Class and Levels in MMO'S

Ledronaz · August 2005

MMO fans what would be your opionin if a game developer like blizzard or SOE were to release new MMORPG but one that did away with Class and Character levels. Instead the had a open-end system where the characters strength relied more on the skils,spellls,and weapons the character has learn to use and the wit of the player. For those who dont quite get what I am saying Basicallly is allowing the player to choose what skills,spells and weapons there charater learns to use. Once the character has obtain them they then become better at using them thier use and training.

This would add depth to the characters and make pvp battles and battles against enemies more challenging because the outcome will rely on the players wits and the skills,spells and weapons the characters has learn to use and how the players uses them.

Dekoth · August 2005

I would say they would both figure out a way to screw it up.

Sorry while I believe both Sony and Blizzard make some excellent products, they are simply going to never not cater to the lowest denominator as by making the games simplistic and user friendly they can appeal to a larger player base. These companies are simply beyond niche games.

Do not get me wrong I am a long time blizzard fan, I played games like Wc1, Wc2, diablo, SC and such countless hours. But I think WC3 and now WoW are examples of the direction Blizzard is going, Its not necessarly a bad direction as it garners them a larger fan base it simply is not the type of game I enjoy playing.

ChrisMattern · August 2005

Originally posted by Ledronaz
MMO fans what would be your opionin if a game developer like blizzard or SOE were to release new MMORPG but one that did away with Class and Character levels. Instead the had a open-end system where the characters strength relied more on the skils,spellls,and weapons the character has learn to use and the wit of the player. For those who dont quite get what I am saying Basicallly is allowing the player to choose what skills,spells and weapons there charater learns to use. Once the character has obtain them they then become better at using them thier use and training.This would add depth to the characters and make pvp battles and battles against enemies more challenging because the outcome will rely on the players wits and the skills,spells and weapons the characters has learn to use and how the players uses them.

I would probably at least give it a try. Done right, a game like that would be better than just about anything on the market. The problem is, it's very, very hard to pull off. Developers don't settle for class-based games because they're mean, evil people who enjoy depriving people of fun, they do it because class-based systems are a couple of orders of magnitude easier to balance. And they *still* have trouble balancing them. So, I'd try it. But I would not be terribly surprised if it turned out to suck.

Chris Mattern

scaramoosh · August 2005

I'd like SWG done rigth with more quests and less grinding

Vespasian · August 2005

I agree that it'd be very hard to do but I do wish more MMORPG's would give many outlets and ways of progression. Instead of just levels and classes have:
Skills, Levels, Abilities, Weapon Proficincies, multiple routes of endgame content, etc.

It'd be nice for people of the exact same class to be able to be completely different without having a FOTM or over powered template.

JoeyNipps · August 2005

A big yes vote here. And by the way (to those who keep saying it is harder to do) it IS the RIGHT way to do it - levels/classes have no place in a quality MMORPG. UO did it a very long time ago (the first real MMORPG on the market) and did a pretty good job of it (considering they were the first) - not perfect, but significantly better than any level/class system we have had since.

Sparks243 · August 2005

I like the idea, but all you are doing it replacing Class levels with Skill levels, anyway like I said I like the idea, maybe something like an online Morrowind

JoeyNipps · August 2005

Originally posted by Sparks243

I like the idea, but all you are doing it replacing Class levels with Skill levels, anyway like I said I like the idea, maybe something like an online Morrowind

I am glad you like the idea, but it bothers me that you say "all you are doing is replacing Class levels with Skill levels". That implies to me that you don't begin to understand the difference between the two.

Class: Defines what skills you can take (warrior can take swords but not magic for example). Further, in the level part of it, "most" of the increase in abilities is via the character level - all skills go up at the same time whether one practices them or not. There are other differences.

Skill: Inherent in this concept is that (as opposed to Class) as a character you can learn and use any skills the game offers. Thus, one can play principally as a warrior (melee attacks for example) but also learn to use magic (or any other skill types the game offers). In other words, there are NO class restrictions (more like real life in this regard). Further (in a pure skill system like UO) the character only gets better at those skills they actually use - in direct proportion to how much they use them. So one can be have sword skill and fire magic skill - BUT if you only cast fire magic over and over then you only get better with that, not the sword skill. Thus there is a tremendous amount of flexibility in character definitions not available in a class based game.

Ledronaz · August 2005

Chirs, your right about evil people depriving us of fun. I think a skill based system would only suck though it the game developer got cheap with it and didn't try to make it work. It is true it would be tougher to pull off a game with a skill based system, but in the end it would be a change from the class/level system.

Sparks243 · August 2005

What I mean is that your just replacing a level grind with a skill grind

and even while you are removing classes (in the sense that picking a class limits skills) If you grind your skills so that your good with a great sword and attack magic people will start calling you a Dark Knight. So you will still have people getting labeled as "classes"

again I love the idea and I hope someone puts out a game like this sooner than later

JoeyNipps · August 2005

Originally posted by Ledronaz

It is true it would be tougher to pull off a game with a skill based system, but in the end it would be a change from the class/level system.

I am curious. Why do you say it would be tougher to pull off? Do you have any specific reasons? Please share them if you do. UO did it and they were basically the first MMORPG out there - the ONLY one with no experience from other developers when they did it. While not perfect (what game is), their skill based (non-class) system worked very well. Yes, it could (and should) be improved upon - but it worked. So, please, don't just make a statement as if it were fact - expand on it so it can be discussed.

JoeyNipps · August 2005

Originally posted by Sparks243

What I mean is that your just replacing a level grind with a skill grind

Whether there is a "grind" or not has nothing to do at all with the type of advancement system used. "Grind" as we have come to know it is a function of other poor game design - NOT the advancement or level system used.

Grind is caused principally by developers not taking the time to make a game that is FUN during ALL periods of the game. They give us ONE thing to do (kill things) with little or no differentiation among the mobs (other than graphic overlays) AND they make it so we MUST kill thousands of mobs to advance - with NO other options at all. That is the PRIMARY reason we have "grind" - nothing at all to do with the skill or level system employed.

ChrisMattern · August 2005

Originally posted by JoeyNipps
Originally posted by Ledronaz
It is true it would be tougher to pull off a game with a skill based system, but in the end it would be a change from the class/level system.I am curious. Why do you say it would be tougher to pull off? Do you have any specific reasons? Please share them if you do. UO did it and they were basically the first MMORPG out there - the ONLY one with no experience from other developers when they did it. While not perfect (what game is), their skill based (non-class) system worked very well. Yes, it could (and should) be improved upon - but it worked. So, please, don't just make a statement as if it were fact - expand on it so it can be discussed.

I would've thought it too obvious to need elaboration, but OK. In a word, balance. You want the skills to be, if not equally useful, to at least all have a point. But in a skill based system, there will be a lot more skills than there are classes in a class-based system. And people will combine them in many, many more ways. Suddenly, you have to keep track of hundreds, maybe thousands, times more possible combinations. For the players, this is heaven. For the developers, this is hell. All it takes is your players finding one broken combo you overlooked and suddenly nobody will be playing anything else. All your carefully crafted content is ripped apart at warp speed by the uber-combo players. What's worse, nobody plays anything but the uber-combo. All the other wonderful, interlocking skills go unused, because there's no point in playing anything but the uber-combo. If the developers cannot restore balance and plug the leaks (and each time they rebalance, they upset the players and disturb the game, may not find all the holes, and might even introduce new ones) the game eventually self-destructs.

Chris Mattern

Volkmar · August 2005

i tend to agree there ain't much of a difference between the two systems.

A skill based system involves more monotonous activities as you have to do a very restrictive amount of tasks to get points in a certain skill but gives more freedom of building (and screwing up, Investigation from UO anybody?) up your character as you see.

This is all good on paper, but in practice at the end most people ends up with the same skills or small variations of the "Template" they like. It still grants more freedom but not as much as one would think in a first moment. (by the way, most MMorpg out there uses a hybrid class/skill system in which weapon and crafting skills are rised by use while the cap (in case of weapon skills) rises by level).

The problem the others were hinting at is one of balance, As UO again prove, Balancing in such a system is a nightmare. In UO, before Rennaissance, for example, Bards were Kings, Emperor and Gods. Able to go where nobody else could go and kill ultra monsters alone. (think Creature Handlers in SWG but without the limitation of having just a pet, you can influence any and all creature around you to attack what you want) Mages could kill many mobs that would destroy Warriors in a single hit... and Magic was kinda of a "must have" skill.

The core of the problem, though, is that the devs have to think not only of the XX classes, but of all possible combinations of skills available "if a guy takes Magic 75, meditation 80, tactics 50 and investigation 15, is he overpowered? what we can do for it?".

The big point in favor of skill-based gameplay is the much much smaller difference between newbie and veteran, in concrete, no thousands of HP for the veteran and 100 for the newbie, but a similar amount for both making the veteran somewhat vulnerable (he still have superior skill and equipment) to group ambushed by newbies.

At the end of the day, Skill-based or level-based, don't change much to me. Other things seems to be more defining.

JoeyNipps · August 2005

Originally posted by ChrisMattern

I would've thought it too obvious to need elaboration, but OK. In a word, balance. You want the skills to be, if not equally useful, to at least all have a point. But in a skill based system, there will be a lot more skills than there are classes in a class-based system.

This discussion would be so much easier live but what the heck . To begin with, you have made an assumption that is not correct (or at least need not be). There is NO reason for a skill based system to have a lot more skills than a class based system. If the game (based on everything to do in the game) requires (for example) 20 total skills then that is the number of skills there need be whether those are part of a skill based system or a class based system. To continue the simplistic example: if the game need sword attack skill, sword block skill, axe attack skill, axe block skill, evade attack skill, shield skill, shield bash skill, fire magic skill, etc. - then those skills will have to be in the game regardless of the type of system used. The only real difference is how they are presented to the player and what (if any) restrictions there are to mixing and matching them. Please tell me why this is not correct.

Originally posted by ChrisMattern

And people will combine them in many, many more ways. Suddenly, you have to keep track of hundreds, maybe thousands, times more possible combinations. For the players, this is heaven. For the developers, this is hell.

Now there you MAY be correct - depending on the skills provided and how they interact in the game world there may be more possible combinations. In fact, that IS part of the point .

Let me ask you something pertinent here. Other than profit, WHO is any game supposedly being developed in the first place? Is it for the edification and enjoyment of the developer or the player??????????????????? I hope you get the point here. In simple terms, the game is and MUST be for the player - but what we see is developers doing just what YOU have implied - making design decisions that make it "easier" for them instead of "better" for the players.

Bad doggie - bad, bad doggie.

Originally posted by ChrisMattern

All it takes is your players finding one broken combo you overlooked and suddenly nobody will be playing anything else. All your carefully crafted content is ripped apart at warp speed by the uber-combo players. What's worse, nobody plays anything but the uber-combo. All the other wonderful, interlocking skills go unused, because there's no point in playing anything but the uber-combo. If the developers cannot restore balance and plug the leaks (and each time they rebalance, they upset the players and disturb the game, may not find all the holes, and might even introduce new ones) the game eventually self-destructs.

I have seen far more class based systems "ripped apart at warp speed by uber-combo players" than one might even imagine of skill based games.

Further, insofar as "nobody plays anything but the uber-combo" is concerned - this has more to do with overall lack of meaningful content, lack of AI differentiation, lack of things other than simply killing mobs, etc. than the system used.

ChrisMattern · August 2005

Originally posted by JoeyNipps
Originally posted by ChrisMattern
I would've thought it too obvious to need elaboration, but OK. In a word, balance. You want the skills to be, if not equally useful, to at least all have a point. But in a skill based system, there will be a lot more skills than there are classes in a class-based system.This discussion would be so much easier live but what the heck . To begin with, you have made an assumption that is not correct (or at least need not be). There is NO reason for a skill based system to have a lot more skills than a class based system. If the game (based on everything to do in the game) requires (for example) 20 total skills then that is the number of skills there need be whether those are part of a skill based system or a class based system. To continue the simplistic example: if the game need sword attack skill, sword block skill, axe attack skill, axe block skill, evade attack skill, shield skill, shield bash skill, fire magic skill, etc. - then those skills will have to be in the game regardless of the type of system used. The only real difference is how they are presented to the player and what (if any) restrictions there are to mixing and matching them. Please tell me why this is not correct.

It's not correct because the problem isn't so much the number skills but the interactions between them. When players are free to mix skills without restriction, the number of possible skill combinations increases exponentially.

Originally posted by ChrisMattern
And people will combine them in many, many more ways. Suddenly, you have to keep track of hundreds, maybe thousands, times more possible combinations. For the players, this is heaven. For the developers, this is hell.
Now there you MAY be correct - depending on the skills provided and how they interact in the game world there may be more possible combinations. In fact, that IS part of the point .
Let me ask you something pertinent here. Other than profit, WHO is any game supposedly being developed in the first place? Is it for the edification and enjoyment of the developer or the player??????????????????? I hope you get the point here. In simple terms, the game is and MUST be for the player - but what we see is developers doing just what YOU have implied - making design decisions that make it "easier" for them instead of "better" for the players.
Bad doggie - bad, bad doggie.

It's easy to make the job many times tougher when you aren't the one who has to do the work. And keep in mind, *you* have to pay for that work. If a class-based system costs $12/mo to produce, it is not unreasonable to postulate that a skill-based system--done right--would cost $50/mo to produce, or more. Are you willing to pay that much? If you want the Rolls Royce, you gotta pay the man.

Originally posted by ChrisMattern All it takes is your players finding one broken combo you overlooked and suddenly nobody will be playing anything else. All your carefully crafted content is ripped apart at warp speed by the uber-combo players. What's worse, nobody plays anything but the uber-combo. All the other wonderful, interlocking skills go unused, because there's no point in playing anything but the uber-combo. If the developers cannot restore balance and plug the leaks (and each time they rebalance, they upset the players and disturb the game, may not find all the holes, and might even introduce new ones) the game eventually self-destructs.
I have seen far more class based systems "ripped apart at warp speed by uber-combo players" than one might even imagine of skill based games.

Exactly my point. Developers have trouble dealing with this in class-based systems as it is. How are they going to cope when things get tougher?

Further, insofar as "nobody plays anything but the uber-combo" is concerned - this has more to do with overall lack of meaningful content, lack of AI differentiation, lack of things other than simply killing mobs, etc. than the system used.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. IMHO, properly balancing the player's options is one of the toughest things in an MMORPG, right up there with providing a framework that can support a working player economy (which is arguably another facet of the same problem). It's one of the toughest things in gaming design, period. Probably only balancing a trading card game comes close.

Chris Mattern

JoeyNipps · August 2005

Originally posted by ChrisMattern

It's not correct because the problem isn't so much the number skills but the interactions between them. When players are free to mix skills without restriction, the number of possible skill combinations increases exponentially.

You are the one who said the number of skills would be higher in a skill based game - not me. More to the point, the fact that skills (in a skill based system) can be mixed in other ways simply means the developer actually needs to do quality control work.

Originally posted by ChrisMattern

It's easy to make the job many times tougher when you aren't the one who has to do the work. And keep in mind, *you* have to pay for that work. If a class-based system costs $12/mo to produce, it is not unreasonable to postulate that a skill-based system--done right--would cost $50/mo to produce, or more. Are you willing to pay that much? If you want the Rolls Royce, you gotta pay the man.

First please remember that Origin did it with UO and they were the first out there and they DIDN'T charge an arm and a leg AND they made money AND the game is still going today (making money unless one can imagine someone likes losing money constantly). Your argument is baseless. There is no reason to believe (in fact UO demonstrates it might not be true at all) that it is particularly harder and more time consuming to make the skill based system than a level based system. Just because YOU say so don't make it so - again look at UO - they did it! Further, even IF it did cost more and they had to charge more, yes - I would happily pay for a game that actually was fun to play more than a week.
If you accept shit, they will keep on heaping it on your plate.

Originally posted by ChrisMattern

Exactly my point. Developers have trouble dealing with this in class-based systems as it is. How are they going to cope when things get tougher?

Again you are making that assumption that it will be tougher - NOT a point in evidence at all (again UO is the only reference and may well indicate that is is NOT tougher at all). More importantly do we REALLY want developers to make design decisions based on what is "easiest" for them as opposed to what is better for the player???? I think not.

Originally posted by ChrisMattern

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. IMHO, properly balancing the player's options is one of the toughest things in an MMORPG, right up there with providing a framework that can support a working player economy (which is arguably another facet of the same problem). It's one of the toughest things in gaming design, period. Probably only balancing a trading card game comes close.

And so we don't even expect them to try? Your answer is to allow them to take away the player options simply because it is harder? Again - you KEEP ignoring this fact - a company ALREADY did it with UO. A very long time ago. With today's better software and hardware technologies I would expect it would be even easier than it was back then. But MOST importantly do we really want developers to simply take the "easy" way out rather than work to deliver a quality product? I hope the answer is no - but you ARE suggesting just that.

Volkmar · August 2005

please Stop using UO as the example of the "perfect balanced Skill-based game" cause IT ISN'T!

It was horribly unbalanced with certain skills combination able to kill and own anything the game could throw at it, you call that "balanced"?

I dunno now, but if NOW is balanced, that means it took them more than 2 YEARS to get it right, so much for the "balance". (not that a game can ever be balanced, but it can be mostly balanced eh).

SWG was the same with certain skills combination being light years better than other. it took them a Combat Upgrade, severe nerfing of the Creature handler and a passage to a hybrid level/skill system to correct the problem (if it ever will be corrected) (1.5+ years).

Is it so hard to understand that the number of skills can very well be the same, but in a class system, the class X has always skills A, B and C and as such is extremely easy to balance as they will always have skills A,B and C? You do not need to think "What if he takes skills A and B but then takes skill D and E..."

And, as i said, there isn't all this perception that a skill-based system is automatically and by definition a lot better than a class/level based one. It gives you a bit more of freedom, that's it. If you compare this to the much higher workload the devs will have to go trough in beta and release, you realize many companies think it's not worthy of it.

Have a nice day

JoeyNipps · August 2005

Originally posted by Volkmar

please Stop using UO as the example of the "perfect balanced Skill-based game" cause IT ISN'T!

Please don't take this as an insult, but are you a total idiot who doesn't bother to even read what other people write? Check out my first post and notice I say (and I quote myself):

"UO did it ... - not perfect"

If you bother to read and understand what people write, it should be apparent that I NEVER said (nor have I ever said in any other post nor have I EVER implied) that it was perfect. In fact in other discussions with seemingly more intelligent people who actually wish to discuss pros and cons I ALWAYS say that UO was far from perfect. It is just that it is (to date) the only true classless and skill based system (and WAS the first so they CAN be given some slack).

And again you continue with the same ASSUMED diatribe that you state as fact that it WILL require a "much higher workload" - NOT A POINT IN FACT - period! There is NO evidence whatsoever that it will require more work - only YOU who keeps stating so. Show me some evidence and maybe then we can have a meaningful discussion (if you can learn to read and comprehend).

Ledronaz · August 2005

I just wanted to say thank you to all who have posted a reply in this topic and to all those who post after this thanks. Its nice to see people who can be opened minded about change, and look at it with out fear. To all posters good luck on whatever games your are currently involed in.

Kibs · August 2005

Saga of Ryzom did away with classes and focuses on skill trees instead, you can level everything if you have the time, but noone has yet. Over 11000 levels so there is lots of character customisation.

Its a very good way of doing things imo, but its not for everyone

ChrisMattern · August 2005

Originally posted by JoeyNipps
And so we don't even expect them to try? Your answer is to allow them to take away the player options simply because it is harder? Again - you KEEP ignoring this fact - a company ALREADY did it with UO. A very long time ago. With today's better software and hardware technologies I would expect it would be even easier than it was back then. But MOST importantly do we really want developers to simply take the "easy" way out rather than work to deliver a quality product? I hope the answer is no - but you ARE suggesting just that.

I will pay you $50 if you can point out where I suggested that.

I never said no one should try. I simply point out why no one has yet succeeded, and why any new attempt probably has low chances of success. If someone does try, I will give it a shot, and be very glad if they *have* succeeded (as well as somewhat surprised). I stated that in my first post in this thread.

Someone downthread has already pointed out why UO is not an example of shining success in this matter. That's one of the reasons UO lost out so badly to EQ.

Chris Mattern

Volkmar · August 2005

first off, thanks for the insults, they are appreciated.

Second, You are the one saying, in all your posts, that UO already did it.... did what?

I proved to you that UO is (was?) not balanced. SWG is (was?) not balanced. How many hours of Devs work you think it took for them to achieve not a balanced environment?

How many expansions UO got? and EQ? so whose developers are spending time to balance a system and which one are putting out content like a train? guess why? (note: i actually enjoyed more UO than EQ).

Is EQ "balanced"? probably not, but a lot more balanced than UO ever was. (No God class there)

The fact is you are the one not listening here, not me nor the other poster.

Also pelase note you are speaking with two different guys, maybe you didn't noticed that. Also i do not know what else i should tell you to prove which one requires more work... every person should understand that: Fixed Template in which each and every skill and spell is controlled and granted is EASIER to balance than a Free Template where any person can take any skill/spell yes? You seems to not grasp such a concept, so be it.

At the end of the day, i played UO, i played SWG (that you seems not to consider at all while it is a skill based system as well) and i played countless other Class based games and the differences between the two systems ain't that great.

BOTH systems can be used to do great games, nobody ever doubted that.

Have a nice day

TheWacko · August 2005

If the system didn't allow 3rd party applications, then I'd be all for it.... but unfortunately every MMO out there has this, and makes most encounters unbalanced with other players. Macros and 3rd party apps have basically ruined MMO's and has made the online gaming community lazier than it already is. Your idea is noble, but the truth is that a system like what you suggest would never work.

Howdy, Stranger!

Class and Levels in MMO'S

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Class and Levels in MMO'S

Comments