Home

Specialization Vs versatility

Submitted by Abalieno on August 9, 2006 - 16:52.

This idea is something close to the old debate about SWG, where I was saying that one of the biggest delusions was that you were somewhat locked into a certain role, instead of taking advantage of all the game had to offer (combat, crafting, trading, social professions and so on).

That debate was also near the release of Jump to Lightspeed, where the characters gained a new pool of points and career so that they could play both the game on "the ground" and the other part in the space. Wouldn't have been a very bad idea if the players were forced to choose between the planets or the space? So why it is a good idea to force the players to specialize into just one role?

The ideal is that if your game has cool things to offer, then it makes sense to make all of them available to everyone. Like it's a bad idea to develop a game where the players can only access half of the whole content.

All this while I was thinking again that the best part of Dungeon Siege was the very beginning. Some of the best fun. Monsters pop out all around you and you grab your bow and start to take down some of them, but they are too many and they arrive close to you, so you switch to your sword and finish them off.

So what you would like to play?

- The character that specializes into just one type of attack and have to stick with it throughout the whole game.

- The character that has access at the same time to multiple possibilities, like ranged attacks when the enemies are away from you, melee for when they are close and magic spells to blow them up with spiffy Area of Effect attacks.

The "all around" character is DEFINITELY more fun to play. The game would offer more variation and different kinds of strategies would be possible instead of being forced to repeat the exact same cycle of moves. Having different tricks available is fun, being able to hit something in ten different ways less so.

Then, going back to the example of Dungeon Siege, you notice that the game doesn't really support the constant switch between melee, range and magic. In fact all three have about the same use of efficiency and their purpose overlaps. You can still use the bow even at melee range with the same effectivity, so what's the difference between the three? I'm not sure but from what I've seen the melee obviously works only in melee range but deals more damage and it's faster, ranged weapons are a bit slower and weaker and the magic is the slowest between the other two but it should never "miss". Sure, you could still use all three evenly, but you would have to do it just for "fun" (since there are no actual advantages doing so) and you'll even risk to gimp your character in the later game.

It's interesting to notice that in Dungon Siege the quick switch between the three modes isn't even supported. So that's the impression I got, what I found "fun" in that game was a way of play that the game didn't actually encourage. How could have been the game instead if the design was really aimed at giving each of those three "modes" three different roles that complete each other? For example being hit in melee could have delayed the use of the bow, which would have encouraged the player not to switch only because it's "cool", but also because it would lead to a better strategy, where using a ranged weapon even in melee wouldn't be convenient at all. And the same about the magic, instead of developing a "wizard" class, the idea would be about finding a special role for the spells to accompany and complete the melee and ranged attacks, instead of directly replace them.

Then compare those two models. The standard one, directly supported in both DS1 and sequel, that requires you to specialize, and the other one I "guessed" and hypothesized, where your character is required to switch between melee, ranged and magic, where all three fit specific situations and purposes and where you develop a versatile character that has access to multiple styles that you can (and you have) to mix all at once depending on the situation, the environment and the types of monsters you face. That's what I think would have been much more exciting and involving to play. A mix of situations and gameplay, a mix of different types of attacks to use to plan the best strategy and a "1 Vs Many" type of combat that thanks to the variation could be even more fun to play than Diablo 2.

The next step is to examine the other side of the problem, though. The group play. Dungeon Siege is a game based on a group. Being able to develop a character that can master just every area means that you don't need other characters in the team who can complete you. So this is a problem to solve, retaining the versatility of the single character, while allowing for character progress and specialization that can be also varied and deep.

WoW could be taken as an example here. The "talents" are a design idea that doesn't usually remove or add skills, but just directs certains types of patterns you use. In DAoC, as a contraposition, the specialization paths give you directly skills and spells to use. A fire wizard won't have access at all to ice spells. In WoW instead all the skills and spells are "open", while the talent system still allow you to define your character into a more specific role.

In the case of my dream mmorpg I've fiddled with all of these ideas without never finding a definitive solution that I felt satisfying. But the overall idea was about giving each character a lot of variation, while specializing in a "fighting style", more than a role or class as we currently consider them (give a look to this). In the case of Dungeon Siege this would be about specializing with a certain type of melee weapon, developing particular attacks, and the same about the magic, only having access to certain types of spells. But still having access to melee, ranged and magic all at once. So you retain the access to different "roles", while you specialize into the way these roles behave.

A small detail? Not really, because it would completely overturn the group gameplay in a mmorpg. So that's something to consider and figure out if the idea could open to interesting new way to conceive the "combat", or if it would just cripple that part of the game.

» login to post comments

Re: Specialization Vs variation

Lachek on August 9, 2006 - 18:29.

The problem with allowing choice is game balance - as witnessed in the constant nerfs and restats in WoW as Blizzard realizes that if we give class X the ability to perform move Y and wields sword Z, they have a 2% advantage over class A with talent set B in area C.

Of course, the issue is not game balance, but that players assume that the game has to be balanced and screams bloody murder if it's not. I don't see a divine hand coming down from the sky on a regular basis to raid Isreal's arsenal, but the absence of that divine hand doesn't prevent some people from taking the side of Hezbollah or Palestine.

There are game balance issues in Eve Online - frigate X available to race A is slightly better than the equally costly frigate Y available to race B. Game balance becomes less of an issue in Eve than in other games I've played, because:

1) All races can learn - albeit at slightly higher cost / slightly longer time - to pilot other races' ships. Thus, if a particular ship has a slight advantage in a certain situation, I can choose to put in the effort of learning to pilot that ship whether I was born into that race or not. If I care enough to scream bloody murder to the devs, I care enough to learn the skill. If I don't care that much, then I just accept that the Caldari can smoke a Minmatar in a particular situation, and learn to avoid those situations.

2) With a (truly) player-driven economy, a better piece of kit will have higher demand and will therefore yield a higher price on the market. Thus, the market provides an auto-balancing mechanism to the game.

Me, I prefer a skill-driven system over class-driven all the time, whether it be on the computer or Pen-and-Paper variety roleplaying. Having said that, I was not a fan of Dungeon Siege because of the apparent lack of specialization (or was it perhaps lack of rewarding specialization). In a system where I can choose any path I want, I want the ability to choose a single path and stick to it, and I also want considerable rewards for my dedication. By contrast, I got the impression that DS penalized me severely for incompetence in a given area.

» login to post comments

Re: Specialization Vs variation

furrot (not verified) on August 9, 2006 - 19:07.

I've been doing a lot of thinking on this problem lately. I had thought up something that I discovered was pretty close to EVEs training but I don't like the idea of "learning" skills or such literal timesinks. I think saying that "The "all around" character is DEFINITELY more fun to play." is more a matter of opinion. I agree that the player should never be forced to abadon future advancement for a temporary increase in ability. However I think there is a lot of "fun" to be had in being the greatest swordsman ever or the most powerful pyromancer possible. The only reason you would have to be a total jack of trades to keep entertained would be if the different paths such as archery or swordmenship were relativly dull to begin with.

As an example I would point to the action game genre. You start off with a short slashing combo but as you level or purchase skills abilities move such as uppercuts and jabs increase the depth of the combat. The same style of upgrade applies to other aspects of combat such as pistols or aerobatics in the Devil May Cry series. The key is combining these different skillsets into a seamless combat experience.

» login to post comments

Re: Specialization Vs variation

Michael Chui (not verified) on August 9, 2006 - 21:34.

False dichotomy.

Generalization is the opposite of Specialization.
Generalization != Variation.
Variation is a part of generalization, but it is also a part of specialization.

The problem is a lack of variation, not an over-emphasis on specialization. (Granted, the problem is also a lack of reward for generalization.)

» login to post comments

Re: Specialization Vs variation

Innsmouth on August 10, 2006 - 10:33.

In fact that post is unfinished and I couldn't find the right word.

I still cannot, though. Maybe "versatility".

» login to post comments

Re: Specialization Vs variation

Lorekeep on August 9, 2006 - 22:54.

What can I say, I'm a big fan of the Jack of All Trades policy. I played Dungeon Siege like that, raising each skill equally. But due to the fact that you don't raise statistics as easily, I was severely gimped whenever I tried to do any one thing. Versatility wasn't very useful when your defenses weren't very good when you were getting hit, your magic wasn't powerful enough to save your ass, and your attacks weren't strong enough to damage enhanced bad guys.

In WoW, I picked a Rogue to play for "access". A Rogue can access more areas and is sort of a jack of all trades in certain areas. I can bandage myself in a pinch, get out of combat, go areas other players can't, and turn the tide of a battle with surprise attacks. So, I liked that a lot about the class. If I was another class, I'd encounter more resistance anywhere I went.

Specialization becomes an issue when you can have multiple characters or allies. They want you to create a role-type that compliments other role-types. This was pretty apparent in Dungeon Siege. The only game I've seen in recent memory where I don't have a problem with mixing role-types is Chromehounds, Sega's XBox360 Online Squad Mech game. I can be effective as a Scout / Soldier (speedy and offensive, must avoid getting hit though), or a balls to the wall defender (I'm screwed against fast opponents but if I hit you you're toast). There are some cheap tactics, but everything has a counter, and strategy plays a big part in victory if used properly.

Still, I'm all for creating a powerful character who can do anything. :)

» login to post comments

Re: Specialization Vs versatility

furrot (not verified) on August 10, 2006 - 16:58.

So everyone seems to agree that what's important is not Specialization or Variation, but Integration and Adaptation. If the player has no way of adapting to face new challenges then any amount of skill customization will just come of as a burden that needs to be worried about. Likewise if the player can pigeon hole themselves into a role that makes them totally incompatible with other players styles then you've obviously made a mistake back during the design phase.

Theres also the issue of Jack-of-all-trades vs Generic flavour of the month builds. Are you going to specialize because it's fun or because it's the only way to survive. Are you branching out and mixing things because it's your choice, or because it's the only way to do enough damage or to get those mandatory skills. (Warlock Instant Corruption comes to mind)

Learning is a circular process where we constantly revisit past knowledge in order to gain a greater understanding and maybe that's what's missing in most skillsets. The base of the tree must grow with the branches if it is to support the fruits of our labour.

» login to post comments

Re: Specialization Vs versatility

Innsmouth on August 10, 2006 - 19:00.

If the player has no way of adapting to face new challenges then any amount of skill customization will just come of as a burden that needs to be worried about.

Nope, that's not the correct perspective to look at the problem, imho.

This is a choice that comes BEFORE the gameplay. If a game is intended to be played by a character who has only access to one type of attack, then the difficulty of that game will be tailored after that limitation. So you'll always have the right tools to face the challenge, because in game design you plan the challenge around the skills you give to the player.

The "specialization" fits two purposes. The first is that it ties to a personalization, and players love to make and feel their character different from everyone else. The other purpose is to fit different tactics. A specialization opens up different paths that other players can try. So you bring some depth in the game where a party you join isn't just the exact copy of the previous one.

» login to post comments

Re: Specialization Vs versatility

Jpoku on August 11, 2006 - 10:15.

Dungeon Siege was a strange one, it presented you with 3 options as though they were open to use freely, your character building up out of what you do. When in fact the stat system and the ability to progress required you bulk up one stat, only achievable by working on one attack option. My lvl20 magic, lvl20 melee, lvl20 ranged character became useless because no stat was high enough to wear lvl40 armour.

I think the problem was the seperation of the options. Each one was treated distinctly, rather than as a concatenation of skills. I wouldn't expect that I could have it all otherwise everyone would be. But I would expect that the abilities I had worked alongside the skills I had worked on rather than against them.

Here's two quick and dirty options for bringing that desire to mix back a bit

1) Create items that require a base amount in several skills. So armour of the melee mage or something. Create spells similiarly. For example I come accross a spell that requires a lvl 40 char with a skill of 20 in all four schools. That spell matches in power of somebody with lvl 35 in just one skill. So maybe it's a triple strike: the spell hits, freezing the target and making it vulnerable to arrows. The arrows hit, damaging it's armour. It unfreezes and approaches, I switch to melee and now i have a very weak, poorly healthed monster to finish with my sword. Compare this with someone who has lvl 35 fireball that kills them in one hit + burn damage. Same power different play style.

2) Each skill unlocks specific spells or elements that can then be combined. For example reaching lvl 20 in fire enables 'fire aura', reaching lvl20 in melee enables steel coating. The lvl 40 melee only has enabled mithril coating. I combine fire aura+steel coating and get a similiar damage weapon from just a mithril coating.

The downsides to both are an increase in complexity. Sure, with 1) you still just have to match with but, you have to do 3x as much as the player who just firebolts the enemy. With 2) The mix and match stuff is just a pain. Especially at high levels where you need to mix multiple auras with multiple sword stats.

And we all know complexity puts people off. The learning curve must be so easy you hardly notice you're doing something new.

» login to post comments

Re: Specialization Vs versatility

apocrypha on August 11, 2006 - 12:47.

Regarding the reduction in need for a group with versatile characters, surely grouping should be something that has positive benefits if chosen, but not be a forced mode of play? In which case how about allowing characters to synergise when grouped?

For instance, a solo character might have a melee attack that stunned an opponent for a short time by trying to trip it up but if 2 characters were grouped and one of them performed the "trip" attack at the same time as another one performed a "pin down" attack then the opponent would be immobilised for a short time by being knocked down and then held down. The actual effect of the combined attacks wouldn't need to be much greater than if the 2 solo characters had each performed consecutive "trip" attacks but you could get a special animation and maybe some other combat bonus too. The soloer wouldn't be penalised but the cooperative approach would be benefitted and have an added fun factor.

Another example, you could have a "covering fire" mechanism where one character could lay down an area affect of fireballs that did very little damage but that had the effect of making a group of monsters take cover thus allowing another character to get in close and deal damage to a one or more mobs without getting beaten on by all the rest. Just crowd control but with an added group component.

It wouldn't matter *which* character did the crowd control and which dealt the damage! Why should one character type or class be forced into specialising into crowd control while another can only deal damage? Couldn't the differentiation and customisation of characters be based more upon *how* they acheived these aims rather than hard limits on what they can do?

» login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.