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

[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!

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

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.