Skill Curve: What does it mean?

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

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.

[yap]

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).

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.

[yap]

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.

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

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

[blissfulnoise]

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.

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.

[yap]

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.

[blissfulnoise]

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.

[Mike Leon]

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

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)

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.

[yap]

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.

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.

[Mike Leon]

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.

[yap]

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.

[phoenix1967]

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.  

[yap]

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

[blissfulnoise]

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.).

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.

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.

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.