Skill-based game? Ummm...no.

Hi my name is Naraya and I'm a level 128 NT!

Wait....isn't this a skill based game? How come I have a level?

It has been said that AO is a "skill-based" game. In what sense? Consider....

Every single person playing AO has a level attribute attached to their character. This level determines how high your skills are. Is that really skill-based?

Tradeskills? You can make any tradeskill item in the game if:

1. Your skills exceed the skill reqs for creating the particular item.

2. The recipe for the item isn't broken.

3. If you have all the pieces obviously.

There is no possiblity of failure, no chance of making an item that requires a skill higher than yours, no possibility of advancing your skills in the process, and no possibility of "training" your skills in a mission of some sort. So...the items you can make are in-fact indirectly based on your level, as your level determines how high your tradeskills are.

And now we have nanos, armor, and items in the game that require you to be a certain level before using.

If you're going to make the game level based, please don't go around saying it is a skill-based game. In a true skill-based game:

Skills would be "learned" and you could get "rusty" if you don't practice enough. This would hold true for all skills, not just the tradeskills.

Characters would have no level attribute attached to them. None. Zero.

There would be not a single item in the game that has a specific level-requirement to use.

It isn't a level based game either.

-have to have a certain skill on almost anything
-have implants, nanos, ect. which enhance skills
-you choose what skills you want to upgrade, and there are lots of them
-there are alot more things that don't have lvl requirements then do

True, AO has reached a strange mid-stage when it comes to lvl's vs. skills.

I, personally, dislike the idea of "levels" and prefer a skills approach, but I suppose this system tries to please everyone.

Actually, it really is a level based game. Sure, the skills system allows people to suck more then others, but depending on your level, your stats will have a max of n that you can twink up to. Level will always be the basic limiting factor.

AO is still skill based in the sense that you can choose within range what skill excel and what to sux in. It still makes a difference - at least untill you reach max lvl and have enough to raise whatever you want - then i guess people are more alike.

Of course I prefer no skill limit per lvl - but this is better than totally lvl based games as eq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myers
It isn't a level based game either.

-have to have a certain skill on almost anything

---

And what gives you the ability to raise your skills? Levels.

Quote:

---

-have implants, nanos, ect. which enhance skills

---

Yeah..and they all have skill reqs which require you to bump your skills up using IP which you acquire from what? Levels.

Quote:

---

-you choose what skills you want to upgrade, and there are lots of them

---

True...but what gives you the IP to upgrade those skills? Levels.

Quote:

---

-there are alot more things that don't have lvl requirements then do

---

Very true. Most items have skill reqs. And what do you need to get your skills up to meet the skill reqs? IP. How do you get IP? You guessed it. Levels.

Can you come up with a better system?

200 implants on level 1 characters? Get rid of ql levels?

Should an Nt become better with nukes just by chain nuking? A soldier would increase his skill by firng a fire arm? Etc, etc..

There are no easy answers. A skill-based game would be based on the actual skills of the player, not the character. I consider Tekken a skill based game ie if you mash buttons, you get your ass kicked. If you do combos and practice timing, you kick ass unless you come up against someone who knows how to counter, etc, etc.

Some of the tradeskills require 1 to 1.1k in skills such as Electrical Engineering, Mech Engineering, etc to perform tasks. How could you possibly translate that into an interactive skill?

Pushing a button and an action happens because 'X' skill is at 'y' number is NOT what I think of as skill based. The only skill you need in AO is math for number crunching or cheap out and buy a calculator.

It's neither completely level based or skill based. It's an interesting hybrid of the two and sometimes it works great, sometimes well, heh..

How about... it's a CHOICE based system? You choose what skills you want, and if you want more skills, you got the choice of killing mobs to further yourself? Hehe.

Anyway, it's just a game, but it seems like alot of people feel like they really live on Rubi-ka.

What is the problem with lvl based?
In my opinion I've got nothing to complain about with this level system?

Skilled based systems are so flawed that it will take the next generation of game before they are viable.
For those people not familiar with Ultima Online, this is one of the few true skill based games.
There are no levels what so ever, anything you do in the world in theory has the potential to increase one of your many skills.
Repeatedly doing certain tasks will keep on increasing the same skills.
Some of the flaws include:

To get to the Grandmaster level in the Parry Skill a fighter can simply fight 3 Deer at the same time with a training weapon, with this weapon you do minimal damage yet because you are fighting 3 creatures you skill will hit 100.

To get to the Grandmaster level in the Tailoring skill, a tailor can make something known as "Oil Clothes" (Low resource requirements, very easy to collect thousands of the resource, cloth) from about Skill 65 right up to 97, then it's a quick ride to becoming Grandmaster.

A fighter can get the Grandmaster skill in the weapon of their choice by fighting really low level creatures and monsters.

Macroing is a common way of gaining high skills, collect an NPC, set a macro going to peak into their backpack every few seconds (not a criminal act) set macro to auto run.
Go out for the evening, return to find Grandmaster skill in snooping.
Create a macro to walk your character then attempt to hide, go out for the evening return to find Grandmaster in hiding.

These are just some of the flaws in the UO system.
I started playing UO more or less on it's release day, some of my characters took literally 12 months to get to Skill 100 in some skills.
Towards the end of my time in UO a new player could achieve what had taken me initially 12 months in approx. 2-3 weeks.

Because new players get frustrated, there is no real visible target to aim for, with levels you always know how far you need to go to get to the next level, they start to leave.
In an attempt to keep new players (it's the only way a game can survive) they make skill gaining easier and easier until suddenly everybody running around is a carbon copy of everybody else - the "perfect character".

Hopefully skill based games of the future will be more advanced, force a fighter for example to fight harder creatures as skill gain on the lower ones physically stops, doesn't just get slower.
AO is a hybrid, you level, there are levels, levels are still integral to the game, but once you do level you have some choice on the direction of your character, it's not a pre-determined increase in a few skills not of your choice.

I think everyone will agree AO is a kind of Level-skill hybrid.

Level determines the 'base' on which the skills are built. While the skills are somewhat customisable and 'buffable' level is the ultimate limiting factor.

I think a true 'skill' based game is achievable, and the system still needs to based off XP. The problem is determining how much XP you get for a specific task and how many different types of XP to have.

For example you could have a different XP 'record' for each skill. Everytime you use a skill you would get XP for it. Now this (as has been illustrated in a previous post) is open to autmation and abuse, you need a limiting factor. Ther limiting factor should be your current skill level. While at first everything may be prone to failure (but large XP rewards gain for achieving it) as you 'gain skill' that same task would start to yield little to no XP (kind of like killing a grey MOB) and you would have to move on to 'harder' tasks (again with an associated chance of failure). Its really not any different to MOB conning except that when your XP is maxed for that skill, you increase in that skill (and there may be a dribble down to associated skills).

I think DAoC has a very good example of this in their Tradeskills. Skill is gained by making things, and each item has an associated difficulty (con) relative to the skill of the character. Once an item starts to con lower than you, you can start to guarantee success, but will see little increase in that skill for your work. The system is regulated by cost (i.e. the cost of making things - DAoC seems to have a much more restrictive cash flow that AO) and by the availability of the recipies (you only start with a few and must reach a certain amount of skill before you are given the next batch).

Combat can be handled in the same way. Killing a MOB yields a certain amount of XP for the weapon(s) used in the combat (probably calculated by damaged dealt etc). In order to continue to gain the same amounts of XP one must combat harder MOB's with the same weapon. Alternatively one could equip an alternative weapon and continue to fight easy MOB's (so the con system would need to be based of the currently equipped weapon - changing weapon would change the con value).

The difficulty though is with things like hit points (or any physical atributes) and parrys. Technically, under the above system, parry would be developed by just letting a MOB hit you and hoping you block the hits enough to gain a level before the MOB kills you (healing not withstanding). A way around this is to only allow parrys with certain melee weapons (seems stupid to be able to parry with a shotgun if youask me) and base the parry skill on the weapon skill.

Physical attributes are more difficult. You cannot really justify gaining dexterity by just running everywhere, and its here the system tends to fall down. How do you make MOBs harder for a player to kill (as they increase in weapon skill) without increasing player HP and abilities so that the harder MOBs dont slay them in one hit?

I am interested to see if/how SWG addresses this issue.

I think a litmus test of whether a game is "skill-based" is:

How easy is it to gimp a character, equipment notwithstanding?

If level is the determining factor in char development, then two members of Class X will be similar in power, excepting differences in gear.

If skillpoint allocation is the determining factor, two members of Class X might vary widely in power. A characteristic of skillpoint games are "templates".

AO behaves very much like the latter case. So does DAOC. In contrast 2 EQ Monks are pretty much identical.

My 2cr.

AO is a skill 'focused' game, it is not a Skill based game.

Its skills are determined by lvl. Ones lvl prevents one for raising ones skills past a preset ammount. no based off of racial modifiers, or world limits. But off of the chars lvl. its a hybrid. a mutant. More like a normal role playing game.

In that - one gets XP. that XP is used as a guide to determin the ammout your char has learned. Ie - kill 1 monster, you might have learned a new sword play trick. But kill 1,000 and well, odds are you've got that cross swipe down pat. And mabye a few otehr tricks.

a True skill based game - a ie - dungon seige, or the like. Where - the skill you use, is the skill that is raised. By its being used. Want to be a sword man, pick up a sword and swing it a buch, you learn how to swing it better. These systems, while being VERY felixable, and allowing for a huge varation in char development. tend to be limited to the Computer realm of RPing. The very nature of the system create added complcation for the story teller and the players. - "so how many times did you swing your sword? oh 15? ok mark that down. let me know once you've swung it 30k times, you get an extra point." ;)

But while not a skill base game, it is a skill orianted? Focused? game. Ie rather then every lvl i gain d4 hp, +1 attack bonus, and a new special. just like every other char in my group.

its- Every lvl, you recive points, spend them where you want. You want more HP - spend points on body dev. Want to learn how to use a shotgun? spend ip thier.

Want to be an MA who carries around an assult rilfe. do able. might not be the best at it, but you can be a whole lot better at it then an MA who desided to use well MA.

This leads to a wide range of choices with in each profession, that normal lvl based games do not have. Some have over the past few years begon to insert/alter/change thier rules to allow for this greater flexablity is char genration.

AO is not a skill based game. It's a lvl based game, that focues on skills for char devlopment. In that your lvl roguhtly determins your base ablities, and your skills determin what you can do.

Which, sadly - leads folks who've never played an RP in thier life, (ie reporters) and only want to make thier dead line to say - It's a skill based game. (while some what true, not overly accruate.)

AO, is not a skill based game, it is a lvl based game, w/ char devlopemt determind by ones skills.

its a Skill focused game.

Jazger
steppenrazor - Omni Nt lvl 74, Nulity by lvl 80 or dang it i'll have to keep looking.
Jazger - omni fixer, 39 wow, green evades?!

(Much ado about nothing...)

Anyways, this discussion is pretty moot, both sides can twist and turn the facts until it says:

It is skill based or
It is level based.

Why? Well... because AO is a skill _&_ level based game. Now, was that too hard? What do you mean, there is no such thing as a skill&level based game? You never played MUDs before? I've seen a gazillion skill&level based games.

For example, BatMUD used this sort of skill&level based system:
Kill monsters, gain xp (+ some other ways of gaining xp, including trade skills/spells through a Money is Power gp->xp spell)
Use a big chunk of xp to gain a level or
Use small chunks of xp to gain 1% of a skill.
For every level, you could advance your guild (prof) level, which allowed you to train your skills to a higher %.
For every skill%... well duh, you were better at it. :)

AO is somewhat similar, except the options are more limited:
Use a big chunk of xp to gain a level AND
get a small chunk of IP ("xp for skills") to gain 1point of a skill.
For every level, you are allowed to train your skills to a higher point.
For every skill point ... well duh, you are better at it. :)

Scratch that, AO is quite similar, not somewhat. A game level-based not make the lack of existance of failure, as Yoda would put it. And, a pure level based game (EQ comes 99% close, the masteries mess that 1%) everyone of same level is ... same. DAoC = Skill&Level based, but more so level than AO. AC = skill&level based, but more so skill than AO. UO = skill based, though the 700 skill cap sort of brings a max "level".

AC and AO are the most similar, except they go at it from the opposite directions. AC gives "IP" straight up to be used on skills, enough "IP" you spend you gain a level (as I understand, haven't actually played the game but read about it). The levels do have meaning beside a number, due to being able to get those whatever-points-for-opening-skills-or-something, so it is not pure skill based. AO gives xp straight up to gain levels with, and AO levels give IP ... well you get my drift.