Curse

kade · Sep 29, 2007, 04:19 AM // 04:19

Ok, first of all let me clarify what this thread is about. This is to be a discussion on the two primary types of video games, namely those of the mmorpg flavor (this includes GW, despite arguments against its being a 'true' mmorpg).

To keep this concise let me explain exactly what I am aiming at:

WHICH IS MORE DESIRABLE, SKILL BASED GAMES OR GAMES WHICH REWARD THE AMOUNT OF TIME INVESTED?

This seemingly simple question is actually quite complex as I have recently realized. I currently have two games installed on my computer: Guild Wars and Anarchy Online. I assume you are all familiar with the previous and as for the latter, it is probably most comparable to World of Warcraft, though for the sake of this argument we will say that it strictly rewards players for the amount of time they have spent in the game, regardless of player skill.

Guild Wars is unique in that a player who has acquired every skill in the game, every title, every armor set, pet, mini-pet, expansion pack, maxed out gold, and ebayed 100,000 dollars U.S.D. worth of extra equipment still has the ability to be worse than a player who has only the original campaign, and only 8 skills.

This is assuming that both players are actually inputing information into their computers (via pressing buttons) and are trying (that is attempting to 'succeed' or 'advance') to play the game.

This is possible because of the large variety of skill combinations and the relative balance of every skill within the game (in GW that is). No eight skills are necessarily more powerful than another set (for the sake of the argument, let's assume this were completely true).

This is, of course, common knowledge to any GW player. What may not be apparent are the inherent disadvantages of said system. In Anarchy Online, I can return after 2 years of playing (which I recently did) and be better than any player of lower level than myself. This is because every skill that I possess as a higher level character is inherently more powerful than any skill a lower level character may have. So long as I am pressing buttons as fast as the next guy, I will always be a 'better player.'

Not so in GW. Were I to do this in this game I would immediately see the consequences of my lack of practice. Anyone with a full bar of eight skills and half a brain could out heal/damage someone who hasn't played in two years. Two cheers for GW....or ....what?

The inherent problem with this system is two-fold: firstly, a character that returns after a lengthy hiatus may appear to be a good player (high level titles, nice armor, etc) or a player that has simply spent hours upon hours playing the game may appear equally as good. This player however, in the world of Guild Wars, may actually be worse than a player who has just bought the game 2 hours ago due to a lack of practice or outright stupidity (among other things). It is impossible to tell the difference and any player may be of any skill level, regardless of appearances.

In a game such as Anarchy Online, you can rely on a high level character. If the character is level 215, and you are attempting a level 10 mission, you can bet your butt there will be enough healing power. The only exception is if the character A) dies during gameplay - irl, or B) leaves his computer or doesn't touch his keyboard. If the player in question so much as passes out on the keys you are guaranteed to succeed; so long as buttons get pressed, there will be sufficient healing/damage/etc.

This may seem a tad lame, but consider: the player has played the game. Regardless of play style, the player has put in at least some amount of effort to achieve a high level and has been rewarded for it. You can rely on said player.

In Guild Wars there is no guarantee. You could team with a rank 12 character and still be let down - it's happened to me. The advantage lies in the noobie's hands. If he can pick up the game quickly, he can be better than anyone, regardless of the amount of time spent ingame. The high end player suffers, because time spent ingame is not directly proportional to skill level and any lack of concentration can mean complete failure.

Sorry if this is too long, read it anyway; I demand it.

and to wrap this all up....which gameplay style is better?
/commense arguing

Kade.

Gattocheese · Sep 29, 2007, 04:37 AM // 04:37

I will stick to my statement that Skill = Time. Just as you do anything in life, the more you do something the better you get at it. You said you put it down and came back and lost a step and it took time to catch back up.

Now as far as relevance toward other high lvl cap mmo's, i think they both posses something that is good and bad. On a high lvl cap game, i always enjoyed constantly improving my characters stats and the higher content that keeps coming at you. On a low lvl cap game you can spread your time out between multiple characters and not miss too much of a step when you put the game down.

I have enjoyed GW over any other MMO out there. Its not because of the skill thing. More of the gameplay, better graphics and especially the linear story line. I cant stand too much freedom in a MMO. You feel like you have no purpose and your just grinding off side quests the whole time.

Meat Axe · Sep 29, 2007, 04:53 AM // 04:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattocheese

Now as far as relevance toward other high lvl cap mmo's, i think they both posses something that is good and bad. On a high lvl cap game, i always enjoyed constantly improving my characters stats and the higher content that keeps coming at you. On a low lvl cap game you can spread your time out between multiple characters and not miss too much of a step when you put the game down.

I have enjoyed GW over any other MMO out there. Its not because of the skill thing. More of the gameplay, better graphics and especially the linear story line. I cant stand too much freedom in a MMO. You feel like you have no purpose and your just grinding off side quests the whole time.

I agree with Gattocheese pretty much entirely. I don't play GW because of any skill that is involved in playing the game. I play because I like games with a plot. To me, a game without a plot is pointless (that said, I will occasionally play FPS, simply for a bit of excitement and adrenaline rush from time to time). I don't like just grinding through pointless quests that involve getting a certain amount of a certain item over and over again. I like a game that is something of an interactive book.

That said, I do prefer to see my character advancing past a certain point. Whenever I play Baldur's Gate, I remove the level cap, because I like the plot of the series but I also like to be able to watch as my character gets stronger. But there are a few problems with this. Firstly, I don't like games that require you to grind for levels. I think GW has this aspect perfect. You can just do the main storyline and a few side quests to get your levels. To me, if they keep this system in GW2, where I don't have to go kill the same monsters over and over again to gain levels, I'll be quite glad of the chance to watch my characters grow stronger as they progress.

visitor · Sep 29, 2007, 04:56 AM // 04:56

I agree with cheese but of course if u have "talent" you can get skill in a short period of time.

Wich ones are more fun to play?
Well, they both have their good sides.With time investing you will always find a good group. And the skill games allow you to be a casual player.

Omniclasm · Sep 29, 2007, 05:02 AM // 05:02

Guild Wars system:
+Good for logging on, cracking some skulls, then continuing with life.
-Bad for hardcore play, lacks decent goals, and flawed difficulty levels.

World of Warcraft system:
+Good for being hardcore. Lots of different goals, decent difficulty levels
-Cost, requires hardcore dedication. Picking it up and cracking skulls doesn't work.

Isileth · Sep 29, 2007, 05:15 AM // 05:15

Im deffinately a huge fan of games that use a skill>time system.

But then I originally started (competitive) gaming with FPS. So the whole concept of everyone always being on the same level in regards to health, weapons etc with only the skill of players to decide who wins has always been with me.

Its also the way most competitive events are run. For example in the olympics, no matter how long you have been competing in your event you start on an equal footing with everyone else. You dont get a headstart, you dont get to throw a javelin of +7 meters. Its based purely on individual skill.

As an extra note, yes people get better by playing. But that doesnt mean time=skill. Some people can play and never improve. So skill should still be the "thing" rewarded not time.

Vinraith · Sep 29, 2007, 05:22 AM // 05:22

Ideally a bit of both. Gattocheese is right in that there's some correlation there, generally. Skill doesn't occur in a vacuum, one gets better by playing. I think most people eventually reach a plateau, though. It's a tricky thing to balance, but I'm reasonably pleased with the way GW's handled it.

lyra_song · Sep 29, 2007, 05:30 AM // 05:30

i would say intrisic skill and player talent can only get you so far.

Experience matters a lot too, and that only comes from time spent.

Isileth · Sep 29, 2007, 05:42 AM // 05:42

I really consider experience to be a part of that players skill.
Anything that actually improves the player is skill.
Anything that improves the char is time.

For example if a player was to start a new char he would retain that experience and do better than he did last time.
However he wouldnt retain his weapon that did extra dmg, or armour with +3 regen etc.

So while a more experienced player might beat a lesser experienced player, its because that player is more skilled. Not because of time.

This also assumes there is a reward for spending time. Such as bonus dmg or whatever. Obviousely when there is nothing like that it all comes down to skill anyways.

The majority of games do support skill>time. Its MMORPGs that tend to give rewards for time spent, mainly because most get more money the longer you play. So adding an incentive to those veteran players is great financially.

You know there is a real problem in time>skill games when 2 players switch, so the newer player gets the time bonus and the more veteran player has to win via skill. If the new player can beat the veteran that shows one hell of a serious lack of skill required for the game. When winning and losing is based on equipment or titles etc its not something that can be played competitvely.

Nebuchadnezzer · Sep 29, 2007, 05:51 AM // 05:51

I think people dont make enough of distinction between playing the game and getting better and grinding a mob for a 1337 sword so you can play better.

Yes time spent will make you play better in GW.. but that time spent.. is SPENT playing the actual game.. not grinding a dungeon.. or whatever the hell those Grindfest games have you do.

Thus, imo, Skill in GW = Individual Skill, Team Synergy and Experience (PLAYING THE GAME)

Skill > Time spent grinding.

kade · Sep 29, 2007, 06:06 AM // 06:06

Some interesting answers, personally I enjoy skill>time. However, after returning to a game that rewards players so greatly for time spent (strictly) ingame, it was a bit refreshing to know that I would always be on top because I had put in the time. If I wanted to sit back and relax a bit, I would still be better than lower level characters, for example. In a skill based game, you must be 'on the ball' at all times.

Now obviously a perfect meshing of these two gameplay types is ideal, but I am concerned primarily with which types players prefer, given a choice between the two without any 'in between' options.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Experience matters a lot too, and that only comes from time spent.

While it is true that skill is (in most cases aside from luck or 'raw talent') simply a product of time spent in the game, for the sake of the argument let's say that time spent ingame has no bearing on skill level.

Let's assume, for instance, that in a perfect skill based game you are rewarded...how shall I put this...for the technique you use, or 'talent' displayed when achieving a goal. Take basketball for instance. Michael Jordan was rewarded in his games because he played more skillfully than most any other player. He displayed more 'style' or 'finesse' (according to many fans, anyway

) even though his competitors may have practiced longer in an attempt to best him.

This reward was related to the the time he spent practicing, certainly, but was perhaps more closely related to the amount of thought he put into the game, his passion for it, or his tactical observation of the sport, etc, etc.

In this way a game which rewards players strictly for their skill would do so regardless of time spent ( a game which we have yet to see made). While this is theoretically impossible as Lyra pointed out, for the sake of this argument lets pretend that it is, in fact, possible

To clarify, I am really asking whether a game which rewards you strictly for the amount of time which you spend playing it (regardless of unique ability) is 'better' (read: more desirable ) or whether a game which only rewards you for playing exceptionally well, to the best of your ability, or for the physical/mental talent which you posses is better.

Sorry if this is a bit convoluted, feel free to demand further clarification

edit: I am beginning to realize that this is more a "are all men created equal?" argument. So, if it helps anyone, should everyone be given an equal opportunity at greatness/success in the virtual world? Or should individual talents be allowed to shine just as they do irl?
(I'm sure I just opened a huge can of worms here haha).

Kade.

kade · Sep 29, 2007, 06:20 AM // 06:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzer

I think people dont make enough of distinction between playing the game and getting better and grinding a mob for a 1337 sword so you can play better.

Very true. And this is an area where you are solely at the mercy of the game as to whether or not you are playing and getting better (either through AI, other players, skill combos, etc) or just grinding away.

I guess you have to allow for SOME bit of skill in a time based game (obviously a game which had you log in and sit for 35days to achieve level 3, then you could kill dragon boss A by pressing button F1, then log in for 45 days to get to level 4, etc, etc. would be absolutely unplayable).

However this is a very basic concept, and most roleplaying games are based off of chance, roll of the dice, DM storytelling, and very little true skill at all.

This truly is a matter of opinion and it is impossible to account for all possible combinations (also i suspect these forums will produce a rather biased report

) but keep the answers coming anyway

Isileth · Sep 29, 2007, 06:24 AM // 06:24

On your point about it being an are all men created equal type of thing. I really dont think it is.

When new players enter a game they start exactly the same in terms of time rewards. However even at the very start players will vary in skill. For example one player might have quicker reactions, another might be able to plan out tactics ahead.

Thats the great thing about basing games on skill. Everyone is always different.
In a game based on time when 2 players have the same time advantages and skill doesnt count they will always draw.

In games of time>skill you know before a fight if you will win. If you have better time advantages you are already ahead of your opponent.

However in a game of skill the outcome of a fight isnt decided until the end of the fight. This is because skill isnt lateral, it isnt a case of +1 skill, +2 skill etc.

You can be better at different things, for example in an FPS you might be better at reaction kills while your opponent might prefer to take cover and ambush you.

You cant measure 2 players on skill as there are just to many variables. Even if you win the first time doesnt mean you will win the second.

In a time based game the outcome will always be the same because nothing changes. The longer playing player will always have the advantage, no matter what the other player does.

Now very few games go the extreme of time only and no skill. There are a few but not many. Most either go skill only (such as FPS, RTS etc), then you get games that mix them. MMORPGs are generally the ones that mix them. Knowing what skills to use and when is skill based. But getting more powerful skill for playing longer is time based.

wetsparks · Sep 29, 2007, 06:51 AM // 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gattocheese

Skill = Time

Sorry if I missed something, there are a lot of long posts and don't feel like reading them at the moment, but I said that exact same thing a while back when people were complaining about the "grind" in Guild Wars involving pve skills and got flamed terribly. But it is exactly true whether the anti-grinders want to believe it or not. There is a reason people only want rank 12+ in a HA group, not because they are better at Guild Wars than a rank 4 or 5 or 6, but because they have seen more, and thus know more, and can be expected to react accordingly. The way I explained it before was that Michael Jordan got cut from his high school basketball team, the talent was there then, but he didn't become good by just sitting around doing something besides basketball. He went out and practiced basketball and the time spent doing that made him better.

Brett Kuntz · Sep 29, 2007, 07:27 AM // 07:27

Skill over Time Spent is better for competetion.
Time Spent over Skill is better for PvE, getting more players to play your game, and having them all strive for a goal they'll never achieve.

Avarre · Sep 29, 2007, 08:16 AM // 08:16

I enjoy using skill. I like to think there is a part of me that cannot be replaced by a bot.

draxynnic · Sep 29, 2007, 09:06 AM // 09:06

It is true that experience usually does lead to greater skill. It's probably more accurate to say something like ingame advantage (level, equipment, and the like) rather than out-of-game advantage (skill), but that's just not as easy as saying "time versus skill".

My distinguishing factor is quite simple: If you take away the top player's account and replace it with a completely new one, how long would it take to get back to their old proficiency? Do that in Guild Wars, and it's mostly just a question of recollecting their skills and a few days levelling if in PvE - and if in PvP, they're probably still going to be superior to a lot of players even with a prebuilt. Do the same to a WoW player, and being the best player in the world won't stop them from being cleaned up by even mid-level players.

Personally, I tend to be a bit of a dabbler. Instead of taking one character and pushing it, I tend to prefer to spread out my attention among pretty much all the options on offer (although, of course, I DO have preferences). Put me in a game which emphasises time, and... well, I don't think I've ever reached max level in ANY such game. Instead of trying to pump one character, I tend to work towards achieving a familiarity with all the characters on offer. I probably don't need to explain how this playstyle is more suited to an out-of-game-advantage-based game than an ingame-advantage-based game.

Clord · Sep 29, 2007, 09:54 AM // 09:54

In games like WoW etc. It is expected that player push more than one character to max level, that why not making all to same level content has advantage. It is something what is quite missing from Guild Wars.

Example from how it can make game feel "longer and better".
Prophecies (level 1-20)
Factions (level 21-40)
Nightfall (level 41-60)
GW:EN (level 61-80)

Now player has reason to play one character to max level and start new one, because storyline is longer those all combined.

Wild Karrde · Sep 29, 2007, 10:58 AM // 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

You know there is a real problem in time>skill games when 2 players switch, so the newer player gets the time bonus and the more veteran player has to win via skill. If the new player can beat the veteran that shows one hell of a serious lack of skill required for the game. When winning and losing is based on equipment or titles etc its not something that can be played competitvely.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bamm bamm bamm · Sep 29, 2007, 12:02 PM // 12:02

They're not mutually exclusive. You need both.