RF Generation Message Board

People talk about skill curve in relation to specific games all the time. "This game has no skill curve" or "It has a steep learning curve." I just had a long discussion with someone about this and I think it's important and also crazy fascinating to start a discussion about this term and what it means to each of us.

I think we may be able to classify the gameplay depth of games based on the way we would graph their learning curve or skill curve. These are the rules of my skill curve theory:

The skill curve is a graph which charts the skill of the player in relation to the amount of time spent earning that skill.

All skill curves must extend upward and outward toward infinity.. Although some (really bad) games could have a skill curve which is almost a flat line. A possible exception would be games which are based entirely on luck with no skill involved. Though, on a very technical level, no such thing can exist in the world of computerized gaming, because computers aren't actually capable of generating true random numbers.

Skill curves are curvy. They can fluctuate. They may start off with a sharp incline and then level off to almost a flat line (almost). I would say Super Metroid has a skill curve like that. As it takes a week or two to get pretty good at the game (say good enough to beat it with an A rank score; better than 90% of other players) but then it takes years to get much better than that (i.e. infinite horizontal bomb jumping; better than 99% of other players)

Obviously, skill curves are very intangible; as we cannot assign actual precise measurements to the chart. The skill curve chart is also a projection based on an assumed example of a player who plays the specific game consistantly and also consistantly improves. Therefore it does not account for differences in personal experience or other anomalies (i.e. you were really good at Tekken, but then you didn't play it for 10 years and now you suck). Examples like that are treated as external to the skill curve theory.

In simpler terms, we're asking this question: If a learning machine were playing the game constantly, how long would it take to be better than {any percentage} of players? You should find that the amount of time is proportional to the percentage you inserted.

Some observations:
Button mashers flatline almost right away.

I tend to like games which curve pretty sharply upward and then flatten out a lot.

There may be a common difference between true 3D games and 2D games when it comes to charting the skill curve which is due to the unlimited range of motion available in true 3D games. This is a very debatable topic, but basically there are more options inherent to a 3D game so it takes much longer to truly master all of them. There may be so many possibilities that true mastery is impossible for humans, who are fallible.

MMORPGs are a bizzare anomaly. I would give most of them a flatline skill curve. They have virtually no depth of gameplay, though people still play them and love them. I just count this as more evidence that MMORPGs are not actually games at all, as they have no clear set of objectives. They are virtual realities; alternate fantasy existences and nothing more.

A line that goes straight up is the same as a line that goes straight across. A truly perfect game is probably one that makes a perfect diagonal line toward infinity.

Does anyone disagree with any of this or have anything to add? Any observations? Think I have too much time on my hands?

As a whole most skill curves are exponential as long as the player is trying to get better.  In chess, a new player can become twice as good with a single game, after that it will most likely take 2 games to double his skill again, then 4, 8, etc.  
Then, after time away from the his skill level will decline.  but once he returns to the game his skill level will increase at a fast pace until he reaches his past skill level, then he will be back on his exponential track of learning.  But all of this ignores changes in teachers,  the reading of books, or the rare epiphany.

Chess is an interesting example because many people call it the perfect game. It would make sense that the skill curve is exponential.

In your examples you seem to be more interested in the player's personal learning experience.

I'm more interested in the possible mastery of computerized games as a way of rating the games.

It is probably not possible for a human being to get any better at Shaq Fu (a game of total random button mashing) than they were the first minute they picked up the controller. Therefore, Shaq Fu is a very shallow game. This is an example of what I mean.

To me it is the same when talking about skill level.  Poker is a very deep game that you can learn for ever,  but it does have luck in it , so the game outcomes can be very irreguler.
But, it is true that in some video games you can learn it perfectly and never have the chance to get any better.  Or you think that you are doing it perfectly and never get any better.  However most people never go that far in to any endever and like I said you have to be actively trying to improve.

I tend to think of learning curves as being logarithmic, but either one works as long as you
specify the exponent and base.

Poker is a bad game to discuss learning curves with because so much of it relies not on rules but on intimidation/psychology.  

Leon, I'm surprised you would say that MMO's are flat.  Using WoW as an example, I could agree with you if you took PvP out of the equation.  However, since PvP is a major portion of the game I must disagree.  It seems like in WoW you must have a decent knowledge of the opposing attacker's class (and sometimes professions) to be able to beat him.  Each class has their own attack strategy.  After a while, once you get the hang of the classes and how to defeat them, the learnign curve does level off.  

Generally in WoW, two players of the same level and class with identical gear will always have a 50/50 of winning a fight, regardless of actual player experience. It's just a roll of the dice so you can't actually get better. You can only tip the dice more in your favor by getting better gear.

Also, in my experience WoW actually has a steeper learning curve than most MMORPGs. That doesn't say much for the other ones.

I go to a public school so I don't have anything to add.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If you want a game that makes a diagonal line towards infinity you've got to go with the classics or the more obscure games like Katamari. But I personally don't want a game with a diagonal line towards infinity. Of all the weird little puzzle games like Katamari the only one I've played for more than ten minutes is Tetris. I prefer the new kinds of games where I can pick up the controller and start pwning n00bs in minutes. I like the fact that games are becoming more of an art form than a little fun distraction.

There are a few gems out there though, games like the Max Payne series or God of War, or the Metal Gears, that blend skill with plot brilliantly, and these are my favorite. Although also among my favorite are games like GTA where I can just plug in, learn the curve in twelve seconds, and spend hours just running around a world where I'm boss. Which is also where MMORPG's come in. I agree that they are little more than alternate realities to where we, as cubicle working, depressed, modern day Americans, can go to escape and make a name for themselves.

I can't remember what the hell I'm talking about...I'm going to bed.

I think I am the exact opposite.  I like a game I can pick up without having to worry about a story line or anything like that.  I whish more games like Tetris, Katamari and even Chu Chu Rocket would be made.  Unfortunately, I have no intention of buying a sony console, and Katamari is propriatary.  I like games that have a simple linear skill "front" if you will, one that would extend to infinity.  If it doesn't, then what's the point of playing after you reach max?

Come on Nintendo, I know you can make something small and entertaining.  (I suppose it's partially my fault, I refuse to pay $50 for a simple game.  I'll spend $20 but not more.  It's not tike they are spending loads of money to develop these sorts of games anyways.)

/Anyone notice this new Japanese Wii is very small?  The rumor must be true!
//edit: I forgot to relate my post to skill curves...

I'll try to tackle your MMO theory of difficulty as a skill curve on Monday, but let's just say I disagree a lot.

In the short term, don't think of MMOs as an infinite set of equivalent objectives, but as many objectives of varying degrees of difficulty.

E.g. in World of Warcraft - Wailing Caverns vs. Blackrock Depths vs. Blackwing Lair.

Some objectives are inherently more difficult than others and rely on intimate knowledge of your class, your ability to react to events, and knowledge of your party for success.  Thus the reason why most people have Blues/Greens, some have their Tier 0 armor sets, but only a few have Tier 1-3 sets.

And don't confuse the difficulty of a game like Frogger verses an MMO.  People have a very large misconception that MMOs consist of just pressing a button over and over again to earn experience.  While this tactic might work for the early levels/parts of a game, it certainly adjusts and the skill curve increases as you tackle later, and end game, objectives.

Unless you're a hunter.  Then you're just a puss in EZ mode.

With the MMO learning curve it's not a single player skill-based event.  The instances you mentioned have a group-learning curve  and a crowd management curve but honestly they do not pose a significant curve on a player by player basis.

Inherently MMOs have very small learning curves, and that's for a very deliberate reason; in order to maintain the majority of players you have you cannot make the game 'too hard' or you alienate your customers, who leave the game.

This is pretty well documented, and is evidenced in every single MMO available now - except for Second Life which you could argue has a pretty steep learning curve when it comes to designing and coding your own corner of the world.

That's well reasoned, but I still disagree.  I don't think they have small learning curves, I'd argue they have very steep learning curves initially.  How to build your character, where to get your gear, how to best acquire your gear, where to level, how to effectively level, etc., etc.

MMORPGs really throw off the whole curve if you look at them objectively.  Looking at a game like Super Metroid, the game objectives are fairly linear and clear.  Get this upgrade, clear this gap, get to the new area.  The difficulty comes in staying alive and meeting the objectives in a timely and effective manner.

MMOs are, if it's not stating the obvious, open ended and thus the objectives are less clear and require more dedication and broad understanding of how to best meet the objectives in front of you.

I'd agree that a lot of RPGs difficulty comes in party management but the party is still comprised of individuals.  The individual healer needs to know who to heal, when to heal, and how to manage their healing so they don't run out of mana, magic points, or whatever.  The DPS classes need to manage how they damage, what they damage with, and how to drop hate/agro from the target if things go badly.  Tank classes need to know how to best keep agro, how to manage their taken damage, etc.  All of which can change vastly depending on circumstances.

While it's true an average player can "grind" their way through WoW or City of Heroes and reach level caps eventually, character progression beyond that takes a great degree of understanding of the game and, by extension, difficulty.  The hook of these games isn't typically in something like difficulty, but in immersion and a sense of competitive or fraternal atmosphere.

In an MMO like Final Fantasy you can't grind you way through anything.  There is no easy mode at all.  It starts out requiring you to understand and execute very effectively in a party of other players.


In the original example, to reach the upper echelons of Super Metroid players, you need to know how to shortcut your way through the game by using bomb tricks and memorize level layout.  The same can be said for MMOs thus the same watermarks of difficulty should apply.

If all MMOs started easy and flatlined through the experience, people would zoom through most RPGs and be done with them in a matter of months or even weeks (Asheron's Call 2 is the best example, early City of Heroes is another).

I don't know what MMOs you've played Yap or how far you've gotten in them; I've played a good deal of them.  It's difficult to properly judge the difficulty of them unless you've played most to end game levels.  While it's all, more or less, grinding just for different objectives, the difficulty definitely ramps up as the game goes on.

I can personally attest to this having done nearly all end game in WoW (ZG, BWL, AQ20, MC).

Games that take the longest to get good at(like really really really really really good) are the most fun to play I believe. I think this includes most puzzle games such as Tetris Attack, Meteos, Puyo Puyo Pop, most FPS, Fighting Games, and the occasional action/adventure games such as say Devil May Cry(that game will take so much playing to S rank Dante must die mode it is not funny).

Though I am about to contradict myself by saying that Super Mario Brothers 3 is perhaps the most fun game to play ever and is not exactly hard.

It seems to me there's a big difference between MMO's and MMORPG's. I always thought of MMO's as games like Counterstrike or Americas Army or Socom where you play "rounds" of the game with other people. It's a big difference from plugging into a virtual world like WoW. I'd say most MMO's have a constantly shifting Skill Curve because you are playing other human beings and it all depends on experience.

You're right MDL, I should have said MMORPG to be clearer.

Technically though, Counterstrike, Battlefield and the like are not MMOs.  A Massively Multiplayer Online game is typically referring to a large number of simultaneous users inhabiting the game world (typically hundreds if not thousands).  

Huxley for PC would be an example of a true MMO First Person Shooter title.

Counterstrike and Battlefield may have thousands of users looking for a game, but since they inhabit individual games 8, 16, or 32 players at a time, they're effectively not "massive".

Currently, short of hybrid anomalies like Puzzle Pirates, the only true MMO games on the market are RPGs.  Thus MMO is typically interpreted as MMORPG in gaming lexicon.

I see. Makes sense, I still want a FPS that's got a massive world and is just a constant war you can plug in and out of as you please.

I suppose you're right about the learning curve, if you compare it to something like Metroid or SMB.  And maybe instead of learning curve I should have said something like any type of skill isn't really necessary for the majority of the MMORPGs (excepting things like Second Life, Puzzle Pirates, Planetside).  

The learning curve is actually pretty big in a game like WOW, there's huge database driven websites with lots of info for you to sift through, so there is a learning curve, just not necessarily a skill requirement.

To answer your question about which MMO's I've played I started in UO beta and have been playing them on and off since.  I've finished all the instances you mentioned except AQ*, I got bored and left right before it opened.

So I'll change my original stance which was wrong and say that MMORPGS do have a significantly nice learning curve if you want to call it that, but require next to no skill whatsoever.  

And that good learning curve which does expand with time is what makes paying the monthly fee worthwhile.

I couldn't handle the time commitment though, and now I just play DOTA, which to me is a better combination of skill and learning.  It's also much easier to stay competitive while spending less time on it.

http://planetside.station.sony.com/

http://www.wwiionline.com/scripts/wwiionline/index.jsp

I still don't know if I buy into that.  Obviously you've got a breath of experience in the MMORPG market so this may be subjective, but I've found that in games like FFXI, WoW, and CoH/CoV skill does play a factor, but not in the same way it might in Half-Life 2 or Super Mario Bros.

You are still in control of your character after all, and the buttons don't press themselves.  In FFXI, it comes into play in the timing of skill chains and knowing when to use abilities to gain/drop agro or heal.  While "twitch" skill isn't in play, it's still a skillful action because it requires precise timing in a sequence.  Maybe similar to Parappa or Amplitude?

WoW and CoH are more twitchy for some classes.  My main is a rogue in WoW and, at least for PvP, positioning and outthinking your opponent to gain tactical advantages on terrain and knowing which skills to land in order to take best advantage of your energy pool.  While it certainly doesn't play like a straight action game, comparisons to Secret of Mana or even Diablo aren't out of the question.

I'll just talk about WOW right now, since it's freshest in my mind:

If you're fighting someone of the same class 1 on 1 then barring a small amount of luck the person with more skill should probably win, but the game doesn't reward you in any way for that.

The game has no 'bonuses' for the skilled to succeed, so it's not designed for skill.  It's like if there were a level in Super Mario World where you had to jump on small platforms the entire level to get to the flag, or you could race through on the bottom to get to the same flag without making a single jump, do the small platforms above that take skill mean that level took a lot of skill?  No.

Fact is in World of Warcraft, every single reward can be earned with no skill and a decent amount of time commitment.  That's exactly the way the game was designed, it's very intentional.

This is probably cheating, and not cool to admit, but my guild cycled through several people to high warlord by sharing accounts.  While that may not be moral, I have first hand knowledge (playing several different classes to high warlord) that you do not need any type of skill or knowledge of that class to receive the rewards.

This is the same in FFXI, but add in spawn camping for a bit of luck.

My Super Mario analogy was a bit sloppy, but I think the point is solid.

I'll agree with you in that being or playing skillful doesn't give you any real advantage in the games primary goals (honor, loot), but it can still be a skillful process.

Just because you can pvp and not be skilled in using your class doesn't mean that the potential for skill isn't there.  That's more an issue with the game's objectives than it is of any level of skill in playing the game.

I guess the end result is that while MMO's can and do require skill, a curve may not apply as different facits of the game have different, or, no, level of skill required.

We do have to specify MMORPG. Planetside is a MMOFPS. They do exist.



That totally means there is no skill required to play the game. No advantage from being skilled? Then why be skilled?

If there's no advantage to being skilled then you can consistantly beat people who are more skilled than you. Therefore you are actually more skilled than them. Therefore skill means nothing. It negates itself.

MMORPGs really don't have much of a significant skill curve. In WoW, even in high end raids the difference is not the skill of the players, but the mix of classes and the quality of their gear.

The whole skill curve thing goes out the window when you start trying to account for the games various goals too. You really do set your own, and they can be just about anything. It's a virtual life. It's not a game.

It's not a put down. It doesn't mean the "games" are any less fun to "play".

I think I've sunk enough time into WoW to say these things with some authority - over 63 days logged on my level 60 PvP rank 12 warrior. I'm working on my level 48 alt now.

I'll disagree.  With a game like WOW the designers have made very specific goals, and have designed those goals in a way that do not require skill to achieve them.  

Sure you can make your own goals.  You can make a goal to see every different plant in the game, but that's the same with any game.  I can make up my own goal to break every block on every board in Mario.

WOW is not a virtual life.  It's very limited in what you can do.  You can't even drop items on the ground for other people to pick up, it's very very limited in the way of interacting with the virtual world.  It's one of the least interactive MMO's there is.

Second Life is a virtual life, you can do anything there.  You can make your own games, and it really is a lot more similar to what you're talking about.  Ultima Online was more of a virtual life than World of Warcraft.  In Ultima Online you could do all sorts of interactive things in the world that didn't involve combat.  You could get better at cutting down trees and building furniture.  (the trees disappear and need to be regrown, and you can lay the furniture down in the world)  You could make clothes, you could become a master smith and ironcrafter without ever killing anything.

Compared to WOW where the tradeskills are all secondary to combat.  WOW was designed with all sorts of goals in mind, and if you'd like to become a tailor without ever killing anything - that's not possible.  It's not a virtual life, it's a game in every sense of the word.  Just like Mario's a game in every sense of the world - even if you make your own goal of breaking every block on a level.

Interesting point. It makes a lot of sense.

We both seem to agree that none of it actually requires any real skill, only time commitment.

Yeah definitely.  

Although, it does require some skill - they're just not video game playing skills.  IE: Managing a group of 40 people well enough to take down the Twin Emperors in AQ40 certainly takes some type of managerial skills.  Even building and maintaining a decently sized guild, smoothing out disputes, etc certainly takes some good social skills.

But in the end when it comes to the actual playing, that guy decked out in the best gear may or may not have any WOW skills whatsoever, but certainly was able to spend a good amount of time to be able to get to that point.

All of the skill in the entire game seems to be required only for the highest echelons of guilds, and even then most of those skills are needed OUTSIDE the game.  (Whether on Voice communications, websites, etc)

Funny how that is.

I think skill curve breaks a game down into 3 stages:

1. Fundamentals and Rules.
2. Resource Management and Environmental Utilization.
3. Advanced techniques discovered which take advantage of stages 1 and 2 and that, with practice, enhance one's skills and reputation among comparable competition.

A game with a low skill curve, like tic-tac-toe, can serve as a good example to illustrate each stage:

1. Fundamentally, tic-tac-toe is about getting 3 consecutive x's or o's before your opponent.
2. Your resources are 9 boxes/areas with which to place your x's or o's, in altering order. The first to act will get 5 turns and the 2nd to act will get 4.
3. As far as advance techniques? Well, If you can psyche out your opponent or get them drunk or something, you can win a game of tic-tac-toe. Otherwise, the game will end in a tie given that there is really no strategy to win the game. Even if you lose once (say you're 3 years old or something), you will likely learn not to make the same mistake of not blocking your opponent's symbol when you have the chance.

Now take a game like chess:
1. Fundamentals and rules are how the pieces move, can capture, castling, etc.and that the object is to trap the opponent's king before he/she can do the same to you.
2. Your resources are the pieces themselves, and the environment is the 8x8 square board that will enable you to move into the various positions in order to check/checkmate.
3. Advanced tactics are knowing when to sacrafice a piece in order to gain positional advantage/momentum, opponent tendencies, studying various books and game strategies, etc.

These basic principles also apply to video games. Games like WoW, although complex in construction, are basically like tic-tac-toe in the fact that there really is no "winner", just players that are looking to see if they can break the opposition or the formulaic rules set to get an advantage, all other things being equal. There's a learning curve, but not much of a skill curve.

A racing game or a game like Halo 2 have a much higher skill curve because they require improving one's skills in the areas of accuracy, position, resource and environment utilization (ie.track or map familiarity, weapons & ammo), etc. And that to advance one's skills, additional tactics can be discovered to take advantage of the environment to gain a competitive advantage (via button combinations, jump locations, awareness of opposition intel, spawn points, etc.).

Puzzle games (i.e. Tetris) and classic arcade games (i.e. Asteroids, Defender, etc.), although they do not aspire to provide a competitive environment beyond you obtaining a higher score, are sort of an anomaly to the skill curve process. Yes, there are ways to improve, but eventually, if the game difficulty level is set to ramp up appropriately to a player's skill, there will be no way to "win" through any amount of strategy or tactical awareness. The flip side to this is that if the game's difficulty is set too low, the skill curve becomes broken because there is no way to advance in one's skill set beyond a certain point so you could conceivably play the game to infinity because the the challenge of skill advancement no longer applies.  

Well said, and this probably is why I suck at racing games and FPS games... I've got no skeelz!

But see, most MMOs are the same way.  Knowledge of drops/gear, spawn points, intelligence about your opponents (be they MOBs or PCs), 'sploits (for good or ill), resource management (mana, energy, rage, ammo), and familiarity with the map.  The only real difference is in HOW the game is played.

In an FPS you aim with the mouse, in a driving game you steer and manage speed, in an MMO you use whatever interface has been provided to you.

Most of these arguments equate twitch to skill.  And that's where I disagree.  Most MMOs are less twitchy due to the medium, but the same types of skills that apply to twitch games have parallels in the MMORPG realm.



Very few games reach a infinite skill curve and I doubt there are any in the video game realm.  Eventually all difficulty levels plateau just due to limitations in the code and the difficulty comes in sustaining an expert level of play (see marathon gaming sessions to achieve high score).  The most common method that video games employ to make a faux infinite curve is to make the game too fast or difficult to possibly progress.