On Reaction-Based Massively Multiplayer Gaming

Thanks to GamerDad for its editorial discussing why massively multiplayer games that require player dexterity are so much more intriguing. The author explains that "...the reason I don't play a lot of the conventional massive player games is because there's no skill involved in them", and goes on to detail: "In most of the MMORPGs, battles have almost predetermined conclusions based on the level and abilities of those player avatars involved in the fight and the creatures they're fighting against." He concludes by recommending his current skill-based MMOG of choice: "That's where PlanetSide has struck a chord with me. It takes the player interaction I enjoy in these games and combines it with a skill-based game." Do players want "the ability to use their brains and their hands to succeed" in MMORPGs, not just progress based on the "amount of time they played the game"?

Comments

Makes sense

[oOMeggieOo]

It makes sense that people who don't have as much time on their hands like to play games based on skill. But then, there are those who will always prefer the games tha you play them for hour after hour after hour, since they have nothing better to do with their time. That's kind of my opinion on some card games. I hate games based solely on luck and chance. And ones that are purely strategy, well, they're all right. But the games that combine luck with strategy...those are the best. Games just need to have a nice balance if they want to be appealing to more than one type of gamer.

Re:Makes sense

[bellings]

Would you care to name a cardgame based on luck and chance? Unless you're playing a game geared towards five year olds, nearly all cardgames are games of skill.

Re:Makes sense

[SphericalCrusher]

Yeah, it varies for MMORPGs of what the game style depends on. At some times, it just depends on luck, while others depends on how much time you put into your character, how you chose to level them up, and your knowledge of how to use which spells at the right time.

"...the reason I don't play a lot of the conventional massive player games is because there's no skill involved in them"

I don't agree with that at all. Even though most of the time in the MMORPG world is spent inducing your time into the time of your character, you still cannot do that without proper knowledge of how to level up your character. Oh sure, you can just randomly pick each spec of where to add your skill points to, but would that be a good idea? Of course not. And besides, later on, you're going to get killed a lot because of the lack of skills that you have.

Oh sure, most MMORPGs rely on how much time is spent playing them... but what you do with that time makes you a better player. Take for example: Say me and Billy (random person) create an EverQuest character at the same time. I have played the game a year before Billy and Billy just got it. So we both make our characters, and we're both at level 10 now. I have a druid and he has a Paladin. He has about 500 more HP than I do... but in a dual, I win. How is that possible? Knowledge!

Knowing how to use your character efficiently and which spells do what is what makes you actually "good" at MMORPGs. Also, knowing where to train to level up, find rare items, etc is essential to the hardcore MMORPG player. With those facts said, you should be able to see how an MMORPG requires skill -- skill of knowledge!

Sony Station?

[viware]

I remember a game I used to play on Sony Station, which looks like it was the predecessor to this game. I can't remember its name...
It used to be free, and when they started charging for it I got out of there (and so did a lot of other people). It certainly wasn't worth paying for, and this game doesn't look like its worth $12/month. Thats steep! I can buy Neverwinter Nights and only pay one fee, equivalent to half a year with this game. Sick.

MUDs are/were player skill-based

[KDan]

It's not just what you do, it's in what order, with what timing, etc. Eg, on Arctic, a thief or two could take down a seriously stronger fighter type by constantly fleeing as soon as they were engaged, then sneaking back in and backstabbing... that took dexterity and quickness of mind to type all the commands (or aliases) fast enough... but there also the fighter type, if he was quick-minded enough, could easily have bashed the thief and screwed him completely... Each class has its own strong points that you have to learn to exploit. That could be considered player skill/dexterity.

Daniel

Re:MUDs are/were player skill-based

[CFTM]

Actually Daniel, having had this happen to me on Arctic before, bash is a bad idea. If you're a warrior and some thief decides to play this little running game with you the best thing you can do is kick. It engages him without knocking you to the ground plus it'll do a bit of damage. Thieves generally suck without stab plus this is also allows you to duel wield. Generally speaking warrior weapons hit harder. So see there is even more strategy :)

Alex/Palerin

Re:RPGs can take no skill

[Tritoph]

Are you on crack? That's saying that people who drive in NASCAR can't hop an SUV and go 60 MPH on the highway and 30 downtown. I play Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic for a few hours, then hop into Unreal Tournament 2004 and stay in the middle of the pack (I could go higher if I play 24/7), then hop into Natural Selection and stay at the top of the pack, then go play NWN for another few hours. Maybe your arguement would have credence if you said people who play FPS games can't fire a gun in real life...

hmmm

[truffle]

I was pretty much set to say MMOs can't be skill based, but reading the article, I can see some room for it.

Specifically in a traditional dungeon based MMO I'd propose something to the extent of each player can choose to be in active mode, or passive mode. The key being giving players choice.

Players in active mode would essentially gain the opportunity to be 10-20% more effective, but would run the risk of being 10-20% less effective, based on how well they interacted with a skill based interface.

Players in passive mode would be baseline.

This would present a really nice mix. It wouldn't alienate the passive players. It would give the skilled players a chance to be better through application of skill. PVP could require the active mode (no passive PVPing). High level encounters would demand people be in active mode, to better their chance of defeating the difficult encounters.

It's a neat idea, I'd like to see something like that. It would require a lot of interface work though to make it intuitive.

Re:RPGs can take no skill

[Murphy's Paradox]

I can play RPGs with the best of them, I even program for a MUD called Unwritten Legends after being a player for a few years. I've played at least a month or two in all the big name MMORPGs out there.

In addition, I love FPS games as well. Max Payne 2 took, uhm, 10-15 hours for me to beat. I've been playing UT2k4 online near nightly and can frag with the best of them.

Oh, and incase you have some odd idea about game genres being seperated even further, I enjoy myself Civ3 and Warcraft3 and other RTS games.

I would be a proof by example that there is no set division between genres and skills. RPGs exist because people get bored with fragging others in the same level with the same weapons over and over again. No, the current genre is not really Role Playing, it's more an interactive storyline. MUDs allow more RPing, but either way... they appeal to people who want to gain something for their time and skill.

If I play UT2k4 for 5 hours, I get nothing tangible, and only maybe a little bit better at it. If I play City of Heroes for 5 hours, I get tangible proof of my play, as well as have a good time. If I go with NWN, I get to experience a story with my accomplishments.

Of course, if you just want to frag, thats cool... I get that way too, but don't think that it's mutually exclusive to other genres.

Just what we need

[ageoffri]

the dumbing down of RPG's like has happened in the strategy world. Real Time Strategy games have overall dumbed down the level of games so as to increase the market share of them. Even calling Everquest a RPG is a stretch but at least it isn't a twitch game where very little thought is needed in order to do well. RPG's are about long term choices you make and involve many, many hours of advancement and choices. Even the 24 hours or so to beat Knights of the Old Republic is a quick RPG.

Hmm

[jermyjerm]

"In most of the MMORPGs, battles have almost predetermined conclusions based on the level and abilities of those player avatars involved in the fight and the creatures they're fighting against."

Ok, he has an understanding of MMORPG game mechanics, but how is that insightful?

I, too, would enjoy a more action-oriented online experience. No matter how beautiful the game world, there's something about standing in a group huddling around a monster until it falls over that just lacks excitement. I couldn't play Everquest or Asheron's Call for more than a week because of their static battle systems, and although Final Fantasy XI looks amazing, I fear that I'll quickly grow tired of it as well. On the other hand, Ultima Online, which despite its problems had a more active attack system, held my attention for more than a year. I don't know why the writer lumps it in with AC or EQ, because its attack system is more active-- while your character would auto-attack if hit, its battle system was much closer to that of Diablo.

I agree that MMORPGs appeal to a huge audience because they're not skill based, but I wonder if the lack of action MMOGs has to do with latency and synching the actions of a large number of players. I'm sure the reasons are much more complex than this "pc gamers are reflex challenged" argument presented in the article.

There isn't much difference between a game in which one mouse click corresponds to one attack, or one where you hit a button and watch your character swing (or cast) for a while. You're still hitting an attack button at regular intervals, but in the first case you are required to develop a bit of strategy when playing. A game that let you not only attack, but parry, dodge, turn and run, etc, would be a great step up.

I've also heard enough about PlanetSide to keep me from thinking it's a any kind of solution to the problem of dull online games. Unless I'm wrong, the forthcoming Lineage 2 will be action oriented, so that's one to look at. I don't think MMORPGs need to be "twitch" in the FPS sense, but they do need to be more engaging.

I disagree

[DeadboltX]

From the average quake players perspective I can see how one might think a game like everquest or daoc requires no "skill", but you are wrong. Your personal definition of skill is skewed if you think that hand-eye coordination is the only kind of skill there is. The cleric has to watch the health of all the people in his group, then heal them accordingly, it is not always a slow process where you have plenty of time to react, sometimes it is a split second to react and most of the people playing mmorpgs would not react fast enough.. that is the difference between a "good" player and a average joe. If there was no room for a "good" player vs a bad one then I would agree that mmorpgs take no skill. But if someone can go beyond average, and even beyond good to where they are renowned as the best cleric on the server, then how can you possibly say there is no skill involved? This is not even taking into concideration the strategy needed to take a large raid force into an area and clear it out, anyone who had done a fear raid back in the day knows what I am talking about. Only very coordinated groups could "break" and hold fear.

No

[d3kk]

It bothers me to see these types of articles. People like this guy critique Everquest and other similar games for having no skill involved in gameplay. Sure, during the first ten or fifteen levels you're still learning the basics, and as a result, the combat isn't incredibly engaging, but once you're fighting monsters who actually pose a challenge, there's plenty of strategical decisions that need to be made. I remember my guild fighting the Avatar of War (I think, It's been awhile) in Everquest back when there was still a level 60 cap, and being in awe at the amount of planning and strategy that was used to defeat it. Tanks needed to be switched in and out of battle, the group of clerics needed to have a specific strategy set before hand to avoid gaining too much aggro and being killed, and other classes had their specific duties as well.

While I haven't played Planeside, from what I've heard, it sounds terrible. I'd much rather have to come up with a strategy for 60 people to kill an "unkillable" monster, than run around by myself fragging people. While the low-level game of Everquest might not necessarily involve much skill, it's completely ignorant to say that's the case for the entire game. There's no question what we did was more involving than shooting someone in the head over and over in an FPS.

People need to study the history a bit more

[RaphKoster]

Two basic points.

1) At high enough levels of complexity, MUDs and MMORPGs alike DO involve skill. Most typically, what people are asking for isn't skill, but specifically "twitch" skill.

2) You can go back 30 years and NEVER find a single twitch-skill based online persistent game that was as popular or more popular than the prevailing RPGs of the time. The basic reason is that people don't like to play in leagues where they cannot compete. RPG mechanics are essentially handicapping mechanics for people who lack the twitch ability--spend enough time, and you too can be a badass. This opens up the game to a wider audience (even as it arguably adds tedium).

No skill?!

[Dachannien]

The submitter is deceiving himself if he thinks the average MMOG doesn't require skill. They not only require rudimentary skills to be able to succeed at a basic level - something I have found after spending a few months away from EverQuest and returning to find that my skills have waned.... but they also require a high proficiency in order to succeed at many of the more complex encounters.

Planning out a strategy, managing and coordinating dozens of other people to put that strategy into effect, and properly participating in one's role within that larger strategy all require skill (and, judging from the behavior of a lot of people who play MMOGs, this level of skill is nontrivial). Having a great deal of skill can indeed make up for a lack of levels/advancement/gear, even in MMORPGs. And this doesn't even touch on the somewhat more subversive skills that people can make use of, like taking advantage of an in-game market economy or using social engineering to achieve one's goals.

Something else that makes skill-based games fun

[djdanlib]

A big factor in my favorite skill-based games is the duration of your minimum session. The tedious leveling process of most games lengthens that minimum session from your average "I've got a couple minutes to kill" into the "Whoops, is that the sun coming up" timespan. This really narrows down the number of ADD/ADHD people (ahem) who would be interested.

For example:
* Super Smash Bros. Melee - five minutes, and a match is over. I've seen fifteen in rare circumstances. Skills make the butt-kicking your opponent deserves in a revenge match much easier.
* Pacman, Galaga, Space Invaders, Breakout, etc - Classic, because you could just put a quarter in and play for a few minutes. No leveling, just gameplay. Skill could gain you some extra points or even more lives/whatever.
* Mario Bros, Donkey Kong - Good for a few quick minutes of fun. Quick reversals and timing make you "good."
* Outrun, Pole Position, etc - Drive for a few minutes, and it's done. Pure brain-numbing racing fun.
* UT, Counterstrike, Q3A - Play a few minutes of fragging and go. Although, having a good 3D card can sometimes provide the illusion of skill due to higher responsiveness and vision quality.

In summary:

A critical element of games is the length you have to play them before you can safely get up and leave. These games are usually skill-based, since a few minutes can't possibly give you any fancy EXP-based advantages.

Planetside can be a great game.

[Voltiare]

Like *any* MMO, the real joy comes not really from the game, but the people you play with. A good group of people will always make a game that much more enjoable. The key to planetside is being in an "outfit"(re:guild), that suits your playstyle. There *are* outfits out there that focus heavily on teamwork and coordination on a scale that is quite litteraly not possible in any other MMO type. Of course, these kinds of outfits feel few and far between, but they are out there. And they sure make Planetside a blast to play. :)

Contentious, But Somebody Has To Say It

[dupper]

No, RPGs take very little skill. Even with these reaction systems, they still don't need anywhere near the reflexes and hand-eye coordination of FPSs. And that's a good thing.

Now, ignoring the storyline, immersion, persistance, variety and other definite draws of the genre, there's a simple fact: most people suck at games. By definition, the majority of players suck, and usually lose in UT2K3 and BF42. I do, and I know many others who do. Even with hundreds (maybe thousands) of hours of FPS play under our belts, we still end up with 3 kills, 20 deaths on any given server. And I don't know about the rest of us losers, but playing with friends would make the situation much worse (I personally know a half-dozen highly-ranked CS players). And I still love these games, and continue to play them. They're fun, even when you're getting owned. But a man can only take so much 'PWNED OMGROFLWTFKEKEKEKEKE!!111!1!'.

And that is why we need RPGs: a refuge for the unskilled gamer. Those with naturally shitty hand-eye coordination and slow-ass reflexes. I've noticed nobody brings this up, so either I suck a lot more than I'd previously thought, or people are just too embarrased to come out and say something. Well, I hereby call out the crappy gamers of the world, we who couldn't kill an Imp with a BFG, to rise up in defense of the great equalizer genre! Success in gaming shoudn't be based on who has the fastest reflexes any more than success in life should be based on who has the strongest biceps.

I think we're missing the point though...

[lazypenguingirl]

Games shouldn't be solely about comparing relative skill wankerdom. They are games. They are meant for fun and enjoyment. Different people enjoy different things. If I want a challenge and apply skill, I am an engineer for 12 hours of my day. If I want to be able to sit back, relax and get pulled into a story in my free time, I play an RPG. And even in MMORPGs, I tend to derive great enjoyment from running around and exploring. I don't *care* if FPS players are more "skilled" as gamers, because gaming is *not* real life. I have played FPS's with friends, and I really don't enjoy them. They are not relaxing, I end up getting even more tense which defeats the point of leisure time for me. Also, I find them very jarring on my hands and wrists compared to other games (due to severe arthritis since I was 18). Different people enjoy different things, and it really bothers me when people impugn others' ideas of fun. Would you believe some people enjoy gardening? Or stamp collecting? Like, dude, how on earth can you demonstrate skill and 0wnz people when not behind a keyboard? I just think the overall topic is pointless. People should play the games they enjoy not to compare digital wankers but to have fun. And if fun is proving that you are "more skilled" than brainless RPGers, so be it. But leave the rest of us to our fun, please, without looking down on us.

Re:Planetside Sucks

[Schiraman]

Actually Planetside has three competing factions, not two, which makes things considerably more interesting since no matter how well you think you're doing there's always room to be suddenly thwarted by a second front being opened up at the rear of your territory...

Personally the fact that you don't ever win the war doesn't bother me - it wouldn't be much of a MMOG if you could win now would it? Nobody ever wins at Everquest or any other MMOG so I don't see a problem here and at least in Planetside you can win or loose each individual battle.

Frankly I don't find Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament any more meaningful simply because after a certain number of frags the game is over. In Planetside the global balance of power shifts constantly and knowing that you and your squadmates can make a big difference to that makes the game a lot of fun.

Re:Planetside

[Schiraman]

Nonsense.

The certificate system in Planetside means that characters of maximum level have no advantage over starting players other than the equipment they have, and starting players have access to the same equipment in theory just a smaller selection of it - they can have a big gun or some decent armour but the high-level character will have both. Compared to most MMOGs that's an amazing boost for starting players, try killing a level 20 character with a level 1 character in Everquest.

People group together in Planetside because a coordinated force has a much better chance to assault or defend a base than a leaderless mob. Seems like common sense to me. There are still plenty of 'lone wolf' players - it just depends on what you're trying to achieve. You won't take a well defended enemy base on your own, but you might weaken their defences, snipe key targets, sabotague rear areas or keep your own bases well supplied... just to list a few of many examples.

Finally, if you've never seen a big, hectic battle over a base with attackers swarming through the gates (or jump-jetting over the walls) with massive casualties on both sides and vehicles and equipment of all sorts being used then you've been playing a different Planetside to me. Actually you've just not being playing Planetside, or at least not for long.

I can't help feeling that if you're basing your opinion on time you spent during the beta-test, time you spent eating and surfing the net apparently, then you really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the live game.

What MMOGs can learn from Planetside

[Schiraman]

I'm a veteran Planetside player, its a game that has its flaws like any other but it has some amazing innovations in gameplay that could really move the MMOG genre along.

1) Starting characters can compete with, or cooperate with, characters of any level without being useless. What an amazing idea! Imagine if 'newbies' in other MMOGs were useful right away! (and not just so you can PK them and take their gold). PS doesn't load high-level characters down with unbeatable bonuses, they have access to more of the game's equipment but a few solid hits will kill them just as dead, this means that characters of all levels are useful on the battlefield. Net result: levelling up is worthwhile but being low-level isn't depressing and dull.

2) Both character level (time spent playing) and player skill have a part to play in success. Whether or not you think that selecting the right attack or casting the proper spell is skillful or not, hand-eye coordination can be added into the mix to make the game even more skill-based. In PS your character will have access to more toys as he levels up, making him overall more effective, but your skill is always key - from level 1 to level 20.

It seems to me that there's no reason that these two key features couldn't be included in future MMORPGs... allowing a more interactive experience for characters of all classes and levels and allowing players who are new to the game, or have less time to spend on it, to enjoy the game alongside the more experienced or obsessive gamers. It also breaks down the divide between casual and hardcore players and lets them play side by side.

For my money it seems that games like Anarchy Online or Starwars Galaxies are crying out to be played using a Planetside-like system and although it would need to be quite different for fantasy-themed games (all those melee weapons make FPS mechanics less useful) the core concepts of player skill and gameplay balance accross levels could still be included.