You keep mentioning this very game-theory-specific definition of skill. Rym mentioned something vague on the podcast regarding tactical decision-making, but I have not been able to find any external definition of skill in the context of game theory. Source, please, so that everyone involved is speaking the same language?
This feels like the CLinton scandal with the way we are trying to 'define' words. It is interesting to me how the differences of opinions of the definition is in relation to the type of gamer you are. I ponder how do you define console gamer skill(s)? What would diferentiate this from a PC gamer skill(s)?
This feels like the CLinton scandal with the way we are trying to 'define' words. It is interesting to me how the differences of opinions of the definition is in relation to the type of gamer you are. I ponder how do you define console gamer skill(s)? What would diferentiate this from a PC gamer skill(s)?
Your categories are way too broad. There are fps skills, rts skills, platform skills, shooter skills, etc. Breaking it down on console vs. PC is too broad. Heck, even fps is too broad. Skills in Tribes are way different than skills in Quake, and both are fpses.
Alright, it's time for me to put my thoughts into this thread.
I don't think anyone will disagree with me that it is at least possible to sit down in front of CounterStrike: Source for the first time and completely demolish your opponents. However, in WoW you couldn't sit down for the first time and completely own, because you are a level 1 player.
One could argue with phoenix116's comment:
There is really no way around the time investment unless you buy gold, powerlevelling, etc. from one of the on-line services available.
Now I don't agree with the principle that the longer you play the better your character is, but shouldn't the rules be the same for everybody? For me, an MMO is ruined when you can use real life money to purchase in-game items.
*snip.* Now I don't agree with the principle that the longer you play the better your character is, but shouldn't the rules be the same for everybody? For me, an MMO is ruined when you can use real life money to purchase in-game items.
This is why the majority of MMOs, including WoW, do not allow for gold buying or powerleveling services. Accounts get banned for doing so. While they haven't perfected the system to prevent it, they are doing a good job. Considering there are millions of active accounts, it's hard to monitor every single one for actions the are againt the TOS. (terms of service).
And I think I can agree with Rubin about skill vs knowledge in MMOs. The reason being, that when fighting monsters or NPCs, they are predictable. You just have to learn the method to beat them. While the learning of a strategy can be consdiered a skill, implementing the strategy does not really take all that much skill.
However, it's when you get into PVP that you actually use skill in MMOs. The unpredictability of your opponent means you have to be able to know what spells/abilities are best for teh situation, and changing tactics accordingly. You can't use the same line of spells against every person you go against. Even broken down by class/job, facing two people with the exact same character can be completely different fights.
Now, if they made an MMO where you had to take your mouse and move it around to move your sword, that'd be skill based. Games that require manual input for the simple tasks are inherently the most skill bound. Time Crisis is an FPS that moves you on a rail, so you only have to worry about shooting and ducking for cover. But Counter-Strike you have to handle firing, taking cover, and moving around on your own, making CS a game of more skill than Time Crisis.
Now, if they made an MMO where you had to take your mouse and move it around to move your sword, that'd be skill based. Games that require manual input for the simple tasks are inherently the most skill bound. Time Crisis is an FPS that moves you on a rail, so you only have to worry about shooting and ducking for cover. But Counter-Strike you have to handle firing, taking cover, and moving around on your own, making CS a game of more skill than Time Crisis.
I agree that there is some element of skill to pvp. I played on a pvp server for a year or so. I first played a hunter into the mid 30s and eventually quit because I couldn't defend myself while questing. I thought hunters were just a poor pvp class. I later switched to a warrior and was much happier with my pvp results. I dominated hunters, felt sorry for them, and life was good. Then one day I got totally schooled by a hunter. I couldn't engage him in melee to save my life -- he had me slowed, stunned, frozen, etc. while his pet beat me down.
However, its not all skill, because the person who has invested the time to get the ridiculous epic equipment is going to have so much greater advantage over the person who hasn't. Same thing with the "twinks" running around the battlefields with their 2000gp set of level 19 armor and enchants.
Is WoW availble for payable download? So far, I've only seen it in stores for around 40 bucks.
I'm just going to try it out for the hell of it, see if it's as addictive and horrible as it's hyped up to be, and I only mean that on this forum. Everywhere else, it's a hit. There's even an entire podcast dedicated to the game, maybe more than one.
When it's all said and done, it's still a game and people enjoy playing it. Some people like throwing their lives away to warcraft and some people enjoy casual gaming. It's their god given right to do whatever the hell they want with their time. If people want to kill WoW, stop talking about it. I mean, it's great to converse about how bad it is, but hell. The more attention we give it, the more people will start getting interested in the subject and start playing it. When the people playing it realize how out of the loop they are, they'll stop, hopefully. Maybe it won't even matter to them anymore. They most likely have their entire lives wrapped up in game. I've even heard of co workers getting together on a server to chat. It (WoW) will probably consist of most of their conversations the next day. How sad and tragic that is.
I know there's a trial version of the game, that's where I started. It has all the functionality of the full game, but only allows you to reach level 20 with your characters. And level 20 is where the fun began to evaporate for me. With the full version, I got to around level 25 and gave up from boredom. Your mileage may vary.
Anyway, don't let the haters sway your decision: if it's fun, play the hell out of it. If it sucks, well, that's what trial versions are for.
WoW I think was fun from every 0-5 ending levels (1-5; 10-15, 20-25, etc.) Mostly because new stuff seems to open at the 0 levels but by the time your in the middle of the ten you just want to get to the next ten, but its so far off it gets annoying.
That rings true, but it was at level 25 that things slowed down dramatically, and I knew that it was going to be the same grind for the rest of the game. Understanding the concept of escalating commitment, I knew it was time to cut my losses and quit, which I believe was the right choice for me.
I usually quit playing in the 20's too, but my last character I worked up to over 40 because I wanted a mount. And then doing stuff in Stranglethorn Vale was pretty cool, and Uldaman too.
Still don't get why you'd buy something that costs you $50 to buy and $40 to run for 2 months. When I can pay the same amount and run the game forever. It would be like buying a $90 game and then throwing it in the bin 2 months later.
I wish that someone would come out with a mmo where they give it to you for free and then charge you maybe like $5 a month, or more games like Guild Wars where you pay for the game and there is no monthly fee; but as long as WoW is popular that won't happen.
I don't really think a $5 a month pricing model would work. The MMO companies apparently need either a large recurring fee (around $20 per month) like WoW, or a one-off ($40-$50) payment and regular expansion packs, like Guild Wars. I wonder if a distributed, P2P-style MMO would be able to keep the price down to around $5 per month...
On an note unrelated to game costs, and tying back somewhat to the whole skill/knowledge debate, what about PvP? WoW, Guild Wars and other games have substantial PvP components that are entirely unlike the rest of the game/grind. Does the whole "WoW has no skill" argument extend to this?
When it comes to WOW and PvP, it seems to me that it all comes down to a simple "rock, paper, scissors" approach. Certain classes are better against others, it has no dependancy on skill. I'm sure Rym or Scott could back me up on this, cause they are far more knowledgeable on game theory. I think it would be a great idea if they did a tuesday show on game theory.
When it comes to WOW and PvP, it seems to me that it all comes down to a simple "rock, paper, scissors" approach. Certain classes are better against others, it has no dependancy on skill. I'm sure Rym or Scott could back me up on this, cause they are far more knowledgeable on game theory. I think it would be a great idea if they did a tuesday show on game theory.
Until about a month ago I was webmaster and head mod for the Kenzer and Company website.
We had a very interesting forum community in that posters were rewarded with a changing title system based on post count. One problem we had was spam posting by the membership just to have their post count increase and get their next title.
About two months ago we changed some of the areas of the forums to no longer increase post count when posted in. within a day or two we saw certain posters askiing if there was a problem with the board software as suddenly their post count stopped increasing. (Only the 'fluf' areas were turned off. Product areas continued to provide post count increases.)
A few days later all users had their post counts re-evaluated to the posts currently in the database and by the new "this forum does not count" rules... We saw some users go from a post count over 20,000 to a new count of under 1,000! We also saw many members retain high post counts because they always posted in product areas...
This set off a huge firestorm of, "We don't COUNT anymore, let's leave" rants and a few people did leave, but not many. This was countered by people pointing out that no sections of the forums were removed, just the post count was affected and who cares about post counts?
The underlying reality is that a small group of members had been using the boards as a sort of meta-game and saw the title changes and post counts as levels and experience points... when they saw them vanish they equated it to a level draining attack.
In the end the meta-gamers figured out it was not worth bitching over and just named it "the time of great troubles" and added it into their meta-game and moved on...
Comments
I don't think anyone will disagree with me that it is at least possible to sit down in front of CounterStrike: Source for the first time and completely demolish your opponents. However, in WoW you couldn't sit down for the first time and completely own, because you are a level 1 player.
One could argue with phoenix116's comment: Now I don't agree with the principle that the longer you play the better your character is, but shouldn't the rules be the same for everybody? For me, an MMO is ruined when you can use real life money to purchase in-game items.
And I think I can agree with Rubin about skill vs knowledge in MMOs. The reason being, that when fighting monsters or NPCs, they are predictable. You just have to learn the method to beat them. While the learning of a strategy can be consdiered a skill, implementing the strategy does not really take all that much skill.
However, it's when you get into PVP that you actually use skill in MMOs. The unpredictability of your opponent means you have to be able to know what spells/abilities are best for teh situation, and changing tactics accordingly. You can't use the same line of spells against every person you go against. Even broken down by class/job, facing two people with the exact same character can be completely different fights.
Now, if they made an MMO where you had to take your mouse and move it around to move your sword, that'd be skill based. Games that require manual input for the simple tasks are inherently the most skill bound. Time Crisis is an FPS that moves you on a rail, so you only have to worry about shooting and ducking for cover. But Counter-Strike you have to handle firing, taking cover, and moving around on your own, making CS a game of more skill than Time Crisis.
However, its not all skill, because the person who has invested the time to get the ridiculous epic equipment is going to have so much greater advantage over the person who hasn't. Same thing with the "twinks" running around the battlefields with their 2000gp set of level 19 armor and enchants.
I'm just going to try it out for the hell of it, see if it's as addictive and horrible as it's hyped up to be, and I only mean that on this forum. Everywhere else, it's a hit. There's even an entire podcast dedicated to the game, maybe more than one.
When it's all said and done, it's still a game and people enjoy playing it. Some people like throwing their lives away to warcraft and some people enjoy casual gaming. It's their god given right to do whatever the hell they want with their time. If people want to kill WoW, stop talking about it. I mean, it's great to converse about how bad it is, but hell. The more attention we give it, the more people will start getting interested in the subject and start playing it. When the people playing it realize how out of the loop they are, they'll stop, hopefully. Maybe it won't even matter to them anymore. They most likely have their entire lives wrapped up in game. I've even heard of co workers getting together on a server to chat. It (WoW) will probably consist of most of their conversations the next day. How sad and tragic that is.
Anyway, don't let the haters sway your decision: if it's fun, play the hell out of it. If it sucks, well, that's what trial versions are for.
Until about a month ago I was webmaster and head mod for the Kenzer and Company website.
We had a very interesting forum community in that posters were rewarded with a changing title system based on post count. One problem we had was spam posting by the membership just to have their post count increase and get their next title.
About two months ago we changed some of the areas of the forums to no longer increase post count when posted in. within a day or two we saw certain posters askiing if there was a problem with the board software as suddenly their post count stopped increasing. (Only the 'fluf' areas were turned off. Product areas continued to provide post count increases.)
A few days later all users had their post counts re-evaluated to the posts currently in the database and by the new "this forum does not count" rules... We saw some users go from a post count over 20,000 to a new count of under 1,000! We also saw many members retain high post counts because they always posted in product areas...
This set off a huge firestorm of, "We don't COUNT anymore, let's leave" rants and a few people did leave, but not many. This was countered by people pointing out that no sections of the forums were removed, just the post count was affected and who cares about post counts?
The underlying reality is that a small group of members had been using the boards as a sort of meta-game and saw the title changes and post counts as levels and experience points... when they saw them vanish they equated it to a level draining attack.
In the end the meta-gamers figured out it was not worth bitching over and just named it "the time of great troubles" and added it into their meta-game and moved on...