if you can create content that remains challenging and useful if you don"t have the tank/healer/dps archtypes? If you can, what kind of content is that and what kind of character development scheme would you propose?
I have no prejudice to either system. Just whatever works the best. Right now the best system, in my opinion, happens to be WOW. Simple and effective.
This is actually a very valid argument. And one that I have wrestled with for the past few years myself?Draegan said:
The obvious is, there is no way to prevent the customer from developing a herd mentality. They will likely see a combination of skills that they like and think they need to do it the same way, or what have you. The same thing happens to class mechanics where people rush to particular classes when a new youTUBE video comes out showing it off?
I have a solution that I think will work in encouraging the use of lesser utilized skill combinations but that is of course one of the corner stones of my character design philosophy and not something I am willing to post to the public at this time.
For the record, I do not think the current system is broken. I think it is inefficient, obsolete, and developer centric instead of customer centric?Draegan said:
Again, for the record, I do not want to erase the fantasy archetypes. As a matter of fact, I would encourage the use of synergetic skills, not penalize them. Thus encouraging specialty, not discouraging it.Draegan said:
But then again, I don?t want to force feed my interpretation of them down the customers throat (when its not necessary) either.
The mention of resistance and weapon styles was a mildly facetious attempt at telling you what you wanted to hear?Draegan said:
On that note, I did mention that particular detail is something I could not get into as there is no real way I can refute your assertions without giving away to much.
Specialization is not the same thing as class.Draegan said:
Classes RESTRICT and FORCE the use of a select group of skills because in order to play the game you have to pick one of those available.
Specialties REWARD and ENCOURAGE the use of related skills to help ensure that those activities are available.
Very big difference.
?
You are welcome? Though I did nothing of the sort. Just because WoW uses prerequisites in their talent system does not make it the same thing as a skill based character system using them. But it does lend relevance to the obviousness of what I posted, which as I pointed out is ALL I WAS DOING.Kaxmax said:
Once again, as for resistances and weapon styles, that was sarcasm. If I didn?t make that obvious enough then oh well.
Maybe WoW didn"t implement this skill to recreate spilt-pulling from EQ? It was a shitty mechanic then and it would be shitty now. What"s the point of putting 2 mobs in a place and tuning them to the point that if you pull both you auto-die so you force 71 people to sit huddled in a room while 1-2 people go have all the fun? It"s lame. It sucks. You liked it.. great, but that doesn"t change the fact that it is a poor mechanic.tad10 said:
And this whole thing about just "making content for the skills" shows your total lack of understanding at what goes into making an MMO. It takes these companies years and millions to put out what we have.. how much more should they invest in making climbing a viable skill when the amount of people drawn to your game simply because of it that wouldn"t play if it was lacking it is probably in the hundreds.
Then how about you come back in 5 years when your MMO is in beta and tell us all about it because until then I don"t see anyone taking "I have the solution but I won"t tell you" seriously.grimsark said:
I disagree with this. How is specializing and choosing classes different? You choose a class when you start the game. You specialize in skills as you level up, making choices along the way. One requires more choices than the other. However in the end, each system allows you to do one thing or a few things very well.grimsark said:
[Insert Paul Barnett"s Voice] You"re just throwing out words likeRESTRICTandFORCE(BOOO BAD!) and then using words likeREWARDandENCOURAGE(HOORAY GOOD!).
I don"t think you should continue in this argument with statements like, "I would tell you but I don"t want my precious ideas stolen!" You"re adding nothing but semantics.
Actually I would say it speaks to your misunderstanding of what folks are saying. In WOW, for example, you don"t put doors without keys, or places that only a rogue can get into because then everyone would have to have a rogue because they are the only class that has said skill.Twobit Whore said:
But what if opening those doors was a skill anyone might have?? Suddenly its not a class restriction, your priest might be able to do it, or your tank, and with a full group its entirely possibly someone might have it. If its possible that anyone might have it then designers can approach the creation of content without worrying about slighting everyone who isn"t a rogue. You can make fun and interesting content without worrying about what classes are needed for said content. You make it and let the players deal with it because they have the capability of doing damn near anything.
Then you start to get interesting skill layouts based on what people want to do. For me as a tank I would want to get all the skills that allowed my group to overcome the obstacles in a dungeon....so perhaps I have pick lock, find sekrit crap, climb, and tank....I build my character to do what I love to do which is tour director in dungeon hell.
Then the next guy just wants pure face meltage. He could give a shit about opening stuff or anything because to him its just about the big numbers and there will always be some roleplay idiot to open stuff. Fine..he can make that setup but he can"t adventure without help then. But he would be a fine addition to my group.
If everyone migrates to the face melting stuff...then all they can do is stand there and melt faces. If everyone migrates to opening the sekrit crap and that sort of stuff then you can get to stuff but you can"t kill it. People have to start making meaningful choices about what their character will do in game.
Yeah.. except if you have any PvP at all in your game you can be damn sure everyone will want to melt faces, oh and they might have a lockpicking alt.Gaereth said:
But you are wrong, I do understand what you are saying and as I said yesterday.. why couldn"t you have those be "secondary skills" in a class system? Maybe one person takes the picklock secondary skill on their warrior and the priest takes climbing..
What makes this system a skill-based system exclusive that couldn"t be done just as well with a class-based one? Why would it be better? Is it simply the illusion of choice that makes it preferable?
I am choosing to tie my hands here and accept it. I see no reason why we can not still have as constructive a conversation as is possible given that fact.Twobit Whore said:
I am glad you disagree because it is helping define the argument. And I want to point out your last sentence there? ?One requires more choices??Draegan said:
By definition a class is a restriction on choice. It is the developer telling the customer that in order to play this game you must chose one of the handful of ways we have defined for you.
By definition a specialty is a reward. It is the developer telling the customer that they like to see you playing the game that way. But you don?t have too if you chose to take your character another direction?
Shouldn?t you, the paying customer, get to choose the mix of what you want to do well? Even if it serves no other purpose then to differentiate your character from 100 others that do ALMOST the same exact things?Draegan said:
(Note: It is the developers responsibility to ensure that all available skills are relevant to game play.)
Just because you define what I am adding as nothing more then semantics doesn?t make it so. But I agree that from this point on I don?t see the point in telling you I can?t answer? I just won?t. Even if you accuse me of ignoring your points.Draegan said:
You"re still gonna get people playing Tanks, Healers, Damage. And pre-reqs for any of the good skills are gonna force you down a certain path anyway. Skill Based systems only allow for more useless hybrid builds. Dev"s still have to account for certain abilities in their dungeons no matter which way you paint it.
I don"t see how we can have a constructive conversation if every point is met with "well I can"t get into that because it"s my sekrit sauce". All you will do is do what you just did.. go on and on with buzzwords like "choices" and "restrictions". Methinks you have been reading too many Brad posts.grimsark said:
Except you havn"t added anything other than vapor in this argument. You throw out buzz words like obsolete, old, stale and DONE RIGHT yet offer nothing to back up your claims. Either share some of your super duper ideas that I"m pretty sure 100s of devs have thought of already, or just stop posting generalities.
Genjiro
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 5,218
- 5,066
This thead has devolved into the gauntlet from American Gladiators--except instead of guys with mullets and tights its Draegan and Twobit (Nitro and Laser) smashing the ideas of all newcomers.
Grimsark just got knocked off the platform with all those flying bags of sand.
Grimsark just got knocked off the platform with all those flying bags of sand.