Classes vs. Skills in MMOGs

An anonymous reader writes "The buzz in the MMO blogosphere is yet another resurrection of the Class system vs. Skill system debate. A number of prominent online gaming bloggers have chimed in with their opinions on the subject, including: Scott Jennings, Raph Koster, Ryan Shwayder, Steve Danuser, Damion Schubert, and a host of others you can find linked on those blogs. The conclusion? Most of the devs favor class systems because of their simplicity and ease of communicating character roles, while a few devs and many players favor skill-based systems because of the freedom they provide for user customization."

Comments

Hybrid system

[Kelson]

The debate reminds me of the hybrid system used in Might and Magic IX. For all the game's flaws, it had an interesting tree-based class system. You started each character off as either a spellcaster or a fighter, and as they advanced in levels, they would specialize as clerics, mages, knights, etc. IIRC there were three tiers, with 2 low-level classes, four mid-range, and eight advanced.

The disadvantage is that if you want a particular advanced class, you need to plan ahead -- and have the manual page that shows the tree. On the plus side, it means you can get a feel for what you need during gameplay, rather than try to guess from the start.

I'm not sure how well this would translate to MMORPGs, because I'm one of the three people online who doesn't play any. But it seems this would be simpler than a fully skill-based system, and more flexible than a static class system.

Re:Hybrid system

[Burlap]

I prefer Anarchy Onlines skill/class system. Every class has access to the same skills, only some classes can raise them higher and "easier" (cost less improvement points) then others.

EG: a nanomake and agent can both use the rifle skill... only the agent can get it far higher (both in base skill and self only biffs) and cost less then the mage. But if the mage REALLY wants to use rifles then she can.

it allows for a good amount of customization and also allows the devs to 'nudge' the player base in a specific direction. Of course it can be abused (caterwall rifle was so destructive in PVP that EVERY class used it untill it was made agent only) but what system cant be?

Trial and error.

[zyl0x]

It's been tried and tested with all the other MMOs. When you give the players such an open system like a skill-based system, the developers have exponentially more work on their hands. They have to make sure all the combinations are viable gaming options. Nevermind the balance for PvP systems. Skill-based systems are way easier to exploit, as opposed to class-based systems, where the developers have direct control over what the players can be, and what they cannot be. It's a hard balance to strike, though, since players in a class system often feel as though they're being oppressed, but every game needs a structure, and skill-based structures are too close to chaos.

Re:Trial and error.

[hey!]

Skill-based systems are way easier to exploit, as opposed to class-based systems, where the developers have direct control over what the players can be, and what they cannot be.

But isn't that where a lot of fun in a skill based system is for players? Less in any campaigns or quests the devlopers create and more around creating strategies to boost certain skills, so you can use them to, umm boost other skills? In the end it's pointless of course, but we are talkings games after all.

It's a hard balance to strike, though, since players in a class system often feel as though they're being oppressed, but every game needs a structure, and skill-based structures are too close to chaos.

I guess my point is why is the chaos a problem if people are enjoying the game?

I can see that a sufficiently fanatical player with sufficient time on his hands can create a character that is so powerful it's not interesting to play anymore. In that case force some tradeoffs for the character; after all that's what these games are about on an abstract level. Maybe your advancement level in a skill is a function of the total level for all your skills, not the total level in that skill. So if you are a high level enchanter and a low level fighter, you can advance a level in fighting but it's just as hard as advancing a level in magic. The player would have to undertake increasingly more difficult tasks to advance his player's skills at all. Ultimately, characters would reach a point where they could not, in practical terms, gain any more skills. If the point is to take the emphasis off of skill acquisition, then the player would have to shift to playing that character in whatever scenarios you devise. Naturally serious players will have several characters, which means more revenue.

Re:Trial and error.

[ebyrob]

Have you played Ultima Online?

They had a system where it was actually more difficult for everyone in the world to gain in certain skills based on how popular they were, or how many other people were also trying to gain at that skill at the same time.

Think if it kind of like the WoW PvP ladder, but for every single skill. You had to compete with the entire realm just to gain another .1% on your stat sheet.

UO did some other pretty revolutionary stuff too. For instance, all items, weapons and other goods decayed when used. Sure, you could get them repaired, but they'd still eventually wear out to the point they weren't worth repairing any more. A similar system kept mages in check. Every single spell cast required massive amounts of reagents, also in limited supply. This meant mages might well be the most powerful class in the game, but it came at an extremely high monetary cost.

This meant you might be able to slice down a town full of wood-cutters, miners, blacksmiths and herb-gathers as an archer-mage, but you'd be begging them later on to sell you enough goods to keep yourself equipped. (At least, that's how it was supposed to work in theory)

Simplicity always wins...

[Manip]

I think World of Warcraft has shown that a good mix of both is a nice compromise. With simple classes (e.g. Priest, Warrior, Hunter etc) but allowing players to further customise those roles for their play style (E.g. Priest healer or Priest for damage).

You don't need to pick black or white, good or evil... Better to have a compromise between the two... A shade of grey as it were.

Perhaps Blizzard's ability to stay in the "Shades of Grey" is why it has 50% of the MMPORPG market at the minute?

Re:Simplicity always wins...

[Wilson_6500]

With simple classes (e.g. Priest, Warrior, Hunter etc) but allowing players to further customise those roles for their play style (E.g. Priest healer or Priest for damage)

Great, so I have slightly more ways to be pigeonholed. I can be a "healing priest," or a "damage priest," or a highly ineffective combination of the two that will get me killed endless times and put me at a huge disadvantage to specialized priests in PvP.

Naturally, some "builds" have to be more useful than others, but in modern MMOs there's woefully little in the way of innovation when it comes to player skill sets. Barring changes after patches, hardcore players VERY quickly filter out the most "respectable" builds, which then begin to propagate themselves among the players. Everyone wants to get their player's various numbers as high as they can as fast as they can, and so they settle down into a variety of the most effective builds. The players who aren't savvy to these builds will clunk along, having various amounts of success depending on the way the game is designed. If I want to play a Wizard that has a morbid aversion to fire, but all the "good" Wizard spells are fire-based, then my Wizard's going to have a hell of a time finding people who'll put up with his "useless" Freeze Orb + Mystic Heal combination when--as EVERYONE knows--you MUST have Hell Dagger + Burning Pee in order to kill Trogdors in the Highlands. Why kill Trogdors in the Highlands? Because they drop the only sword that a Chevalier should ever use: Cloudbranch.

That's going to lead into the whole damn field of item builds, which I don't wanna get into since I've basically gotten completely away from my point. I will say that total randomization of item character would go a long way to preventing the "must have" mentality that plagues so many MMO builds--e.g. your Bow-Using Amazon (in Diablo 2) _must_ use this certain ultra rare Bow to have a snowball's chance in hell in PvP.

An issue for more than just MMOs

[dorbabil]

I've been working a few RPG ideas over in my head for the past few years, piling details on as I find ideas I like or think I could improve upon in other games, and the class vs. skill debate is something I'm very familiar with.

I think the biggest problem with the skill system is that it makes the experience way too "loose" for the incoming player, and in MMOs or traditional CRPGs, that can be a serious problem. With a class-based system, you can make the player focus on one or two things early on instead of allowing them to run free, which gives them an ample chance to learn the game, the interface, and to get familiar with the characters and story. With a skill-based system, there's more of an unstructured feeling. You can't really force everyone into doing a few basic skills right away, because if those skills don't interest the person, they are going to feel like they are wasting their time. Since a lot of the developers who make large scale games, esspecially MMOs, don't have the time/money/desire to put a lot of instruction and guidance in for every single skill combination in the early game, it can be tough for people to stick with it long enough to find their niche.

I think that's why a lot of MMOs go with a sort of combination of the two. You get a class (or even just give characters generic experience levels that effect statistics and the ability to use equipment), and then later allow them to learn and explore different trade-skills. Some MMOs even go for keeping the character as a jack-of-all-trades earlier on, and then allowing the player to specialize once they are familiar with the different skills that they can use.

I still think that some of the best games only have skills. UnReal World is one of my favorite roguelike CRPGs, and I really enjoy it's skill system.

Experiential vs. Formalized Knowledge

[mhazen]

I've come to prefer the system used in the Elder Scrolls series quite a bit, being a directed version of the skill-based subsumed in a class-based world. That is to say, you have a class, yes, but when you level, the options you are given to improve your character's stats directly reflect what you've actually been doing in the world.

Yes, it would take a spellcaster longer to level if they're focused on hand-to-hand combat (it would actually happen incidentally, through repated use of the skills that are associated with their class, but when they do eventually level, they would have the ability to increase their strength significantly more than if they had focused exclusively on spellcasting.

I find this to be a surprisingly effective compromise, and it reflects somewhat on the nature of experience and growth in the real world (minus the spellcasting, of course). By this I mean that if I were a surgeon, the more surgeries I participate in, the higher my skill is likely to grow, and therefore, my standing as a surgeon (overly simplified example, yes). This does not, however, preclude the option I have for taking tae kwon do lessons and improving my martial skills. Since I don't make my living as a martial artist however, even though my ability is improving in other arenas, it does not reflect back on my ability as a surgeoun.

Consider it as 'career track' versus 'personal development'.

Best argument for class based systems I heard...

[aralin]

... is that it is closest to how our brain works. We need names for concepts in order to grasp them, describe them, use them in the thought process and exchange information about them. How can you talk about a player in skill based system? Either you place him in some type of stereotype or he will feel like a heap of different grain seeds. You can sort of grasp most of them and hold them in your palm, but never get quite the same handfull and always some fall between your fingers. When the communication gets complicated, the social aspect of the game suffers. That leads to the fact that most of the skill based games are promoting individualism and solo play, while the class based systems heavily promote group play. But the most important distinction is that for the difficulty to grasp the concept of skill based game, it is hard to gain new players for your game.

Also, look at the real life. Do we say that some employee can do a bit of accounting, some direct marketing, little bit of sales and has extensive skills in drafting legal contracts? So how do you find a job for such person? How do you talk about him? How can you put him in a social context? Or do you just say he is a "Contract Lawyer" with some extra business skills? We simply tend to stereotype that is how our brain works.