<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_07_163236</id>
	<title>The Dilemma of Level vs. Skill In MMOs</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246986600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Karen Hertzberg writes <i>"Since MMORPGs became a mainstream medium, players have <a href="http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/70728">debated the two primary methods of advancement</a>. Which is better? Is it the level-based system that is so dominant in today's MMORPGs, or the lesser-used skill-based system? This has been a strong subject of debate on many forums, blogs, and gaming sites for as long as the genre has existed. Ten Ton Hammer's Cody 'Micajah' Bye investigates the two concepts and gathers input from some of the brightest minds in the gaming industry about their thoughts on the two systems of advancement."</i>
Relatedly, I've seen a growing trend of players saying that such games don't really take much skill at all. The standard argument is that it just boils down to "knowing how to move" or "knowing when to hit your buttons." In the MMO community, people often make references to FPS or RTS games, saying they have a higher skill cap. However, the same complaints also come from within <em>those</em> communities, with comments like "you just need to know the map," or "it's all about a good build order." At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Karen Hertzberg writes " Since MMORPGs became a mainstream medium , players have debated the two primary methods of advancement .
Which is better ?
Is it the level-based system that is so dominant in today 's MMORPGs , or the lesser-used skill-based system ?
This has been a strong subject of debate on many forums , blogs , and gaming sites for as long as the genre has existed .
Ten Ton Hammer 's Cody 'Micajah ' Bye investigates the two concepts and gathers input from some of the brightest minds in the gaming industry about their thoughts on the two systems of advancement .
" Relatedly , I 've seen a growing trend of players saying that such games do n't really take much skill at all .
The standard argument is that it just boils down to " knowing how to move " or " knowing when to hit your buttons .
" In the MMO community , people often make references to FPS or RTS games , saying they have a higher skill cap .
However , the same complaints also come from within those communities , with comments like " you just need to know the map , " or " it 's all about a good build order .
" At what point does intimate knowledge of a game 's mechanics make a player skilled ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Karen Hertzberg writes "Since MMORPGs became a mainstream medium, players have debated the two primary methods of advancement.
Which is better?
Is it the level-based system that is so dominant in today's MMORPGs, or the lesser-used skill-based system?
This has been a strong subject of debate on many forums, blogs, and gaming sites for as long as the genre has existed.
Ten Ton Hammer's Cody 'Micajah' Bye investigates the two concepts and gathers input from some of the brightest minds in the gaming industry about their thoughts on the two systems of advancement.
"
Relatedly, I've seen a growing trend of players saying that such games don't really take much skill at all.
The standard argument is that it just boils down to "knowing how to move" or "knowing when to hit your buttons.
" In the MMO community, people often make references to FPS or RTS games, saying they have a higher skill cap.
However, the same complaints also come from within those communities, with comments like "you just need to know the map," or "it's all about a good build order.
" At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610619</id>
	<title>Faced the same issue on the tabletop</title>
	<author>Cogneato</author>
	<datestamp>1246991280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years ago, at the release of D&amp;D 3.0, my friends and I got fed up with the class/level approach in the tabletop games to the point where we decided to develop our own system. To us, it just didn't seem to make sense that you picked a class and then that class defined all that you could do. In real life, it would seem that your individual skills would come together to form your class (job), not the other way around. So, we took that model and developed a system from it. Our original goal was just to have a system that we could play ourselves that treated us like intelligent adults. Now, eight years and hundreds, or perhaps thousands of hours, later, the system has become pretty solid. We took a big cue from the old Fallout games, which did a good job of having the skill drive the character. The book-in-progress can be downloaded at pinwheels.org. We'd love to get some feedback on it.</p><p>We've found that skills driven system are significantly more pleasing to play because they give the player flexibility to be an individual and not solely defined on what items they are carrying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years ago , at the release of D&amp;D 3.0 , my friends and I got fed up with the class/level approach in the tabletop games to the point where we decided to develop our own system .
To us , it just did n't seem to make sense that you picked a class and then that class defined all that you could do .
In real life , it would seem that your individual skills would come together to form your class ( job ) , not the other way around .
So , we took that model and developed a system from it .
Our original goal was just to have a system that we could play ourselves that treated us like intelligent adults .
Now , eight years and hundreds , or perhaps thousands of hours , later , the system has become pretty solid .
We took a big cue from the old Fallout games , which did a good job of having the skill drive the character .
The book-in-progress can be downloaded at pinwheels.org .
We 'd love to get some feedback on it.We 've found that skills driven system are significantly more pleasing to play because they give the player flexibility to be an individual and not solely defined on what items they are carrying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years ago, at the release of D&amp;D 3.0, my friends and I got fed up with the class/level approach in the tabletop games to the point where we decided to develop our own system.
To us, it just didn't seem to make sense that you picked a class and then that class defined all that you could do.
In real life, it would seem that your individual skills would come together to form your class (job), not the other way around.
So, we took that model and developed a system from it.
Our original goal was just to have a system that we could play ourselves that treated us like intelligent adults.
Now, eight years and hundreds, or perhaps thousands of hours, later, the system has become pretty solid.
We took a big cue from the old Fallout games, which did a good job of having the skill drive the character.
The book-in-progress can be downloaded at pinwheels.org.
We'd love to get some feedback on it.We've found that skills driven system are significantly more pleasing to play because they give the player flexibility to be an individual and not solely defined on what items they are carrying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611739</id>
	<title>Jade Empire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Jade Empire system ruled and should be used more often, but please do it in a nonsucky way.  Thanks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Jade Empire system ruled and should be used more often , but please do it in a nonsucky way .
Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Jade Empire system ruled and should be used more often, but please do it in a nonsucky way.
Thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619643</id>
	<title>WoW PvP...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My 5 cents on WoW skill+PVP. I've played that game for 4 years mainly PvP (1.5 years with a mage and 2.5 years with a rogue).<br>
Skill in WoW PvP doesn't exist. Why? Because you depend on this:<ul>
<li> a) counter class/balance</li>
<li> b) RNG (Random NUmbers Generator)</li>
<li> c) gear</li>
<li> d) luck (miss/dodge/parry/resist an important special attack or for example an ability - Vanish - doesn't work when intended)</li>
<li> e) lag</li>
</ul><p>
Even in case to duel against the same class <i>b,c,d,e</i> are still valid.<br>
Countless times I've been able to pwn opponents with lesser gear, or I've been pwned by people with better gear or luck.<br>
In vanilla WoW, where the infamous CC trinket wasn;t the same for all classes the usage of some abilities required skill/originality. But since the <i>new</i> PvP trinket all came down to <i>a,b,c,d,e</i>.<br>
If you compare this to a proper PvP game like <i>Street Fighter 4</i> or <i>Warsow</i> only <i>e</i> is valid.<br>
Even in Arena factor <i>a,b,c</i> (and even <i>d</i>) matter a lot most of all given the fact that the combo of classes can be a win-win situation.<br>
Add to all this racial abilities, or some other factor, like some items that allowed you to jump from one side to the other of the arena map, forcing the opponent to follow you while you have DoTted him...<br>
What ruined the PvP part of WoW has been pretending to fix these points, while given the nature of the game <b>can't</b> be fixed.<br>
Blizzard should have focused on PvP or PvE.<br>
Nothing more nothing less.<br>
I bet when a good PvP game comes out for PC (StarCraft II rings any bell?) they will lose all the PVP playerbase.<br>
They tried to make WoW a e-sport but they miserably failed.<br>
<br>
My 5 cents,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My 5 cents on WoW skill + PVP .
I 've played that game for 4 years mainly PvP ( 1.5 years with a mage and 2.5 years with a rogue ) .
Skill in WoW PvP does n't exist .
Why ? Because you depend on this : a ) counter class/balance b ) RNG ( Random NUmbers Generator ) c ) gear d ) luck ( miss/dodge/parry/resist an important special attack or for example an ability - Vanish - does n't work when intended ) e ) lag Even in case to duel against the same class b,c,d,e are still valid .
Countless times I 've been able to pwn opponents with lesser gear , or I 've been pwned by people with better gear or luck .
In vanilla WoW , where the infamous CC trinket wasn ; t the same for all classes the usage of some abilities required skill/originality .
But since the new PvP trinket all came down to a,b,c,d,e .
If you compare this to a proper PvP game like Street Fighter 4 or Warsow only e is valid .
Even in Arena factor a,b,c ( and even d ) matter a lot most of all given the fact that the combo of classes can be a win-win situation .
Add to all this racial abilities , or some other factor , like some items that allowed you to jump from one side to the other of the arena map , forcing the opponent to follow you while you have DoTted him.. . What ruined the PvP part of WoW has been pretending to fix these points , while given the nature of the game ca n't be fixed .
Blizzard should have focused on PvP or PvE .
Nothing more nothing less .
I bet when a good PvP game comes out for PC ( StarCraft II rings any bell ?
) they will lose all the PVP playerbase .
They tried to make WoW a e-sport but they miserably failed .
My 5 cents,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 5 cents on WoW skill+PVP.
I've played that game for 4 years mainly PvP (1.5 years with a mage and 2.5 years with a rogue).
Skill in WoW PvP doesn't exist.
Why? Because you depend on this:
 a) counter class/balance
 b) RNG (Random NUmbers Generator)
 c) gear
 d) luck (miss/dodge/parry/resist an important special attack or for example an ability - Vanish - doesn't work when intended)
 e) lag

Even in case to duel against the same class b,c,d,e are still valid.
Countless times I've been able to pwn opponents with lesser gear, or I've been pwned by people with better gear or luck.
In vanilla WoW, where the infamous CC trinket wasn;t the same for all classes the usage of some abilities required skill/originality.
But since the new PvP trinket all came down to a,b,c,d,e.
If you compare this to a proper PvP game like Street Fighter 4 or Warsow only e is valid.
Even in Arena factor a,b,c (and even d) matter a lot most of all given the fact that the combo of classes can be a win-win situation.
Add to all this racial abilities, or some other factor, like some items that allowed you to jump from one side to the other of the arena map, forcing the opponent to follow you while you have DoTted him...
What ruined the PvP part of WoW has been pretending to fix these points, while given the nature of the game can't be fixed.
Blizzard should have focused on PvP or PvE.
Nothing more nothing less.
I bet when a good PvP game comes out for PC (StarCraft II rings any bell?
) they will lose all the PVP playerbase.
They tried to make WoW a e-sport but they miserably failed.
My 5 cents,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610359</id>
	<title>What about the third option?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246990380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3. It's all about how much money you fork over for premium content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
It 's all about how much money you fork over for premium content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
It's all about how much money you fork over for premium content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613079</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246957620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh. That's what my employment counselor said, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh .
That 's what my employment counselor said , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh.
That's what my employment counselor said, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28628967</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1247050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like your son and you play games for different reasons.<br>
<br>
I had a friend who played through games using "God mode" cheat all the time.  Basically, he never took any damage.  So what the heck as he playing for?  The story.  He wanted to see the sort of interactive story, and he didn't want to have to spend a lot of time developing skills.<br>
<br>
Now, maybe it's a bad thing that your son doesn't see the value of puzzling things out for himself.  But maybe it's not.  If he likes following complex sets of instructions to the tee and doesn't get bored, there are plenty of good jobs for him in the future; jobs that you'd be tearing your hair out in.  That's why it's good we're not all the same.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>
<br>
You could always try saying that the thing you really liked about games was puzzling things out for yourself; and ask him what it is he enjoys about the game.  Then maybe can watch him play again.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like your son and you play games for different reasons .
I had a friend who played through games using " God mode " cheat all the time .
Basically , he never took any damage .
So what the heck as he playing for ?
The story .
He wanted to see the sort of interactive story , and he did n't want to have to spend a lot of time developing skills .
Now , maybe it 's a bad thing that your son does n't see the value of puzzling things out for himself .
But maybe it 's not .
If he likes following complex sets of instructions to the tee and does n't get bored , there are plenty of good jobs for him in the future ; jobs that you 'd be tearing your hair out in .
That 's why it 's good we 're not all the same .
: - ) You could always try saying that the thing you really liked about games was puzzling things out for yourself ; and ask him what it is he enjoys about the game .
Then maybe can watch him play again .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like your son and you play games for different reasons.
I had a friend who played through games using "God mode" cheat all the time.
Basically, he never took any damage.
So what the heck as he playing for?
The story.
He wanted to see the sort of interactive story, and he didn't want to have to spend a lot of time developing skills.
Now, maybe it's a bad thing that your son doesn't see the value of puzzling things out for himself.
But maybe it's not.
If he likes following complex sets of instructions to the tee and doesn't get bored, there are plenty of good jobs for him in the future; jobs that you'd be tearing your hair out in.
That's why it's good we're not all the same.
:-)

You could always try saying that the thing you really liked about games was puzzling things out for yourself; and ask him what it is he enjoys about the game.
Then maybe can watch him play again.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28624447</id>
	<title>Re:some advantages of class-based system</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1247075820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disadvantages are really just lack of advantages.  Most skill based systems don't allow you to build up every skill at once.  So for example if you're a mage but you want to pick up a sword, you can build your swordmanship skill, but at the opportunity cost of some ancillary mage skill that increases your magic damage - and you still will not have the ancillary sword skills that would make swordsmanship a powerhouse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disadvantages are really just lack of advantages .
Most skill based systems do n't allow you to build up every skill at once .
So for example if you 're a mage but you want to pick up a sword , you can build your swordmanship skill , but at the opportunity cost of some ancillary mage skill that increases your magic damage - and you still will not have the ancillary sword skills that would make swordsmanship a powerhouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disadvantages are really just lack of advantages.
Most skill based systems don't allow you to build up every skill at once.
So for example if you're a mage but you want to pick up a sword, you can build your swordmanship skill, but at the opportunity cost of some ancillary mage skill that increases your magic damage - and you still will not have the ancillary sword skills that would make swordsmanship a powerhouse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</id>
	<title>The Breakdown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246990680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FPS: Knowing where the power weapons are on the map. (Halo 3: Shotgun whore wins)</p><p>MMORPG: Its knowing which class is overpowered. (Vanilla WoW: Nerf Warlocks)</p><p>RTS: Its all about who is Korean. (I'm new to SC, want to play? I'm a nub go easy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FPS : Knowing where the power weapons are on the map .
( Halo 3 : Shotgun whore wins ) MMORPG : Its knowing which class is overpowered .
( Vanilla WoW : Nerf Warlocks ) RTS : Its all about who is Korean .
( I 'm new to SC , want to play ?
I 'm a nub go easy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FPS: Knowing where the power weapons are on the map.
(Halo 3: Shotgun whore wins)MMORPG: Its knowing which class is overpowered.
(Vanilla WoW: Nerf Warlocks)RTS: Its all about who is Korean.
(I'm new to SC, want to play?
I'm a nub go easy)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611577</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>jeffasselin</author>
	<datestamp>1246994820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vanilla WoW? you're joking right? They were only good for debuffing mobs for the mages who would roll ignites all night long.</p><p>The OP class in Vanilla wow was the mage. They were not as good in BC but now they're OP in LK again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vanilla WoW ?
you 're joking right ?
They were only good for debuffing mobs for the mages who would roll ignites all night long.The OP class in Vanilla wow was the mage .
They were not as good in BC but now they 're OP in LK again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vanilla WoW?
you're joking right?
They were only good for debuffing mobs for the mages who would roll ignites all night long.The OP class in Vanilla wow was the mage.
They were not as good in BC but now they're OP in LK again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619757</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Spit</author>
	<datestamp>1247056920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>replacing your breaks</i></p><p>I'll have to remember to keep on driving when I see furby076 auto repairs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>replacing your breaksI 'll have to remember to keep on driving when I see furby076 auto repairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>replacing your breaksI'll have to remember to keep on driving when I see furby076 auto repairs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610389</id>
	<title>l33t h4x</title>
	<author>AtomicDevice</author>
	<datestamp>1246990440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all about how many leet hax you have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about how many leet hax you have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about how many leet hax you have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615353</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is kinda misleading, actually</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1246967520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds a lot like Dungeon Siege except that your skill levels rose as you used them, so what you used a lot you progressed in while others fell behind. Items were restricted based on skill and attribute level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds a lot like Dungeon Siege except that your skill levels rose as you used them , so what you used a lot you progressed in while others fell behind .
Items were restricted based on skill and attribute level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds a lot like Dungeon Siege except that your skill levels rose as you used them, so what you used a lot you progressed in while others fell behind.
Items were restricted based on skill and attribute level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612463</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1246998180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see the issue.</p><p>If 1 hp healed == 1 xp, what difference does it make when you heal them, late vs early?  And to account for regen, 1 point healed via regen== 1 xp.  Same for prevention.</p><p>Maybe even give a +20\% exp bonus while each party member has their health above 80\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the issue.If 1 hp healed = = 1 xp , what difference does it make when you heal them , late vs early ?
And to account for regen , 1 point healed via regen = = 1 xp .
Same for prevention.Maybe even give a + 20 \ % exp bonus while each party member has their health above 80 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the issue.If 1 hp healed == 1 xp, what difference does it make when you heal them, late vs early?
And to account for regen, 1 point healed via regen== 1 xp.
Same for prevention.Maybe even give a +20\% exp bonus while each party member has their health above 80\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611667</id>
	<title>Re:Both are bad.</title>
	<author>Dan Ost</author>
	<datestamp>1246995120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that's exactly why the only computer game I keep coming back to (for the last 20 years) is nethack. I've read all the spoilers and strategy discussions, but it's always a challenge to apply what I know to the game. It's never impossible, but the difficulty scales faster than your character's abilities.</p><p>Maybe some day I'll win...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's exactly why the only computer game I keep coming back to ( for the last 20 years ) is nethack .
I 've read all the spoilers and strategy discussions , but it 's always a challenge to apply what I know to the game .
It 's never impossible , but the difficulty scales faster than your character 's abilities.Maybe some day I 'll win.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's exactly why the only computer game I keep coming back to (for the last 20 years) is nethack.
I've read all the spoilers and strategy discussions, but it's always a challenge to apply what I know to the game.
It's never impossible, but the difficulty scales faster than your character's abilities.Maybe some day I'll win...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613335</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1246958640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FPS: It depends on the FPS.</p><p>For example, Halo follows the Doom model of needing to know where the weapons are.</p><p>In CSS, you buy weapon upgrades.</p><p>In CSS Gun Game and Reverse Gun Game, you change weapons when you get kills.  Reverse gun game starts you with the best weapons and they get worse as you progress farther.</p><p>In TF2, you are restricted to weapons based on your class and have them when the match begins.  Knowing the map <strong>layout</strong> is still important.  Depending on your class, knowing the location of ammo boxes is exceedingly important.  It's an absolute <b>must</b> for Engineers and Spies equipped with the Invisibility Watch cloaking device, and to a lesser extent, Spies equipped with the Dead Ringer cloaking device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FPS : It depends on the FPS.For example , Halo follows the Doom model of needing to know where the weapons are.In CSS , you buy weapon upgrades.In CSS Gun Game and Reverse Gun Game , you change weapons when you get kills .
Reverse gun game starts you with the best weapons and they get worse as you progress farther.In TF2 , you are restricted to weapons based on your class and have them when the match begins .
Knowing the map layout is still important .
Depending on your class , knowing the location of ammo boxes is exceedingly important .
It 's an absolute must for Engineers and Spies equipped with the Invisibility Watch cloaking device , and to a lesser extent , Spies equipped with the Dead Ringer cloaking device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FPS: It depends on the FPS.For example, Halo follows the Doom model of needing to know where the weapons are.In CSS, you buy weapon upgrades.In CSS Gun Game and Reverse Gun Game, you change weapons when you get kills.
Reverse gun game starts you with the best weapons and they get worse as you progress farther.In TF2, you are restricted to weapons based on your class and have them when the match begins.
Knowing the map layout is still important.
Depending on your class, knowing the location of ammo boxes is exceedingly important.
It's an absolute must for Engineers and Spies equipped with the Invisibility Watch cloaking device, and to a lesser extent, Spies equipped with the Dead Ringer cloaking device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612819</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>subanark</author>
	<datestamp>1246999560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you get xp for killing a monster you are rewarded for making the kill with XP and anything it drops, and for the amount of time it took to kill it (the faster you kill it and the faster you can recover your resources, the faster you can go to your next target).</p><p>How do you measure 'skill of execution', or 'something useful'? Even in WoW, the designers cannot measure pvp skill in battlegrounds, as they don't want to punish players for being with less skilled team mates. They have already said they will modify the battleground areas to reward more honor (currency you can use to buy pvp gear) when defending bases as otherwise you are rewarded less even though you are trying harder to win the match.</p><p>Do you reward players for being able to defeat a mob they've killed 100 times before when they do so efficiently, or do you reward the players that go and try to kill every different mob with different attacks/AI, even if they aren't the best at doing so? Would a system that only grants rewards for completing quests reward players for skill (by seeing how well a player adapts), or would this just be too frustrating?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you get xp for killing a monster you are rewarded for making the kill with XP and anything it drops , and for the amount of time it took to kill it ( the faster you kill it and the faster you can recover your resources , the faster you can go to your next target ) .How do you measure 'skill of execution ' , or 'something useful ' ?
Even in WoW , the designers can not measure pvp skill in battlegrounds , as they do n't want to punish players for being with less skilled team mates .
They have already said they will modify the battleground areas to reward more honor ( currency you can use to buy pvp gear ) when defending bases as otherwise you are rewarded less even though you are trying harder to win the match.Do you reward players for being able to defeat a mob they 've killed 100 times before when they do so efficiently , or do you reward the players that go and try to kill every different mob with different attacks/AI , even if they are n't the best at doing so ?
Would a system that only grants rewards for completing quests reward players for skill ( by seeing how well a player adapts ) , or would this just be too frustrating ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you get xp for killing a monster you are rewarded for making the kill with XP and anything it drops, and for the amount of time it took to kill it (the faster you kill it and the faster you can recover your resources, the faster you can go to your next target).How do you measure 'skill of execution', or 'something useful'?
Even in WoW, the designers cannot measure pvp skill in battlegrounds, as they don't want to punish players for being with less skilled team mates.
They have already said they will modify the battleground areas to reward more honor (currency you can use to buy pvp gear) when defending bases as otherwise you are rewarded less even though you are trying harder to win the match.Do you reward players for being able to defeat a mob they've killed 100 times before when they do so efficiently, or do you reward the players that go and try to kill every different mob with different attacks/AI, even if they aren't the best at doing so?
Would a system that only grants rewards for completing quests reward players for skill (by seeing how well a player adapts), or would this just be too frustrating?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613725</id>
	<title>Cookie Cutters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246960140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My main problem with MMORPGs is that everyone is a cookie cutter image of one an other. everyone eventualy gets to the top level, and gets most of the same top end gear as everyone else, and uses their skill/talent/whatever points that they are allocated in the same exact way as everyone else.<br>I think instances ruined MMOs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... where you can log into an instance over and over any time you want with your guild/group and kill the Bosses over and over.</p><p>I miss the original Everquest. Only a select handfull of players got the top gear, the end game encounters were incredibly difficult, loot drops were rare, and everyone had to compete for the bosses. No instances, the top end boss spawned once a week<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..total<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. no instanced copies. You were either on a server where people behaved in a civil manner and guilds rotated the opportunity to attempt the boss each week, or you were on a pvp server where the best guild would dominate the zone and keep the other guilds out while they farmed the boss.  If you were good you were good, and if you could get into the best guild you could get the good loot.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. to me WoW is like socialism/welfare whatever you want to call it, blizzard just hands out gear. thats what is not fun. getting stuff handed to you. and having it be basicly the same stuff as everyone else.</p><p>Remember in Everquest the ONE guy that had the Soulfire or Fiery Defender or whatever that palidin epic was. That was cool.</p><p>Not to mention in that game when you died you lost about a weeks worth of EXP lol, so there was incentive to NOT die. I.E. fight skillfully and learn when to RUN.</p><p>Anyway, I guess in summary the main problems with the newer MMOs are that there are no truly rare items most of the time, everyone gets the same stuff, and the risk vs. reward is non-existent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My main problem with MMORPGs is that everyone is a cookie cutter image of one an other .
everyone eventualy gets to the top level , and gets most of the same top end gear as everyone else , and uses their skill/talent/whatever points that they are allocated in the same exact way as everyone else.I think instances ruined MMOs ... where you can log into an instance over and over any time you want with your guild/group and kill the Bosses over and over.I miss the original Everquest .
Only a select handfull of players got the top gear , the end game encounters were incredibly difficult , loot drops were rare , and everyone had to compete for the bosses .
No instances , the top end boss spawned once a week ..total .. no instanced copies .
You were either on a server where people behaved in a civil manner and guilds rotated the opportunity to attempt the boss each week , or you were on a pvp server where the best guild would dominate the zone and keep the other guilds out while they farmed the boss .
If you were good you were good , and if you could get into the best guild you could get the good loot .
.. to me WoW is like socialism/welfare whatever you want to call it , blizzard just hands out gear .
thats what is not fun .
getting stuff handed to you .
and having it be basicly the same stuff as everyone else.Remember in Everquest the ONE guy that had the Soulfire or Fiery Defender or whatever that palidin epic was .
That was cool.Not to mention in that game when you died you lost about a weeks worth of EXP lol , so there was incentive to NOT die .
I.E. fight skillfully and learn when to RUN.Anyway , I guess in summary the main problems with the newer MMOs are that there are no truly rare items most of the time , everyone gets the same stuff , and the risk vs. reward is non-existent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My main problem with MMORPGs is that everyone is a cookie cutter image of one an other.
everyone eventualy gets to the top level, and gets most of the same top end gear as everyone else, and uses their skill/talent/whatever points that they are allocated in the same exact way as everyone else.I think instances ruined MMOs ... where you can log into an instance over and over any time you want with your guild/group and kill the Bosses over and over.I miss the original Everquest.
Only a select handfull of players got the top gear, the end game encounters were incredibly difficult, loot drops were rare, and everyone had to compete for the bosses.
No instances, the top end boss spawned once a week ..total .. no instanced copies.
You were either on a server where people behaved in a civil manner and guilds rotated the opportunity to attempt the boss each week, or you were on a pvp server where the best guild would dominate the zone and keep the other guilds out while they farmed the boss.
If you were good you were good, and if you could get into the best guild you could get the good loot.
.. to me WoW is like socialism/welfare whatever you want to call it, blizzard just hands out gear.
thats what is not fun.
getting stuff handed to you.
and having it be basicly the same stuff as everyone else.Remember in Everquest the ONE guy that had the Soulfire or Fiery Defender or whatever that palidin epic was.
That was cool.Not to mention in that game when you died you lost about a weeks worth of EXP lol, so there was incentive to NOT die.
I.E. fight skillfully and learn when to RUN.Anyway, I guess in summary the main problems with the newer MMOs are that there are no truly rare items most of the time, everyone gets the same stuff, and the risk vs. reward is non-existent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612631</id>
	<title>Levels are so last century</title>
	<author>Kalendraf</author>
	<datestamp>1246998840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The concept of levels in RPGs primarily arose from the table-top pencil and paper versions like Dungeons and Dragons as a way to reduce book-keeping.  The actual meaning of levels is rather ludicrous, but they eventually became a motivating force for players of those games as a way to measure their progress, and often to boast.<br>
<br>
In a computer-based RPG, there is absolutely no need for this type of book-keeping convention.  The computer can easily track minute details across all manner of character actions &amp; statistics.  As a result, levels could be (and IMHO should be) abolished entirely.  A game using a skill-based advancement system (which tracks all these minute character details) is much more dynamic and offers a greater range of customization and choice for the player.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, decades of games featuring levels have in-grained player's thinking that levels are the be-all, end-all of RPGs, and it is very difficult to explain to them that levels are actually an archaic and unnecessary way to track character advancement.  In addition, the term "skill-based" is often confused with playing skill, which is mostly unrelated to a skills-based advancement system in an RPG.  Even the original summary seems to show this confusion.<br>
<br>
I'd like to see more RPGs that ditch levels entirely, and switch to a skill-based advancement.  It's time to move past the outdated level-up...ding!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The concept of levels in RPGs primarily arose from the table-top pencil and paper versions like Dungeons and Dragons as a way to reduce book-keeping .
The actual meaning of levels is rather ludicrous , but they eventually became a motivating force for players of those games as a way to measure their progress , and often to boast .
In a computer-based RPG , there is absolutely no need for this type of book-keeping convention .
The computer can easily track minute details across all manner of character actions &amp; statistics .
As a result , levels could be ( and IMHO should be ) abolished entirely .
A game using a skill-based advancement system ( which tracks all these minute character details ) is much more dynamic and offers a greater range of customization and choice for the player .
Unfortunately , decades of games featuring levels have in-grained player 's thinking that levels are the be-all , end-all of RPGs , and it is very difficult to explain to them that levels are actually an archaic and unnecessary way to track character advancement .
In addition , the term " skill-based " is often confused with playing skill , which is mostly unrelated to a skills-based advancement system in an RPG .
Even the original summary seems to show this confusion .
I 'd like to see more RPGs that ditch levels entirely , and switch to a skill-based advancement .
It 's time to move past the outdated level-up...ding !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concept of levels in RPGs primarily arose from the table-top pencil and paper versions like Dungeons and Dragons as a way to reduce book-keeping.
The actual meaning of levels is rather ludicrous, but they eventually became a motivating force for players of those games as a way to measure their progress, and often to boast.
In a computer-based RPG, there is absolutely no need for this type of book-keeping convention.
The computer can easily track minute details across all manner of character actions &amp; statistics.
As a result, levels could be (and IMHO should be) abolished entirely.
A game using a skill-based advancement system (which tracks all these minute character details) is much more dynamic and offers a greater range of customization and choice for the player.
Unfortunately, decades of games featuring levels have in-grained player's thinking that levels are the be-all, end-all of RPGs, and it is very difficult to explain to them that levels are actually an archaic and unnecessary way to track character advancement.
In addition, the term "skill-based" is often confused with playing skill, which is mostly unrelated to a skills-based advancement system in an RPG.
Even the original summary seems to show this confusion.
I'd like to see more RPGs that ditch levels entirely, and switch to a skill-based advancement.
It's time to move past the outdated level-up...ding!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613029</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>DrgnDancer</author>
	<datestamp>1246957440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it is.  The summary is terrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it is .
The summary is terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it is.
The summary is terrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612805</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246999440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...pumping gas vs replacing your breaks.... Great let them back us a cake....</i></p><p>I wonder why you didn't use spelling as an example of a skill? Hmmmm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...pumping gas vs replacing your breaks.... Great let them back us a cake....I wonder why you did n't use spelling as an example of a skill ?
Hmmmm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...pumping gas vs replacing your breaks.... Great let them back us a cake....I wonder why you didn't use spelling as an example of a skill?
Hmmmm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614903</id>
	<title>Some are better than others</title>
	<author>Kohaku Nanaya</author>
	<datestamp>1246964880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's one MMO I play that balances Level and Skill somewhat. It's called Pangya. It's a Korean Fantasy Golf MMO with some RPG elements (levels, stats, equipment, items, etc). However, while having good stats and using items can be beneficial, they are not required to play well. Nor does having a high level say anything about how well you play. In Pangya, the lowest level player with no items, base stats, and no equipment could defeat the highest level player with high stats, the best equipment, and all the items the game has to offer. Sure, that high level player can make all those special shots a lot easier, and maybe have better curve and spin, but while that's all fine and dandy, the low level player can do those same things (with some added difficulty mind you, but it can be done). Like with many golf games, it's all about the calculations and math; something that requires skill. Take a look at player records to tell how skilled someone is, rather than looking at their level. You can see their win rates, putting success rates, chip ins, hole in ones, and etc. I've seen my share of 'National Pros' with such low success rates that rely on items and equipment to substitute doing the math and calculations, but that doesn't work too well and it shows. There should be more MMOs that show you a list of things that the player has done rather than just showing you their level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one MMO I play that balances Level and Skill somewhat .
It 's called Pangya .
It 's a Korean Fantasy Golf MMO with some RPG elements ( levels , stats , equipment , items , etc ) .
However , while having good stats and using items can be beneficial , they are not required to play well .
Nor does having a high level say anything about how well you play .
In Pangya , the lowest level player with no items , base stats , and no equipment could defeat the highest level player with high stats , the best equipment , and all the items the game has to offer .
Sure , that high level player can make all those special shots a lot easier , and maybe have better curve and spin , but while that 's all fine and dandy , the low level player can do those same things ( with some added difficulty mind you , but it can be done ) .
Like with many golf games , it 's all about the calculations and math ; something that requires skill .
Take a look at player records to tell how skilled someone is , rather than looking at their level .
You can see their win rates , putting success rates , chip ins , hole in ones , and etc .
I 've seen my share of 'National Pros ' with such low success rates that rely on items and equipment to substitute doing the math and calculations , but that does n't work too well and it shows .
There should be more MMOs that show you a list of things that the player has done rather than just showing you their level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one MMO I play that balances Level and Skill somewhat.
It's called Pangya.
It's a Korean Fantasy Golf MMO with some RPG elements (levels, stats, equipment, items, etc).
However, while having good stats and using items can be beneficial, they are not required to play well.
Nor does having a high level say anything about how well you play.
In Pangya, the lowest level player with no items, base stats, and no equipment could defeat the highest level player with high stats, the best equipment, and all the items the game has to offer.
Sure, that high level player can make all those special shots a lot easier, and maybe have better curve and spin, but while that's all fine and dandy, the low level player can do those same things (with some added difficulty mind you, but it can be done).
Like with many golf games, it's all about the calculations and math; something that requires skill.
Take a look at player records to tell how skilled someone is, rather than looking at their level.
You can see their win rates, putting success rates, chip ins, hole in ones, and etc.
I've seen my share of 'National Pros' with such low success rates that rely on items and equipment to substitute doing the math and calculations, but that doesn't work too well and it shows.
There should be more MMOs that show you a list of things that the player has done rather than just showing you their level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612395</id>
	<title>Stone vs Clay</title>
	<author>Balau</author>
	<datestamp>1246997880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The choice here is not really "level vs skill" but "stone games vs clay games":<br>
Stone Games: Your character's abilities are set in stone when you choose a class, and you level up to grow those abilities and you can equip the items of your class.<br>
Clay Games: You choose your character's abilities and grow them with time independently, sculpting your creation like clay, and choose the items that fits your own style and planning.<br> <br>
I'll never go with a Stone game when there's a Clay game available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The choice here is not really " level vs skill " but " stone games vs clay games " : Stone Games : Your character 's abilities are set in stone when you choose a class , and you level up to grow those abilities and you can equip the items of your class .
Clay Games : You choose your character 's abilities and grow them with time independently , sculpting your creation like clay , and choose the items that fits your own style and planning .
I 'll never go with a Stone game when there 's a Clay game available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The choice here is not really "level vs skill" but "stone games vs clay games":
Stone Games: Your character's abilities are set in stone when you choose a class, and you level up to grow those abilities and you can equip the items of your class.
Clay Games: You choose your character's abilities and grow them with time independently, sculpting your creation like clay, and choose the items that fits your own style and planning.
I'll never go with a Stone game when there's a Clay game available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610479</id>
	<title>Character vs. Player skill</title>
	<author>Experiment 626</author>
	<datestamp>1246990740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like the article is talking about character advancement mechanics being based on skills (you use a sword, your guy gets better with a sword) instead of levels (you character suddenly gets better at everything).  The editor writeup, however, is a commentary on player skill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like the article is talking about character advancement mechanics being based on skills ( you use a sword , your guy gets better with a sword ) instead of levels ( you character suddenly gets better at everything ) .
The editor writeup , however , is a commentary on player skill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like the article is talking about character advancement mechanics being based on skills (you use a sword, your guy gets better with a sword) instead of levels (you character suddenly gets better at everything).
The editor writeup, however, is a commentary on player skill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613819</id>
	<title>Re:MMOs with Leveling are inherently broken</title>
	<author>Sparton</author>
	<datestamp>1246960500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People are getting bored of the level grinding for sake of leveling... I mean I'm bored it of it. I don't want to play those games anymore.</p></div><p>Your anecdotal evidence is not reflective of the market's desires. People like to level up, because that gives them a feeling of progression. And that's all that RPG's are: artificial progression. Usually in RPGs, this is levels, but it also extends to other facets such as character skills or loot.</p><p>Take away the (artificial) progression from an video game RPG, and you don't have an video game RPG anymore. Such a game would quite literally be defined as a different genre of game. Go ahead and try it; take any RPG you know, but take away leveling, skilling up, loot acquisition, etc. What do you have left?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are getting bored of the level grinding for sake of leveling... I mean I 'm bored it of it .
I do n't want to play those games anymore.Your anecdotal evidence is not reflective of the market 's desires .
People like to level up , because that gives them a feeling of progression .
And that 's all that RPG 's are : artificial progression .
Usually in RPGs , this is levels , but it also extends to other facets such as character skills or loot.Take away the ( artificial ) progression from an video game RPG , and you do n't have an video game RPG anymore .
Such a game would quite literally be defined as a different genre of game .
Go ahead and try it ; take any RPG you know , but take away leveling , skilling up , loot acquisition , etc .
What do you have left ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are getting bored of the level grinding for sake of leveling... I mean I'm bored it of it.
I don't want to play those games anymore.Your anecdotal evidence is not reflective of the market's desires.
People like to level up, because that gives them a feeling of progression.
And that's all that RPG's are: artificial progression.
Usually in RPGs, this is levels, but it also extends to other facets such as character skills or loot.Take away the (artificial) progression from an video game RPG, and you don't have an video game RPG anymore.
Such a game would quite literally be defined as a different genre of game.
Go ahead and try it; take any RPG you know, but take away leveling, skilling up, loot acquisition, etc.
What do you have left?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618199</id>
	<title>Knowledge vs. Skills.</title>
	<author>bronney</author>
	<datestamp>1246991880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"you just need to know the map," or "it's all about a good build order." At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?</i><br>.<br>OP logic is flawed:<br>.<br>Know the map or the build order or any game mechanics IS part of the skills.  This is like saying, knowing which bus to take or knowing the operating schedule of MacDonald's guarantees a fat ass.  Wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" you just need to know the map , " or " it 's all about a good build order .
" At what point does intimate knowledge of a game 's mechanics make a player skilled ? .OP logic is flawed : .Know the map or the build order or any game mechanics IS part of the skills .
This is like saying , knowing which bus to take or knowing the operating schedule of MacDonald 's guarantees a fat ass .
Wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"you just need to know the map," or "it's all about a good build order.
" At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?.OP logic is flawed:.Know the map or the build order or any game mechanics IS part of the skills.
This is like saying, knowing which bus to take or knowing the operating schedule of MacDonald's guarantees a fat ass.
Wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612011</id>
	<title>BF2142 is a great example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246996440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of both game mechanics. The difference is that when you join, and everyone has advanced weaponry you are forced to develop the skills which will make you a better player, and gain the advanced weaponry that much faster as a result. You may have to spend the first few days helping out with a medkit or resupplying before you get to have a cloaked sniper, but those actions are still valuable and required. Depending on how your team is playing you may not end up using your higher end level based unlocks because thats what the situation calls for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of both game mechanics .
The difference is that when you join , and everyone has advanced weaponry you are forced to develop the skills which will make you a better player , and gain the advanced weaponry that much faster as a result .
You may have to spend the first few days helping out with a medkit or resupplying before you get to have a cloaked sniper , but those actions are still valuable and required .
Depending on how your team is playing you may not end up using your higher end level based unlocks because thats what the situation calls for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of both game mechanics.
The difference is that when you join, and everyone has advanced weaponry you are forced to develop the skills which will make you a better player, and gain the advanced weaponry that much faster as a result.
You may have to spend the first few days helping out with a medkit or resupplying before you get to have a cloaked sniper, but those actions are still valuable and required.
Depending on how your team is playing you may not end up using your higher end level based unlocks because thats what the situation calls for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613675</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Aqualung812</author>
	<datestamp>1246959960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I will argue that walkthroughs do have a valid place, but must be used VERY infrequently.<br>
Speaking of a PCjr, I was stuck at the VERY end of "Kings Quest II" for months.  I kept looking at the amulet that the princess had.  I tried rubbing it, swinging it, and saying kind things to it.  It never occurred to me to say the word "HOME" that was printed on the back of it.  Not having any help sucked.<p>
Recently, I rented "Mirror's Edge" for Xbox.  I played all of it without a walkthrough, but did run into a very odd section around 2/3 of the way through.  I found a walkthrough for THAT section only, saw the answer, and closed it.  I was able to enjoy 99\% of the game without any help, and still return the game completed to the video store.  A very nice balance, IMHO.</p><p>
With all that said, I totally agree with your rant.  Doing a walkthrough step by step without thinking would be enough reason for me to remove the game system / PC from my child and tell her "If you're not going to even think when playing a game, watch Spongebob".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will argue that walkthroughs do have a valid place , but must be used VERY infrequently .
Speaking of a PCjr , I was stuck at the VERY end of " Kings Quest II " for months .
I kept looking at the amulet that the princess had .
I tried rubbing it , swinging it , and saying kind things to it .
It never occurred to me to say the word " HOME " that was printed on the back of it .
Not having any help sucked .
Recently , I rented " Mirror 's Edge " for Xbox .
I played all of it without a walkthrough , but did run into a very odd section around 2/3 of the way through .
I found a walkthrough for THAT section only , saw the answer , and closed it .
I was able to enjoy 99 \ % of the game without any help , and still return the game completed to the video store .
A very nice balance , IMHO .
With all that said , I totally agree with your rant .
Doing a walkthrough step by step without thinking would be enough reason for me to remove the game system / PC from my child and tell her " If you 're not going to even think when playing a game , watch Spongebob " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will argue that walkthroughs do have a valid place, but must be used VERY infrequently.
Speaking of a PCjr, I was stuck at the VERY end of "Kings Quest II" for months.
I kept looking at the amulet that the princess had.
I tried rubbing it, swinging it, and saying kind things to it.
It never occurred to me to say the word "HOME" that was printed on the back of it.
Not having any help sucked.
Recently, I rented "Mirror's Edge" for Xbox.
I played all of it without a walkthrough, but did run into a very odd section around 2/3 of the way through.
I found a walkthrough for THAT section only, saw the answer, and closed it.
I was able to enjoy 99\% of the game without any help, and still return the game completed to the video store.
A very nice balance, IMHO.
With all that said, I totally agree with your rant.
Doing a walkthrough step by step without thinking would be enough reason for me to remove the game system / PC from my child and tell her "If you're not going to even think when playing a game, watch Spongebob".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610565</id>
	<title>in game "skill" versus real life "skill"</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1246991100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Asheron's Call was probably the best known MMO with PVP in terms of balancing in game skills with real life player hand/eye coordination skills.
<br> <br>
Think in terms of FPS skill... In Asheron's, your player's abilities grew as you spent the experience points on your "skills," but that meant nothing if you "sucked" at the game. In this case "sucking" at the game meant that your control over your avatar's movements were insufficient to "win" regardless of your avatar's level or in game skill level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asheron 's Call was probably the best known MMO with PVP in terms of balancing in game skills with real life player hand/eye coordination skills .
Think in terms of FPS skill... In Asheron 's , your player 's abilities grew as you spent the experience points on your " skills , " but that meant nothing if you " sucked " at the game .
In this case " sucking " at the game meant that your control over your avatar 's movements were insufficient to " win " regardless of your avatar 's level or in game skill level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asheron's Call was probably the best known MMO with PVP in terms of balancing in game skills with real life player hand/eye coordination skills.
Think in terms of FPS skill... In Asheron's, your player's abilities grew as you spent the experience points on your "skills," but that meant nothing if you "sucked" at the game.
In this case "sucking" at the game meant that your control over your avatar's movements were insufficient to "win" regardless of your avatar's level or in game skill level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616217</id>
	<title>Not just level/gear gaps.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just the level/gear gap in MMOs that muddies up the actual skill difference between players. The typical MMOs Auto-aim + 1.5 second global cool down = less aiming and fast reflexes/button presses required = less skill than other real time games.  One of the reasons MMOs are so appealing is that players are guaranteed to have more in-game power the more time (and money) they spend in it, allowing them to 'pwn noobs' in a way they would never be able to in a game of Quake Online or Starcraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just the level/gear gap in MMOs that muddies up the actual skill difference between players .
The typical MMOs Auto-aim + 1.5 second global cool down = less aiming and fast reflexes/button presses required = less skill than other real time games .
One of the reasons MMOs are so appealing is that players are guaranteed to have more in-game power the more time ( and money ) they spend in it , allowing them to 'pwn noobs ' in a way they would never be able to in a game of Quake Online or Starcraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just the level/gear gap in MMOs that muddies up the actual skill difference between players.
The typical MMOs Auto-aim + 1.5 second global cool down = less aiming and fast reflexes/button presses required = less skill than other real time games.
One of the reasons MMOs are so appealing is that players are guaranteed to have more in-game power the more time (and money) they spend in it, allowing them to 'pwn noobs' in a way they would never be able to in a game of Quake Online or Starcraft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</id>
	<title>usage based</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246991160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One simple change could be to make progression depend on skill, not trivial success and grinding.</p><p>Or, in simpler terms, something that every dofus could do should give no XP at all. And yes, that includes the death of a monster. Instead, why not give XP for successful attacks, combos, or whatever defines your class? Balancing would be a lot more difficult than the current "monster is worth 123 XP, share between party members" system, but it could be more fair and more rewarding, and eliminate grinding.</p><p>What if combat would not give you XP for killing monsters, but for how well you fought? You get XP for every attack, depending on your skill of execution. Of course, that would require replacing the simple "click here for an attack, you'll automatically hit" system. But it would allow you to gain your XP slowly by very low XP per boring standard attack, or more rapidly if you know how to fight. Healers, mages, etc. would get XP for their successes, i.e. healing wounded party members, etc. - again, not on a flat system, healing someone who really needed it would give more XP than the standard "I'm throwing a group heal around, just in case anyone needs it".</p><p>Absolutely non-trivial to implement and balance, so it's probably not the end of the idea. But it might be a start.</p><p>Basically, imagine Oblivion where your athletics skill doesn't increase just because you bunny-hop through the world, but only if you actually use it for something useful.</p><p>Reward not use, but useful use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One simple change could be to make progression depend on skill , not trivial success and grinding.Or , in simpler terms , something that every dofus could do should give no XP at all .
And yes , that includes the death of a monster .
Instead , why not give XP for successful attacks , combos , or whatever defines your class ?
Balancing would be a lot more difficult than the current " monster is worth 123 XP , share between party members " system , but it could be more fair and more rewarding , and eliminate grinding.What if combat would not give you XP for killing monsters , but for how well you fought ?
You get XP for every attack , depending on your skill of execution .
Of course , that would require replacing the simple " click here for an attack , you 'll automatically hit " system .
But it would allow you to gain your XP slowly by very low XP per boring standard attack , or more rapidly if you know how to fight .
Healers , mages , etc .
would get XP for their successes , i.e .
healing wounded party members , etc .
- again , not on a flat system , healing someone who really needed it would give more XP than the standard " I 'm throwing a group heal around , just in case anyone needs it " .Absolutely non-trivial to implement and balance , so it 's probably not the end of the idea .
But it might be a start.Basically , imagine Oblivion where your athletics skill does n't increase just because you bunny-hop through the world , but only if you actually use it for something useful.Reward not use , but useful use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One simple change could be to make progression depend on skill, not trivial success and grinding.Or, in simpler terms, something that every dofus could do should give no XP at all.
And yes, that includes the death of a monster.
Instead, why not give XP for successful attacks, combos, or whatever defines your class?
Balancing would be a lot more difficult than the current "monster is worth 123 XP, share between party members" system, but it could be more fair and more rewarding, and eliminate grinding.What if combat would not give you XP for killing monsters, but for how well you fought?
You get XP for every attack, depending on your skill of execution.
Of course, that would require replacing the simple "click here for an attack, you'll automatically hit" system.
But it would allow you to gain your XP slowly by very low XP per boring standard attack, or more rapidly if you know how to fight.
Healers, mages, etc.
would get XP for their successes, i.e.
healing wounded party members, etc.
- again, not on a flat system, healing someone who really needed it would give more XP than the standard "I'm throwing a group heal around, just in case anyone needs it".Absolutely non-trivial to implement and balance, so it's probably not the end of the idea.
But it might be a start.Basically, imagine Oblivion where your athletics skill doesn't increase just because you bunny-hop through the world, but only if you actually use it for something useful.Reward not use, but useful use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>1WingedAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1246992240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your solution here doesn't really offer anything better than the current grinding systems.  In fact, it makes it even more frustrating.</p><p>You move the end-of-battle award to mid-battle and for some classes, you would reward them based on the play of others?</p><p>To take one of your examples: A healer gaining XP based on the party members health.  So, the goal here would be to consistently let your party get as low on health as possible before healing them?  And you would penalize them for keeping everyone full up?  I can't think of a single worse reward mechanism for healers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your solution here does n't really offer anything better than the current grinding systems .
In fact , it makes it even more frustrating.You move the end-of-battle award to mid-battle and for some classes , you would reward them based on the play of others ? To take one of your examples : A healer gaining XP based on the party members health .
So , the goal here would be to consistently let your party get as low on health as possible before healing them ?
And you would penalize them for keeping everyone full up ?
I ca n't think of a single worse reward mechanism for healers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your solution here doesn't really offer anything better than the current grinding systems.
In fact, it makes it even more frustrating.You move the end-of-battle award to mid-battle and for some classes, you would reward them based on the play of others?To take one of your examples: A healer gaining XP based on the party members health.
So, the goal here would be to consistently let your party get as low on health as possible before healing them?
And you would penalize them for keeping everyone full up?
I can't think of a single worse reward mechanism for healers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610919</id>
	<title>Asheron's Call?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246992420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's quite possible that I don't understand the problem put forth. Some people seem to be speaking of skills as in player skills, while other are speaking of skills as in character skills.</p><p>Either way, I think it's important to realize that some games play better using one form or another. Likewise, most games can benefit from a leveling up type feature. For two examples, consider:</p><p>1. Legend of Zelda: Adventures of Link. This game could be completed (theoretically) without leveling up, but a leveling system is included in the game to help the player overcome difficult challenges, speed up gameplay, and provide the user with a sense of satisfaction as Link becomes stronger.<br>2. Asheron's Call (1): This game uses both a character level and a character skill. Much like an above poster suggested, player skills are increased when the player uses that skill (for some skills). At the same time, when the player kills an enemy, that player gains experience to increase his level, which provides basic status boosts (more health, more strength, etc), but that experience can also be used to increase a character's skills or attributes. This allows players to customize their skills and create a niche for playing. Certainly this still follows the level-up notion to an extent, but the levels transition from your character level to your skill levels, so it feels more rewarding that way.</p><p>I think it's pretty clear that both systems have a market, and a dual system can work as well, so long as the player skill can be executed within a latent environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quite possible that I do n't understand the problem put forth .
Some people seem to be speaking of skills as in player skills , while other are speaking of skills as in character skills.Either way , I think it 's important to realize that some games play better using one form or another .
Likewise , most games can benefit from a leveling up type feature .
For two examples , consider : 1 .
Legend of Zelda : Adventures of Link .
This game could be completed ( theoretically ) without leveling up , but a leveling system is included in the game to help the player overcome difficult challenges , speed up gameplay , and provide the user with a sense of satisfaction as Link becomes stronger.2 .
Asheron 's Call ( 1 ) : This game uses both a character level and a character skill .
Much like an above poster suggested , player skills are increased when the player uses that skill ( for some skills ) .
At the same time , when the player kills an enemy , that player gains experience to increase his level , which provides basic status boosts ( more health , more strength , etc ) , but that experience can also be used to increase a character 's skills or attributes .
This allows players to customize their skills and create a niche for playing .
Certainly this still follows the level-up notion to an extent , but the levels transition from your character level to your skill levels , so it feels more rewarding that way.I think it 's pretty clear that both systems have a market , and a dual system can work as well , so long as the player skill can be executed within a latent environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quite possible that I don't understand the problem put forth.
Some people seem to be speaking of skills as in player skills, while other are speaking of skills as in character skills.Either way, I think it's important to realize that some games play better using one form or another.
Likewise, most games can benefit from a leveling up type feature.
For two examples, consider:1.
Legend of Zelda: Adventures of Link.
This game could be completed (theoretically) without leveling up, but a leveling system is included in the game to help the player overcome difficult challenges, speed up gameplay, and provide the user with a sense of satisfaction as Link becomes stronger.2.
Asheron's Call (1): This game uses both a character level and a character skill.
Much like an above poster suggested, player skills are increased when the player uses that skill (for some skills).
At the same time, when the player kills an enemy, that player gains experience to increase his level, which provides basic status boosts (more health, more strength, etc), but that experience can also be used to increase a character's skills or attributes.
This allows players to customize their skills and create a niche for playing.
Certainly this still follows the level-up notion to an extent, but the levels transition from your character level to your skill levels, so it feels more rewarding that way.I think it's pretty clear that both systems have a market, and a dual system can work as well, so long as the player skill can be executed within a latent environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620443</id>
	<title>Re:Um, that's why they are games, not sports</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1247061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My pastime is telling people that the word is "pastime" not "past time".  It comes from pass time... to pass the time.  Not past time... time gone by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My pastime is telling people that the word is " pastime " not " past time " .
It comes from pass time... to pass the time .
Not past time... time gone by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My pastime is telling people that the word is "pastime" not "past time".
It comes from pass time... to pass the time.
Not past time... time gone by.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28621833</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When he gets a new game he immediately pulls up some site that has the cheats.  I don't mind cheats that give you cool skins or something that doesn't alter the difficulty of the game but he'll cheat for step 1.  On top of that he's baffled that I won't use the cheats.  Your cook vs. master chef analogy fits us perfectly except my cook thinks master chef's are dumb.</p></div><p>My brother did that, so I don't think it is a generational thing just a personality thing.  You enjoy the game as a puzzle/challenge, he enjoys it as a story/toy.  Whatever obstacles get in my way I enjoy solving, my brother just wants them removed so he can see the story and enjoy the sandbox.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When he and his friends get together and play they often like to play something called "Super Smash Brothers".  For you guys as old as me out there, it's a fighting game with all the Nintendo characters as the fighters.  When you play the game your damage is counted up as a percentage.  Except, get this, wait for it...., you don't die at 100\%.  In fact there's no set limit you die at.  The game just decides it's your time to die.  Sometimes their damage is at 150\% or higher.  WTF is with that.</p></div><p>You should really watch the demo fight which explains the damage mechanic.  You don't die whenever the game decides, you die when you are knocked off the edges of the screen.  A higher damage modifier means you get knocked back farther when hit by an attack (some attacks trade knock back distance for damage or a special effect).  So someone with 1\% gets knocked back an inch (of the screen), 100\% a couple of inches, and 300\% is almost certain death.</p><p>Also, there is a special mode to play with hit points so that you die at 0 hp.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When he gets a new game he immediately pulls up some site that has the cheats .
I do n't mind cheats that give you cool skins or something that does n't alter the difficulty of the game but he 'll cheat for step 1 .
On top of that he 's baffled that I wo n't use the cheats .
Your cook vs. master chef analogy fits us perfectly except my cook thinks master chef 's are dumb.My brother did that , so I do n't think it is a generational thing just a personality thing .
You enjoy the game as a puzzle/challenge , he enjoys it as a story/toy .
Whatever obstacles get in my way I enjoy solving , my brother just wants them removed so he can see the story and enjoy the sandbox.When he and his friends get together and play they often like to play something called " Super Smash Brothers " .
For you guys as old as me out there , it 's a fighting game with all the Nintendo characters as the fighters .
When you play the game your damage is counted up as a percentage .
Except , get this , wait for it.... , you do n't die at 100 \ % .
In fact there 's no set limit you die at .
The game just decides it 's your time to die .
Sometimes their damage is at 150 \ % or higher .
WTF is with that.You should really watch the demo fight which explains the damage mechanic .
You do n't die whenever the game decides , you die when you are knocked off the edges of the screen .
A higher damage modifier means you get knocked back farther when hit by an attack ( some attacks trade knock back distance for damage or a special effect ) .
So someone with 1 \ % gets knocked back an inch ( of the screen ) , 100 \ % a couple of inches , and 300 \ % is almost certain death.Also , there is a special mode to play with hit points so that you die at 0 hp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When he gets a new game he immediately pulls up some site that has the cheats.
I don't mind cheats that give you cool skins or something that doesn't alter the difficulty of the game but he'll cheat for step 1.
On top of that he's baffled that I won't use the cheats.
Your cook vs. master chef analogy fits us perfectly except my cook thinks master chef's are dumb.My brother did that, so I don't think it is a generational thing just a personality thing.
You enjoy the game as a puzzle/challenge, he enjoys it as a story/toy.
Whatever obstacles get in my way I enjoy solving, my brother just wants them removed so he can see the story and enjoy the sandbox.When he and his friends get together and play they often like to play something called "Super Smash Brothers".
For you guys as old as me out there, it's a fighting game with all the Nintendo characters as the fighters.
When you play the game your damage is counted up as a percentage.
Except, get this, wait for it...., you don't die at 100\%.
In fact there's no set limit you die at.
The game just decides it's your time to die.
Sometimes their damage is at 150\% or higher.
WTF is with that.You should really watch the demo fight which explains the damage mechanic.
You don't die whenever the game decides, you die when you are knocked off the edges of the screen.
A higher damage modifier means you get knocked back farther when hit by an attack (some attacks trade knock back distance for damage or a special effect).
So someone with 1\% gets knocked back an inch (of the screen), 100\% a couple of inches, and 300\% is almost certain death.Also, there is a special mode to play with hit points so that you die at 0 hp.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611547</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>WinPimp2K</author>
	<datestamp>1246994700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To stick with the healing example, it is even worse than that. At some point good play by the other characters would involve them taking little or no damage (the tank that gets really good with his shield/parry?) so there would be no healing required for fights that would still give other characters an opportunity to improve their skills.</p><p>In short, the whole "useful use" concept pretty well falls to pieces. Having said that, I must also admit a desire to see an mmo game with advancement based on character skill as opposed to leveling and twitching. My favorite would be the old Runequest system (2nd edition), but I also recognize that would be a very limited niche game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To stick with the healing example , it is even worse than that .
At some point good play by the other characters would involve them taking little or no damage ( the tank that gets really good with his shield/parry ?
) so there would be no healing required for fights that would still give other characters an opportunity to improve their skills.In short , the whole " useful use " concept pretty well falls to pieces .
Having said that , I must also admit a desire to see an mmo game with advancement based on character skill as opposed to leveling and twitching .
My favorite would be the old Runequest system ( 2nd edition ) , but I also recognize that would be a very limited niche game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To stick with the healing example, it is even worse than that.
At some point good play by the other characters would involve them taking little or no damage (the tank that gets really good with his shield/parry?
) so there would be no healing required for fights that would still give other characters an opportunity to improve their skills.In short, the whole "useful use" concept pretty well falls to pieces.
Having said that, I must also admit a desire to see an mmo game with advancement based on character skill as opposed to leveling and twitching.
My favorite would be the old Runequest system (2nd edition), but I also recognize that would be a very limited niche game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403</id>
	<title>Um, that's why they are games, not sports</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246990500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are games for a reason.  They're entertaining.  They do not require a great deal of skill, or they would be a sport.  While I am sure there are plenty of us who like to tease ourselves into believing we have "l337 sk1lz", the truth of the matter is that we are still involved in low base entertainment designed to appeal to as many people as possible.  Successful games are the ones that sell the most, thus they have to be designed for the lowest common denominator.</p><p>There are plenty of other past times that do involve skill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are games for a reason .
They 're entertaining .
They do not require a great deal of skill , or they would be a sport .
While I am sure there are plenty of us who like to tease ourselves into believing we have " l337 sk1lz " , the truth of the matter is that we are still involved in low base entertainment designed to appeal to as many people as possible .
Successful games are the ones that sell the most , thus they have to be designed for the lowest common denominator.There are plenty of other past times that do involve skill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are games for a reason.
They're entertaining.
They do not require a great deal of skill, or they would be a sport.
While I am sure there are plenty of us who like to tease ourselves into believing we have "l337 sk1lz", the truth of the matter is that we are still involved in low base entertainment designed to appeal to as many people as possible.
Successful games are the ones that sell the most, thus they have to be designed for the lowest common denominator.There are plenty of other past times that do involve skill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611873</id>
	<title>Skill = ?</title>
	<author>dhermann</author>
	<datestamp>1246995840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the overarching question ought to be what you define skill as.</p><p> <b>Premise 1: Skill is not time.</b> </p><p>Or is it? One of the largest complaints about a level-based system is that without a significant penalty for

failure, eventually, everyone can pass the level. Therefore, anything that anyone can do does not require skill.</p><p>The counterargument is that time builds muscle memory, which is a vital element for most games. Though I hate to

draw the comparison, professional athletes use repetition to increase performance. Care to guess at the number of

balls that Tiger Woods has hit in his life? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Now, Tiger Woods is an awe-inspiring

athlete. He has natural talent and is (arguably) the most skilled golfer of all time. How much of that "skill" is

based on repetition?</p><p>Do you think the world's best Starcraft player is actually looking at what he's building? Do you think the top

Counterstrike team is actually thinking about the menu structure when purchasing weapons at the start of a round?

Similarly, take World of Warcraft PvP. It's not enough to understand that the Warlock counter to a Death Knight's

Death Grip is Demonic Circle. You have to have the presence of mind to see the spell graphic and immediate react

with the teleport. Regardless of your understanding of the mechanic, it's muscle memory that will play the primary

role. So, in a way, time breeds skill.</p><p> <b>Premise 2: Skill is not money.</b> </p><p>Or is it? It's easy to empathize with the anger of people who expend a lot of energy (I'll refrain from calling

that energy "time", see above) competing with others who take the shortcut of using cash to upgrade their avatar.

Regardless of the morality of a game company allowing such actions or the potential effects on the game's economy,

it cheapens the former's accomplishment when it is made to be easily accessed by those who have the resources to skip

the work.</p><p>The counterargument has two basic facets:</p><ol> <li>A lot of people have called the level-system of World of Warcraft "a 79-level tutorial to prepare your

character for the real game". Under that theory, what if you're already familiar with your character? Shouldn't you

be able to skip the tutorial since you are already just as skilled as someone who went through the leveling process? Or, if

that analysis doesn't suit your fancy ("No one would choose to go through levels if they didn't have to!"), how many of those

79 levels did you need to get as skilled as you are at your character? Did you need them all? Would 50 suffice? 25?

10? Do you think you'd be able to try a new class and pick it up in 10 levels? Before you answer, keep in mind that

Blizzard starts Death Knights at level 55!<br> <br>Now, apply that logic to other games. If you've been playing FPS's for the last ten years, how much practice would you really need to become familiar with Team Fortress 2?</li><li> <i>Dude, you just called the game "work"</i>. It's right there. You don't want people to be rewarded for not

doing the <i>work</i>. I don't know about you, brah, but I get enough work <i>at work</i>. I'm not in college / high

school / the military / the Siberian Tundra anymore. I don't have unlimited amounts of time. And if I can plop down

$20 to avoid 100+ hours (and, in some cases, this is a ludicrously low estimate; see also: Lineage II, Vanguard) of

mundane, mindless tasks solely designed to make me want to play more, do you take Visa?<br> <br>Plus, you mind

telling me how me doing so affects you in any way? Even if my gear doesn't mark me as a twink and we look the exact

same, what were you hoping for? Recognition of your accomplishment from other players? Seriously, is that what

you're playing for? Validation that all that time (see above) was well-spent? Are you really that desperate for

popularity that you'd waste months of your life trying to garner it from people you don't even know?</li></ol><p>Personally, I'd like to see a variable level system. In theory, you would enter level 1 an</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the overarching question ought to be what you define skill as .
Premise 1 : Skill is not time .
Or is it ?
One of the largest complaints about a level-based system is that without a significant penalty for failure , eventually , everyone can pass the level .
Therefore , anything that anyone can do does not require skill.The counterargument is that time builds muscle memory , which is a vital element for most games .
Though I hate to draw the comparison , professional athletes use repetition to increase performance .
Care to guess at the number of balls that Tiger Woods has hit in his life ?
Thousands ? Hundreds of thousands ?
Now , Tiger Woods is an awe-inspiring athlete .
He has natural talent and is ( arguably ) the most skilled golfer of all time .
How much of that " skill " is based on repetition ? Do you think the world 's best Starcraft player is actually looking at what he 's building ?
Do you think the top Counterstrike team is actually thinking about the menu structure when purchasing weapons at the start of a round ?
Similarly , take World of Warcraft PvP .
It 's not enough to understand that the Warlock counter to a Death Knight 's Death Grip is Demonic Circle .
You have to have the presence of mind to see the spell graphic and immediate react with the teleport .
Regardless of your understanding of the mechanic , it 's muscle memory that will play the primary role .
So , in a way , time breeds skill .
Premise 2 : Skill is not money .
Or is it ?
It 's easy to empathize with the anger of people who expend a lot of energy ( I 'll refrain from calling that energy " time " , see above ) competing with others who take the shortcut of using cash to upgrade their avatar .
Regardless of the morality of a game company allowing such actions or the potential effects on the game 's economy , it cheapens the former 's accomplishment when it is made to be easily accessed by those who have the resources to skip the work.The counterargument has two basic facets : A lot of people have called the level-system of World of Warcraft " a 79-level tutorial to prepare your character for the real game " .
Under that theory , what if you 're already familiar with your character ?
Should n't you be able to skip the tutorial since you are already just as skilled as someone who went through the leveling process ?
Or , if that analysis does n't suit your fancy ( " No one would choose to go through levels if they did n't have to !
" ) , how many of those 79 levels did you need to get as skilled as you are at your character ?
Did you need them all ?
Would 50 suffice ?
25 ? 10 ?
Do you think you 'd be able to try a new class and pick it up in 10 levels ?
Before you answer , keep in mind that Blizzard starts Death Knights at level 55 !
Now , apply that logic to other games .
If you 've been playing FPS 's for the last ten years , how much practice would you really need to become familiar with Team Fortress 2 ?
Dude , you just called the game " work " .
It 's right there .
You do n't want people to be rewarded for not doing the work .
I do n't know about you , brah , but I get enough work at work .
I 'm not in college / high school / the military / the Siberian Tundra anymore .
I do n't have unlimited amounts of time .
And if I can plop down $ 20 to avoid 100 + hours ( and , in some cases , this is a ludicrously low estimate ; see also : Lineage II , Vanguard ) of mundane , mindless tasks solely designed to make me want to play more , do you take Visa ?
Plus , you mind telling me how me doing so affects you in any way ?
Even if my gear does n't mark me as a twink and we look the exact same , what were you hoping for ?
Recognition of your accomplishment from other players ?
Seriously , is that what you 're playing for ?
Validation that all that time ( see above ) was well-spent ?
Are you really that desperate for popularity that you 'd waste months of your life trying to garner it from people you do n't even know ? Personally , I 'd like to see a variable level system .
In theory , you would enter level 1 an</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the overarching question ought to be what you define skill as.
Premise 1: Skill is not time.
Or is it?
One of the largest complaints about a level-based system is that without a significant penalty for

failure, eventually, everyone can pass the level.
Therefore, anything that anyone can do does not require skill.The counterargument is that time builds muscle memory, which is a vital element for most games.
Though I hate to

draw the comparison, professional athletes use repetition to increase performance.
Care to guess at the number of

balls that Tiger Woods has hit in his life?
Thousands? Hundreds of thousands?
Now, Tiger Woods is an awe-inspiring

athlete.
He has natural talent and is (arguably) the most skilled golfer of all time.
How much of that "skill" is

based on repetition?Do you think the world's best Starcraft player is actually looking at what he's building?
Do you think the top

Counterstrike team is actually thinking about the menu structure when purchasing weapons at the start of a round?
Similarly, take World of Warcraft PvP.
It's not enough to understand that the Warlock counter to a Death Knight's

Death Grip is Demonic Circle.
You have to have the presence of mind to see the spell graphic and immediate react

with the teleport.
Regardless of your understanding of the mechanic, it's muscle memory that will play the primary

role.
So, in a way, time breeds skill.
Premise 2: Skill is not money.
Or is it?
It's easy to empathize with the anger of people who expend a lot of energy (I'll refrain from calling

that energy "time", see above) competing with others who take the shortcut of using cash to upgrade their avatar.
Regardless of the morality of a game company allowing such actions or the potential effects on the game's economy,

it cheapens the former's accomplishment when it is made to be easily accessed by those who have the resources to skip

the work.The counterargument has two basic facets: A lot of people have called the level-system of World of Warcraft "a 79-level tutorial to prepare your

character for the real game".
Under that theory, what if you're already familiar with your character?
Shouldn't you

be able to skip the tutorial since you are already just as skilled as someone who went through the leveling process?
Or, if

that analysis doesn't suit your fancy ("No one would choose to go through levels if they didn't have to!
"), how many of those

79 levels did you need to get as skilled as you are at your character?
Did you need them all?
Would 50 suffice?
25?

10?
Do you think you'd be able to try a new class and pick it up in 10 levels?
Before you answer, keep in mind that

Blizzard starts Death Knights at level 55!
Now, apply that logic to other games.
If you've been playing FPS's for the last ten years, how much practice would you really need to become familiar with Team Fortress 2?
Dude, you just called the game "work".
It's right there.
You don't want people to be rewarded for not

doing the work.
I don't know about you, brah, but I get enough work at work.
I'm not in college / high

school / the military / the Siberian Tundra anymore.
I don't have unlimited amounts of time.
And if I can plop down

$20 to avoid 100+ hours (and, in some cases, this is a ludicrously low estimate; see also: Lineage II, Vanguard) of

mundane, mindless tasks solely designed to make me want to play more, do you take Visa?
Plus, you mind

telling me how me doing so affects you in any way?
Even if my gear doesn't mark me as a twink and we look the exact

same, what were you hoping for?
Recognition of your accomplishment from other players?
Seriously, is that what

you're playing for?
Validation that all that time (see above) was well-spent?
Are you really that desperate for

popularity that you'd waste months of your life trying to garner it from people you don't even know?Personally, I'd like to see a variable level system.
In theory, you would enter level 1 an</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610483</id>
	<title>mix, non-additive</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1246990800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My take on the situation:</p><p>Mix the two. I'd just <b>love</b> a game where I have both approaches available. Where I could bring my personal skills to the game, but where I don't have any or find it too exhausting (i.e. not fun) to use them, compensate with points, levels, whatever.</p><p>The main problem of game design is to make sure it's a complementary, but not additive system. You should be able to offset lack of skill by points, but not have it add up. Someone with the maximum level but no skill should be equal to someone with the highest skill but no level, should be equal to someone with both the skill and the level. If you make it any other way, the game will simply change into one where you need <b>both</b> instead of <b>either</b>.</p><p>Most of today's FPS games have such a design in one aspect: You can fire single shots or short bursts and aim them well, or you can fire more or less blindly in long bursts. Due to the random spread increasing with fire rate, you can't do both. It's not the perfect example, but serves to illustrate what I mean.</p><p>Adapting that to some MMORPG concepts is, of course, non-trivial. The combat, weapon, magic and other systems of these games are very strongly geared towards level-based playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My take on the situation : Mix the two .
I 'd just love a game where I have both approaches available .
Where I could bring my personal skills to the game , but where I do n't have any or find it too exhausting ( i.e .
not fun ) to use them , compensate with points , levels , whatever.The main problem of game design is to make sure it 's a complementary , but not additive system .
You should be able to offset lack of skill by points , but not have it add up .
Someone with the maximum level but no skill should be equal to someone with the highest skill but no level , should be equal to someone with both the skill and the level .
If you make it any other way , the game will simply change into one where you need both instead of either.Most of today 's FPS games have such a design in one aspect : You can fire single shots or short bursts and aim them well , or you can fire more or less blindly in long bursts .
Due to the random spread increasing with fire rate , you ca n't do both .
It 's not the perfect example , but serves to illustrate what I mean.Adapting that to some MMORPG concepts is , of course , non-trivial .
The combat , weapon , magic and other systems of these games are very strongly geared towards level-based playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My take on the situation:Mix the two.
I'd just love a game where I have both approaches available.
Where I could bring my personal skills to the game, but where I don't have any or find it too exhausting (i.e.
not fun) to use them, compensate with points, levels, whatever.The main problem of game design is to make sure it's a complementary, but not additive system.
You should be able to offset lack of skill by points, but not have it add up.
Someone with the maximum level but no skill should be equal to someone with the highest skill but no level, should be equal to someone with both the skill and the level.
If you make it any other way, the game will simply change into one where you need both instead of either.Most of today's FPS games have such a design in one aspect: You can fire single shots or short bursts and aim them well, or you can fire more or less blindly in long bursts.
Due to the random spread increasing with fire rate, you can't do both.
It's not the perfect example, but serves to illustrate what I mean.Adapting that to some MMORPG concepts is, of course, non-trivial.
The combat, weapon, magic and other systems of these games are very strongly geared towards level-based playing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610743</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>I.M.O.G.</author>
	<datestamp>1246991760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?</p></div></blockquote><p>

I'd say that this is the definition of skill for an online game.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd mostly agree, although it takes a combination of intimate knowledge of ingame mechanics as well as ingame coordination.  Accuracy and efficiency are attributes of ingame skill which could be reasonably considered ingame coordination and often take time to develop, hone, and ulimately perfect.</p><p>So the intimate knowledge alone isn't enough to excel, and the combination of ingame coordination is often what differentiates a good player from a great one, imo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At what point does intimate knowledge of a game 's mechanics make a player skilled ?
I 'd say that this is the definition of skill for an online game.I 'd mostly agree , although it takes a combination of intimate knowledge of ingame mechanics as well as ingame coordination .
Accuracy and efficiency are attributes of ingame skill which could be reasonably considered ingame coordination and often take time to develop , hone , and ulimately perfect.So the intimate knowledge alone is n't enough to excel , and the combination of ingame coordination is often what differentiates a good player from a great one , imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?
I'd say that this is the definition of skill for an online game.I'd mostly agree, although it takes a combination of intimate knowledge of ingame mechanics as well as ingame coordination.
Accuracy and efficiency are attributes of ingame skill which could be reasonably considered ingame coordination and often take time to develop, hone, and ulimately perfect.So the intimate knowledge alone isn't enough to excel, and the combination of ingame coordination is often what differentiates a good player from a great one, imo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610929</id>
	<title>Re:WoW works!</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1246992420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey, i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds. 12 million can't be wrong</p></div><p>No, we can't. I could use your same logic to claim that all games must have ambulatory cows in them.

</p><p>You would make a great film executive through. "Hey, that movie with Will Smith and explosions that came out on July 4th weekend sold great. Let's do that <em>every</em> year!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds .
12 million ca n't be wrongNo , we ca n't .
I could use your same logic to claim that all games must have ambulatory cows in them .
You would make a great film executive through .
" Hey , that movie with Will Smith and explosions that came out on July 4th weekend sold great .
Let 's do that every year !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds.
12 million can't be wrongNo, we can't.
I could use your same logic to claim that all games must have ambulatory cows in them.
You would make a great film executive through.
"Hey, that movie with Will Smith and explosions that came out on July 4th weekend sold great.
Let's do that every year!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612847</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246999680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are different modes you can play in SSB.  One of them is that you have a set amount of HP and die when that is gone, but I think it's more fun the normal way, where you try to knock someone out of the level to kill them (super sudden death is also fun, start with 300\% damage and pretty much any hit knocks you out).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are different modes you can play in SSB .
One of them is that you have a set amount of HP and die when that is gone , but I think it 's more fun the normal way , where you try to knock someone out of the level to kill them ( super sudden death is also fun , start with 300 \ % damage and pretty much any hit knocks you out ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are different modes you can play in SSB.
One of them is that you have a set amount of HP and die when that is gone, but I think it's more fun the normal way, where you try to knock someone out of the level to kill them (super sudden death is also fun, start with 300\% damage and pretty much any hit knocks you out).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620615</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is kinda misleading, actually</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1247062200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the main practical difference between level-based and skill-based (or maybe it's the difference between class-based and skill-based, but classes and levels usually go together) is that classes give everybody his own niche to specialise in, whereas skills give you the freedom to completely customise your character to whatever playstyle or perceived niche you prefer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the main practical difference between level-based and skill-based ( or maybe it 's the difference between class-based and skill-based , but classes and levels usually go together ) is that classes give everybody his own niche to specialise in , whereas skills give you the freedom to completely customise your character to whatever playstyle or perceived niche you prefer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the main practical difference between level-based and skill-based (or maybe it's the difference between class-based and skill-based, but classes and levels usually go together) is that classes give everybody his own niche to specialise in, whereas skills give you the freedom to completely customise your character to whatever playstyle or perceived niche you prefer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28617001</id>
	<title>Re:MMOs with Leveling are inherently broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246980480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People are getting bored of the level grinding for sake of leveling... I mean I'm bored it of it. I don't want to play those games anymore. Give me a breathing world without mob killing to level.</p></div><p>Been out hiking lately?  There aren't XP, so to speak, but as you gain more experience, you can reach higher and more remote places.  You tools are limited to what you can cary in a pack on your back and you must make a trade off between tools to adapt to weather and conditions and higher mobility w/ a smaller toolset.  You do research and talk to other players in game to work out efficient routes and ways to avoid raids by bears and other wild beasts.  Much like the RPG, many hikers form clans and make regular raids on touristy destinations and make attempts at more remote desirable locations.</p><p>So.... It's lots of fun.  Check it out some time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are getting bored of the level grinding for sake of leveling... I mean I 'm bored it of it .
I do n't want to play those games anymore .
Give me a breathing world without mob killing to level.Been out hiking lately ?
There are n't XP , so to speak , but as you gain more experience , you can reach higher and more remote places .
You tools are limited to what you can cary in a pack on your back and you must make a trade off between tools to adapt to weather and conditions and higher mobility w/ a smaller toolset .
You do research and talk to other players in game to work out efficient routes and ways to avoid raids by bears and other wild beasts .
Much like the RPG , many hikers form clans and make regular raids on touristy destinations and make attempts at more remote desirable locations.So.... It 's lots of fun .
Check it out some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are getting bored of the level grinding for sake of leveling... I mean I'm bored it of it.
I don't want to play those games anymore.
Give me a breathing world without mob killing to level.Been out hiking lately?
There aren't XP, so to speak, but as you gain more experience, you can reach higher and more remote places.
You tools are limited to what you can cary in a pack on your back and you must make a trade off between tools to adapt to weather and conditions and higher mobility w/ a smaller toolset.
You do research and talk to other players in game to work out efficient routes and ways to avoid raids by bears and other wild beasts.
Much like the RPG, many hikers form clans and make regular raids on touristy destinations and make attempts at more remote desirable locations.So.... It's lots of fun.
Check it out some time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611963</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Spyder</author>
	<datestamp>1246996140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some things that might be possible, it might even be cool if that mechanic were used with a motion controller.  I think that it might be harder to come up with a good way to quantify high skill in non-melee classes though.</p><p>Having been a dedicated healer in a few MMOs, the skill lies in resource management at least as much as just keeping people up.  Letting a tank get down to 10\% health (assuming it wasn't a 1 hit) is a sign of failure, running out of power is a sign of failure, in a bad situation, wasting power on healing the wrong guy is a sign of failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some things that might be possible , it might even be cool if that mechanic were used with a motion controller .
I think that it might be harder to come up with a good way to quantify high skill in non-melee classes though.Having been a dedicated healer in a few MMOs , the skill lies in resource management at least as much as just keeping people up .
Letting a tank get down to 10 \ % health ( assuming it was n't a 1 hit ) is a sign of failure , running out of power is a sign of failure , in a bad situation , wasting power on healing the wrong guy is a sign of failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some things that might be possible, it might even be cool if that mechanic were used with a motion controller.
I think that it might be harder to come up with a good way to quantify high skill in non-melee classes though.Having been a dedicated healer in a few MMOs, the skill lies in resource management at least as much as just keeping people up.
Letting a tank get down to 10\% health (assuming it wasn't a 1 hit) is a sign of failure, running out of power is a sign of failure, in a bad situation, wasting power on healing the wrong guy is a sign of failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612155</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1246997100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you suggest, is a primitive way of how Skill based system work (as oposed of level based systems).</p><p>It almost totally describe a skill based game: Morrowind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you suggest , is a primitive way of how Skill based system work ( as oposed of level based systems ) .It almost totally describe a skill based game : Morrowind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you suggest, is a primitive way of how Skill based system work (as oposed of level based systems).It almost totally describe a skill based game: Morrowind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493</id>
	<title>WoW works!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246990800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds.<br>12 million can't be wrong....and on top of that there is still 2 expansions left before they defunct the game.<br>Although i am sure they will keep servers rolling, or offer server solutions to those who want to host their own gaming server.<br>I am not talking the hacked kind either...!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds.12 million ca n't be wrong....and on top of that there is still 2 expansions left before they defunct the game.Although i am sure they will keep servers rolling , or offer server solutions to those who want to host their own gaming server.I am not talking the hacked kind either... !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds.12 million can't be wrong....and on top of that there is still 2 expansions left before they defunct the game.Although i am sure they will keep servers rolling, or offer server solutions to those who want to host their own gaming server.I am not talking the hacked kind either...!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613465</id>
	<title>mmo's aren't good for twitch gaming</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1246959120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the state of the net, it's not really built for twitch gaming, at least in certain mmo's. Eve Online makes you fly your ship through autopilot. How fun is that? I want a joystick! Well, joysticks would suck. The game is laggy and you couldn't possibly enjoy it like that. Using autopilot and hotkeys, less twitching is required.</p><p>That being said, there were specific reasons why I found EVE difficult and un-fun and quit. The ship customization system didn't make a whole lot of intuitive sense to me. A lot of people enjoyed it but I found it illogical and counter-intuitive. The grinding to get anywhere lost appeal and I didn't have the time to devote to becoming a member of an elite company to do stuff. Then there's also the amount of time it takes to build a character. You need to be familiar with the game or have a friend who knows how to advise you to become useful at anything. Players said they could get a month-old account combat-worthy with the right skills learned but someone trying to make a rounded character would suffer for it. Obsessives would multi-account and have a miner, fighter, industrialist, etc.</p><p>In EVE you could really stack things against noobs. PVE setups aren't always good for PVP. The PVP guy comes into the fight with the ship rigged for exactly that. Carebear goes lowsec to hunt pirates, the PVPer is sitting there running probes. Finds out where the noob is, warps in, noob starts to panic because he sees a new hostile. PVP guy already has scramble drones out, has a real good chance of nailing the target down before he can warp out. He has optimized weapons for the fight, knows how to tank his shields or armor, carebear is soon dead. Carebear likely won't know why he's dead but is furious that he lost a ton of isk just trying to get rats.</p><p>The problem with EVE is that a certain set believe that harshness is a good thing and want as grim and unpleasant an environment as possible. But to have fun with that, the wolves need sheep -- carebears in this case. And so carebears just want to have some fun, build up some nice ships, not do anything hasty or risky. But it's difficult to get anywhere in highsec and so forays into lowsec are made, wolves pounce and say the game is great. Carebears eventually get fed up and leave.</p><p>I gave up on EVE because it required a ridiculous investment of time to learn the ropes and get everywhere. Yes, I could probably have mastered all of the intricacies of politics and equipping my ship and learning how to pvp properly but jesus christ, I've got shit to do! Real life shit! I want my video games to be relaxing, not a second job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the state of the net , it 's not really built for twitch gaming , at least in certain mmo 's .
Eve Online makes you fly your ship through autopilot .
How fun is that ?
I want a joystick !
Well , joysticks would suck .
The game is laggy and you could n't possibly enjoy it like that .
Using autopilot and hotkeys , less twitching is required.That being said , there were specific reasons why I found EVE difficult and un-fun and quit .
The ship customization system did n't make a whole lot of intuitive sense to me .
A lot of people enjoyed it but I found it illogical and counter-intuitive .
The grinding to get anywhere lost appeal and I did n't have the time to devote to becoming a member of an elite company to do stuff .
Then there 's also the amount of time it takes to build a character .
You need to be familiar with the game or have a friend who knows how to advise you to become useful at anything .
Players said they could get a month-old account combat-worthy with the right skills learned but someone trying to make a rounded character would suffer for it .
Obsessives would multi-account and have a miner , fighter , industrialist , etc.In EVE you could really stack things against noobs .
PVE setups are n't always good for PVP .
The PVP guy comes into the fight with the ship rigged for exactly that .
Carebear goes lowsec to hunt pirates , the PVPer is sitting there running probes .
Finds out where the noob is , warps in , noob starts to panic because he sees a new hostile .
PVP guy already has scramble drones out , has a real good chance of nailing the target down before he can warp out .
He has optimized weapons for the fight , knows how to tank his shields or armor , carebear is soon dead .
Carebear likely wo n't know why he 's dead but is furious that he lost a ton of isk just trying to get rats.The problem with EVE is that a certain set believe that harshness is a good thing and want as grim and unpleasant an environment as possible .
But to have fun with that , the wolves need sheep -- carebears in this case .
And so carebears just want to have some fun , build up some nice ships , not do anything hasty or risky .
But it 's difficult to get anywhere in highsec and so forays into lowsec are made , wolves pounce and say the game is great .
Carebears eventually get fed up and leave.I gave up on EVE because it required a ridiculous investment of time to learn the ropes and get everywhere .
Yes , I could probably have mastered all of the intricacies of politics and equipping my ship and learning how to pvp properly but jesus christ , I 've got shit to do !
Real life shit !
I want my video games to be relaxing , not a second job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the state of the net, it's not really built for twitch gaming, at least in certain mmo's.
Eve Online makes you fly your ship through autopilot.
How fun is that?
I want a joystick!
Well, joysticks would suck.
The game is laggy and you couldn't possibly enjoy it like that.
Using autopilot and hotkeys, less twitching is required.That being said, there were specific reasons why I found EVE difficult and un-fun and quit.
The ship customization system didn't make a whole lot of intuitive sense to me.
A lot of people enjoyed it but I found it illogical and counter-intuitive.
The grinding to get anywhere lost appeal and I didn't have the time to devote to becoming a member of an elite company to do stuff.
Then there's also the amount of time it takes to build a character.
You need to be familiar with the game or have a friend who knows how to advise you to become useful at anything.
Players said they could get a month-old account combat-worthy with the right skills learned but someone trying to make a rounded character would suffer for it.
Obsessives would multi-account and have a miner, fighter, industrialist, etc.In EVE you could really stack things against noobs.
PVE setups aren't always good for PVP.
The PVP guy comes into the fight with the ship rigged for exactly that.
Carebear goes lowsec to hunt pirates, the PVPer is sitting there running probes.
Finds out where the noob is, warps in, noob starts to panic because he sees a new hostile.
PVP guy already has scramble drones out, has a real good chance of nailing the target down before he can warp out.
He has optimized weapons for the fight, knows how to tank his shields or armor, carebear is soon dead.
Carebear likely won't know why he's dead but is furious that he lost a ton of isk just trying to get rats.The problem with EVE is that a certain set believe that harshness is a good thing and want as grim and unpleasant an environment as possible.
But to have fun with that, the wolves need sheep -- carebears in this case.
And so carebears just want to have some fun, build up some nice ships, not do anything hasty or risky.
But it's difficult to get anywhere in highsec and so forays into lowsec are made, wolves pounce and say the game is great.
Carebears eventually get fed up and leave.I gave up on EVE because it required a ridiculous investment of time to learn the ropes and get everywhere.
Yes, I could probably have mastered all of the intricacies of politics and equipping my ship and learning how to pvp properly but jesus christ, I've got shit to do!
Real life shit!
I want my video games to be relaxing, not a second job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611453</id>
	<title>Re:Um, that's why they are games, not sports</title>
	<author>Austerity Empowers</author>
	<datestamp>1246994400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree, there IS "skill". It's probably not a useful quantity outside of the game, and unlike some athletic events there is probably a point at which you cannot be more skilled than another person, but there is a huge gap between some players in ability, you can call that skill. Also hardware, latency, etc. also can blur the line between skill and wealth. The problem with this topic is what "skill" means to various people.</p><p>The latest trends in MMOGs (which WoW still seems to want to be the frontrunner) is mashing keys fast. The entire design of the latest expansion is the concept of "rotations", be it dps, healing (previously a relatively cerebral job) and tanking. On one hand they've added an element requiring players to mash buttons faster and more accurately (throwing in some proc effects that require you to adapt your rotation periodically). On the other hand they've almost entirely eliminated strategy and situational awareness. But yeah, it plays a lot more like an FPS and there is "skill" in mashing your buttons fast, clicking fast and turning fast.</p><p>Then there's FPS skill, which has traditionally been being prepared, fast and accurate, usually in that order.</p><p>Skill is increasingly being defined, across genre's in a one size fits all way: a) competitive player versus player, b) a measure of reaction time and ability to manipulate the UI/interface well, c) familiarity with the content (and practice within it) and to a somewhat lesser extent d) familiarity with the boundaries of the simulator in question (not exploits, just how far the rules bend).</p><p>Other things that skill could be, and in some genre's should be: a) adaptability to dynamic, unknown situations, b) coordination across groups of people, c) preparation for encounters for which a few datapoints are known, d) how to combine/synergize abilities across classes, and how to make trade-offs as a unit,   etc. I play MMOGs primarily for this concept of "skill", although it's been in serious decline.</p><p>So I guess I want to undermine the entire thesis of the article. People bitch about "level systems" versus "skill" systems, but often because they aren't playing the same game. Levels in MMOGs are supposed to be about lumping people into similar categories of <i>character</i> ability level, gear and progression, at least in theory. The idea behind levels is a social tool from game designers that helps people identify others with similar interests, to get together and collectively tackle content that is otherwise too difficult for them singly. This is also, not coincidentally, the idea behind the class system! You know for a balanced group you need some tanking, some healing, some slowing (in EQ) and a mix of damage (melee and magic, usually). The class system worked well for helping people identify what element they needed to round out the group, and provided enough class differentiation to make it interesting. This works well in traditional MMOGs where the game is primarily PVE, and where game designers go out of their way to use levels appropriately and define classes well. WoW blurs this a lot, and IMO, screws up the game a lot. In any event, in context of MMOGs, levels != skill. You can have one without the other, and it's absolutely OK.</p><p>On the flip side, in an FPS where you are primarily engaged in PVP, it makes a lot less sense to rank people by arbitrary factors such as level (i.e. time spent killing monsters, content completed, etc.) and more sense to lump them into categories that allow like people to interact with like people. A tournament system works here. Of course not all contestants are in the same league as one another, some have better hardware, lower latency connections, more playtime, etc. You don't want people to feel completely outclassed. In boxing/wrestling/etc. you have the concept of "weight class". Perhaps grouping people with similar characteristics and ranking them within their class makes the most sense, providing a good level of adequate comparison of skill, bracketed within boundaries that seem rea</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , there IS " skill " .
It 's probably not a useful quantity outside of the game , and unlike some athletic events there is probably a point at which you can not be more skilled than another person , but there is a huge gap between some players in ability , you can call that skill .
Also hardware , latency , etc .
also can blur the line between skill and wealth .
The problem with this topic is what " skill " means to various people.The latest trends in MMOGs ( which WoW still seems to want to be the frontrunner ) is mashing keys fast .
The entire design of the latest expansion is the concept of " rotations " , be it dps , healing ( previously a relatively cerebral job ) and tanking .
On one hand they 've added an element requiring players to mash buttons faster and more accurately ( throwing in some proc effects that require you to adapt your rotation periodically ) .
On the other hand they 've almost entirely eliminated strategy and situational awareness .
But yeah , it plays a lot more like an FPS and there is " skill " in mashing your buttons fast , clicking fast and turning fast.Then there 's FPS skill , which has traditionally been being prepared , fast and accurate , usually in that order.Skill is increasingly being defined , across genre 's in a one size fits all way : a ) competitive player versus player , b ) a measure of reaction time and ability to manipulate the UI/interface well , c ) familiarity with the content ( and practice within it ) and to a somewhat lesser extent d ) familiarity with the boundaries of the simulator in question ( not exploits , just how far the rules bend ) .Other things that skill could be , and in some genre 's should be : a ) adaptability to dynamic , unknown situations , b ) coordination across groups of people , c ) preparation for encounters for which a few datapoints are known , d ) how to combine/synergize abilities across classes , and how to make trade-offs as a unit , etc .
I play MMOGs primarily for this concept of " skill " , although it 's been in serious decline.So I guess I want to undermine the entire thesis of the article .
People bitch about " level systems " versus " skill " systems , but often because they are n't playing the same game .
Levels in MMOGs are supposed to be about lumping people into similar categories of character ability level , gear and progression , at least in theory .
The idea behind levels is a social tool from game designers that helps people identify others with similar interests , to get together and collectively tackle content that is otherwise too difficult for them singly .
This is also , not coincidentally , the idea behind the class system !
You know for a balanced group you need some tanking , some healing , some slowing ( in EQ ) and a mix of damage ( melee and magic , usually ) .
The class system worked well for helping people identify what element they needed to round out the group , and provided enough class differentiation to make it interesting .
This works well in traditional MMOGs where the game is primarily PVE , and where game designers go out of their way to use levels appropriately and define classes well .
WoW blurs this a lot , and IMO , screws up the game a lot .
In any event , in context of MMOGs , levels ! = skill .
You can have one without the other , and it 's absolutely OK.On the flip side , in an FPS where you are primarily engaged in PVP , it makes a lot less sense to rank people by arbitrary factors such as level ( i.e .
time spent killing monsters , content completed , etc .
) and more sense to lump them into categories that allow like people to interact with like people .
A tournament system works here .
Of course not all contestants are in the same league as one another , some have better hardware , lower latency connections , more playtime , etc .
You do n't want people to feel completely outclassed .
In boxing/wrestling/etc .
you have the concept of " weight class " .
Perhaps grouping people with similar characteristics and ranking them within their class makes the most sense , providing a good level of adequate comparison of skill , bracketed within boundaries that seem rea</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, there IS "skill".
It's probably not a useful quantity outside of the game, and unlike some athletic events there is probably a point at which you cannot be more skilled than another person, but there is a huge gap between some players in ability, you can call that skill.
Also hardware, latency, etc.
also can blur the line between skill and wealth.
The problem with this topic is what "skill" means to various people.The latest trends in MMOGs (which WoW still seems to want to be the frontrunner) is mashing keys fast.
The entire design of the latest expansion is the concept of "rotations", be it dps, healing (previously a relatively cerebral job) and tanking.
On one hand they've added an element requiring players to mash buttons faster and more accurately (throwing in some proc effects that require you to adapt your rotation periodically).
On the other hand they've almost entirely eliminated strategy and situational awareness.
But yeah, it plays a lot more like an FPS and there is "skill" in mashing your buttons fast, clicking fast and turning fast.Then there's FPS skill, which has traditionally been being prepared, fast and accurate, usually in that order.Skill is increasingly being defined, across genre's in a one size fits all way: a) competitive player versus player, b) a measure of reaction time and ability to manipulate the UI/interface well, c) familiarity with the content (and practice within it) and to a somewhat lesser extent d) familiarity with the boundaries of the simulator in question (not exploits, just how far the rules bend).Other things that skill could be, and in some genre's should be: a) adaptability to dynamic, unknown situations, b) coordination across groups of people, c) preparation for encounters for which a few datapoints are known, d) how to combine/synergize abilities across classes, and how to make trade-offs as a unit,   etc.
I play MMOGs primarily for this concept of "skill", although it's been in serious decline.So I guess I want to undermine the entire thesis of the article.
People bitch about "level systems" versus "skill" systems, but often because they aren't playing the same game.
Levels in MMOGs are supposed to be about lumping people into similar categories of character ability level, gear and progression, at least in theory.
The idea behind levels is a social tool from game designers that helps people identify others with similar interests, to get together and collectively tackle content that is otherwise too difficult for them singly.
This is also, not coincidentally, the idea behind the class system!
You know for a balanced group you need some tanking, some healing, some slowing (in EQ) and a mix of damage (melee and magic, usually).
The class system worked well for helping people identify what element they needed to round out the group, and provided enough class differentiation to make it interesting.
This works well in traditional MMOGs where the game is primarily PVE, and where game designers go out of their way to use levels appropriately and define classes well.
WoW blurs this a lot, and IMO, screws up the game a lot.
In any event, in context of MMOGs, levels != skill.
You can have one without the other, and it's absolutely OK.On the flip side, in an FPS where you are primarily engaged in PVP, it makes a lot less sense to rank people by arbitrary factors such as level (i.e.
time spent killing monsters, content completed, etc.
) and more sense to lump them into categories that allow like people to interact with like people.
A tournament system works here.
Of course not all contestants are in the same league as one another, some have better hardware, lower latency connections, more playtime, etc.
You don't want people to feel completely outclassed.
In boxing/wrestling/etc.
you have the concept of "weight class".
Perhaps grouping people with similar characteristics and ranking them within their class makes the most sense, providing a good level of adequate comparison of skill, bracketed within boundaries that seem rea</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612377</id>
	<title>Re:Character vs. Player skill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like: go up a level and choose how your character gets better. Meaning you can get better at the bow even though the last 500 monsters were killed with a sword...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like : go up a level and choose how your character gets better .
Meaning you can get better at the bow even though the last 500 monsters were killed with a sword.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like: go up a level and choose how your character gets better.
Meaning you can get better at the bow even though the last 500 monsters were killed with a sword...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612853</id>
	<title>skill?</title>
	<author>drazed</author>
	<datestamp>1246999740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First a simple example:<br>
  * WOW (worldofwarcraft.com) - level based combat<br>
  * VO (vendetta-online.com) - skill based<br>
<br>
Reasoning:<br>
WOW:<br>
  Now matter what you do, there is a higher chance of hell freezing over or world peace tomorrow then you beating a level 80 character with your level 20 character.  PERIOD!!  Hell, there's pretty much no chance of beating anyone more then a level or two above you.  This logically implies that the combat model is based purely on levels and not on skill.  I'm not gonna argue if WOW actually requires skills because it doesn't matter, unless you're a level 80 like all the other endgamers there's really absolutely nothing you can do to beat them, no matter how good you are.<br>
<br>
VO:<br>
  When I first tried this one I leveled up all my licenses (these are used to unlock better ships/weapons), when I finally did you know what?  I got blasted by someones alt, he was in a free ship with free guns vs my super leet top-of-the-line technology.  It's not only possible to kill someone in a bigger/badder ship then the one you are flying, it happens every day!  And you don't need a large possy of noobs in with free ships to do it, you just need skill that comes from experience and practice and a single ship.<br>
<br>
Don't get me wrong, even in a skill based game it's very unlikely (arguably impossible) to just jump into the game and attain this skill in minutes and start killing long time players.  Skill, in the case of VO anyways is twitch reflexes and 3d orientation/strategy, much like flying a real plane or driving a car.  The first time you jump behind the wheel of a car and race against a seasoned pro you'll lose, aside some sort of freak-of-nature cat-gene reflexes there's nothing you can do about this.<br>
<br>
The real difference between skill and level based games, skill based games you practice to get good, level based games you practice to get levels.  Levels are like a fake skill reward for practice that anyone can get, thus keeping the "skill" for that game based more-or-less on how much you've played it (or in the case of games like EvE, how dedicated you are with logging in and setting your account to auto-grind the next skill, funny game that one where you don't even really play to gain skills or levels), and not transferable to other characters even in the same game.  Both types of games will end up with some grind, just one is a grind where you're guaranteed to improve (your level), the other is like practicing a piano for years (you will get better, but some people are just more capable in the end then others).  I think that's the real distinction between skill and level based, and also the reason level based games are generally more popular, that in a level based game anyone can become godlike to those less powerful then them (those that haven't played as long) while a skill based game not everyone is guaranteed to attain this level of power over others (you need to actually be godlink to appear godlike which is somewhat rare these days).</htmltext>
<tokenext>First a simple example : * WOW ( worldofwarcraft.com ) - level based combat * VO ( vendetta-online.com ) - skill based Reasoning : WOW : Now matter what you do , there is a higher chance of hell freezing over or world peace tomorrow then you beating a level 80 character with your level 20 character .
PERIOD ! ! Hell , there 's pretty much no chance of beating anyone more then a level or two above you .
This logically implies that the combat model is based purely on levels and not on skill .
I 'm not gon na argue if WOW actually requires skills because it does n't matter , unless you 're a level 80 like all the other endgamers there 's really absolutely nothing you can do to beat them , no matter how good you are .
VO : When I first tried this one I leveled up all my licenses ( these are used to unlock better ships/weapons ) , when I finally did you know what ?
I got blasted by someones alt , he was in a free ship with free guns vs my super leet top-of-the-line technology .
It 's not only possible to kill someone in a bigger/badder ship then the one you are flying , it happens every day !
And you do n't need a large possy of noobs in with free ships to do it , you just need skill that comes from experience and practice and a single ship .
Do n't get me wrong , even in a skill based game it 's very unlikely ( arguably impossible ) to just jump into the game and attain this skill in minutes and start killing long time players .
Skill , in the case of VO anyways is twitch reflexes and 3d orientation/strategy , much like flying a real plane or driving a car .
The first time you jump behind the wheel of a car and race against a seasoned pro you 'll lose , aside some sort of freak-of-nature cat-gene reflexes there 's nothing you can do about this .
The real difference between skill and level based games , skill based games you practice to get good , level based games you practice to get levels .
Levels are like a fake skill reward for practice that anyone can get , thus keeping the " skill " for that game based more-or-less on how much you 've played it ( or in the case of games like EvE , how dedicated you are with logging in and setting your account to auto-grind the next skill , funny game that one where you do n't even really play to gain skills or levels ) , and not transferable to other characters even in the same game .
Both types of games will end up with some grind , just one is a grind where you 're guaranteed to improve ( your level ) , the other is like practicing a piano for years ( you will get better , but some people are just more capable in the end then others ) .
I think that 's the real distinction between skill and level based , and also the reason level based games are generally more popular , that in a level based game anyone can become godlike to those less powerful then them ( those that have n't played as long ) while a skill based game not everyone is guaranteed to attain this level of power over others ( you need to actually be godlink to appear godlike which is somewhat rare these days ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First a simple example:
  * WOW (worldofwarcraft.com) - level based combat
  * VO (vendetta-online.com) - skill based

Reasoning:
WOW:
  Now matter what you do, there is a higher chance of hell freezing over or world peace tomorrow then you beating a level 80 character with your level 20 character.
PERIOD!!  Hell, there's pretty much no chance of beating anyone more then a level or two above you.
This logically implies that the combat model is based purely on levels and not on skill.
I'm not gonna argue if WOW actually requires skills because it doesn't matter, unless you're a level 80 like all the other endgamers there's really absolutely nothing you can do to beat them, no matter how good you are.
VO:
  When I first tried this one I leveled up all my licenses (these are used to unlock better ships/weapons), when I finally did you know what?
I got blasted by someones alt, he was in a free ship with free guns vs my super leet top-of-the-line technology.
It's not only possible to kill someone in a bigger/badder ship then the one you are flying, it happens every day!
And you don't need a large possy of noobs in with free ships to do it, you just need skill that comes from experience and practice and a single ship.
Don't get me wrong, even in a skill based game it's very unlikely (arguably impossible) to just jump into the game and attain this skill in minutes and start killing long time players.
Skill, in the case of VO anyways is twitch reflexes and 3d orientation/strategy, much like flying a real plane or driving a car.
The first time you jump behind the wheel of a car and race against a seasoned pro you'll lose, aside some sort of freak-of-nature cat-gene reflexes there's nothing you can do about this.
The real difference between skill and level based games, skill based games you practice to get good, level based games you practice to get levels.
Levels are like a fake skill reward for practice that anyone can get, thus keeping the "skill" for that game based more-or-less on how much you've played it (or in the case of games like EvE, how dedicated you are with logging in and setting your account to auto-grind the next skill, funny game that one where you don't even really play to gain skills or levels), and not transferable to other characters even in the same game.
Both types of games will end up with some grind, just one is a grind where you're guaranteed to improve (your level), the other is like practicing a piano for years (you will get better, but some people are just more capable in the end then others).
I think that's the real distinction between skill and level based, and also the reason level based games are generally more popular, that in a level based game anyone can become godlike to those less powerful then them (those that haven't played as long) while a skill based game not everyone is guaranteed to attain this level of power over others (you need to actually be godlink to appear godlike which is somewhat rare these days).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620227</id>
	<title>Re:some advantages of class-based system</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1247060520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure that's it.</p><p>I recall having an indepth discussion on this at an E3 with Jack Emmert before City of Heroes came out.<br>CoH was originally planned as (and I think through early beta was) a skill based game without levels.  Or there may have been levels, but they gave you skill points to buy powers without a guiding archetype.</p><p>In beta, they were extremely disappointed as the beta players quickly resolved a "best set" of talents for each archetype (tank, dps) and everyone migrated to those with only trivial differences between characters.  No matter how they tweaked the skills to be balanced, there was always SOME advantage to one over another, and the beta players would very quickly resolve which was most useful in most instances, and everyone would switch to that.</p><p>So after much agony over the decision, the dev team relegated themselves to the current level mechanic.</p><p>It really wasn't so much about balance (there was no PVP at that time, as I recall) but about the dirty-little-secret of "CRPG" MMO's - they're frightfully one dimensional.  Everything relies on COMBAT and surviving it.  You can't negotiate your way to a resolution, you can't sneak into places and accomplish anything (except skipping some trash mobs, perhaps).  NOTHING significant is accomplishable without bashing heads, and thus the skills that are most useful to this end become the flavor of the month.</p><p>You even see this in level based games with talent points allowing variety within the classes.  For WoW, look at talentchic.com - despite 10 classes, 3 talent trees per class, and 51 points of talents in each tree so 153 choices to spend a character's 71 talent points, there are at BEST 3, perhaps 4 "best distribution" of talent points for each class.  Some, like Warrior or Hunter, have ONE...yes ONE theorycrafted "best" allocation of talent points.</p><p>So no, I don't particularly think its about balance, although that may be part of it.  The root problem is that there is ONE solution to every challenge in an MMO, so is it any surprise that of the varied choices players (supposedly) get, that they resolve a single way to 'win'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that 's it.I recall having an indepth discussion on this at an E3 with Jack Emmert before City of Heroes came out.CoH was originally planned as ( and I think through early beta was ) a skill based game without levels .
Or there may have been levels , but they gave you skill points to buy powers without a guiding archetype.In beta , they were extremely disappointed as the beta players quickly resolved a " best set " of talents for each archetype ( tank , dps ) and everyone migrated to those with only trivial differences between characters .
No matter how they tweaked the skills to be balanced , there was always SOME advantage to one over another , and the beta players would very quickly resolve which was most useful in most instances , and everyone would switch to that.So after much agony over the decision , the dev team relegated themselves to the current level mechanic.It really was n't so much about balance ( there was no PVP at that time , as I recall ) but about the dirty-little-secret of " CRPG " MMO 's - they 're frightfully one dimensional .
Everything relies on COMBAT and surviving it .
You ca n't negotiate your way to a resolution , you ca n't sneak into places and accomplish anything ( except skipping some trash mobs , perhaps ) .
NOTHING significant is accomplishable without bashing heads , and thus the skills that are most useful to this end become the flavor of the month.You even see this in level based games with talent points allowing variety within the classes .
For WoW , look at talentchic.com - despite 10 classes , 3 talent trees per class , and 51 points of talents in each tree so 153 choices to spend a character 's 71 talent points , there are at BEST 3 , perhaps 4 " best distribution " of talent points for each class .
Some , like Warrior or Hunter , have ONE...yes ONE theorycrafted " best " allocation of talent points.So no , I do n't particularly think its about balance , although that may be part of it .
The root problem is that there is ONE solution to every challenge in an MMO , so is it any surprise that of the varied choices players ( supposedly ) get , that they resolve a single way to 'win ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that's it.I recall having an indepth discussion on this at an E3 with Jack Emmert before City of Heroes came out.CoH was originally planned as (and I think through early beta was) a skill based game without levels.
Or there may have been levels, but they gave you skill points to buy powers without a guiding archetype.In beta, they were extremely disappointed as the beta players quickly resolved a "best set" of talents for each archetype (tank, dps) and everyone migrated to those with only trivial differences between characters.
No matter how they tweaked the skills to be balanced, there was always SOME advantage to one over another, and the beta players would very quickly resolve which was most useful in most instances, and everyone would switch to that.So after much agony over the decision, the dev team relegated themselves to the current level mechanic.It really wasn't so much about balance (there was no PVP at that time, as I recall) but about the dirty-little-secret of "CRPG" MMO's - they're frightfully one dimensional.
Everything relies on COMBAT and surviving it.
You can't negotiate your way to a resolution, you can't sneak into places and accomplish anything (except skipping some trash mobs, perhaps).
NOTHING significant is accomplishable without bashing heads, and thus the skills that are most useful to this end become the flavor of the month.You even see this in level based games with talent points allowing variety within the classes.
For WoW, look at talentchic.com - despite 10 classes, 3 talent trees per class, and 51 points of talents in each tree so 153 choices to spend a character's 71 talent points, there are at BEST 3, perhaps 4 "best distribution" of talent points for each class.
Some, like Warrior or Hunter, have ONE...yes ONE theorycrafted "best" allocation of talent points.So no, I don't particularly think its about balance, although that may be part of it.
The root problem is that there is ONE solution to every challenge in an MMO, so is it any surprise that of the varied choices players (supposedly) get, that they resolve a single way to 'win'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614049</id>
	<title>I prefer skill based games..</title>
	<author>Jastiv</author>
	<datestamp>1246961400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many typical RPGs and like games, such as Crossfire, have a level system. This system frequently has levels that can go as high as in the 100's or as low as ten (but frequently this number is scaled up and up in order for the developers to create more  content without doing any real work). When a character gains a level, she also gains stats. She might gain in strength, dexterity, intellect, or whatever other attributes are put into the game. The problem is she has 100 levels, so say she starts with 20 strength, and then gains a point in strength every level, now at level 100 she has 120 strength. The newbie character logs in with his 20 strength newbie. The problem is she is going to really be 6 times more powerful, so then, what happens if she decides now that she has maxed out her character, her new mission in life is to grief newbies. The newbies don't really have much of a chance against her.
	</p><p>But the real issue is that instead of 100 levels, there might be thousands of levels. By the time you get a maxed leveled character, that is several years of work. No lifers  play day in and day out to get max level, and some games don't even really have a cap on levels, so the no lifer has this character that is several times more powerful than that of the casual player. The no lifer then dominates everyone, and everyone else realizes they will never get that powerful, so they quit. This is bad for the game, because eventually the  no-lifer realizes that he is the only one left playing it, and he would rather rank up  on a chart where he has some real competition, not just who had no life for so many years.
	</p><p>Ultima Online did it well. Swing a sword, gain points in dexterity and strength, cast a spell, gain a point in intellect, up to a reasonable cap for your total stats. I think it was something like 255 total, with a max of 150 in any given stat, and up to 25 more points with stat scrolls. But this way there were no uber l33t character with thousands more hit points than the newbie. Sure, maxed our characters were more powerful than the newbies, but anyone could easily get a maxed out character with just a little bit of time and effort, so most people had maxed out characters. The games focus was not on character development, beyond tweaking your template for a given game play change. The focus was on actually playing the game, going to dungeons, finding loot, crafting, and finding resources, socializing, and trading. People did not think of it as a grind game where the primary focus was character development. How you played your character mattered far more, as did customizing your template and equipment for your play style.
</p><p>
I've also reposted this in my blog <a href="http://wogralddev.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://wogralddev.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com] , along with a lot of other game development and design posts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many typical RPGs and like games , such as Crossfire , have a level system .
This system frequently has levels that can go as high as in the 100 's or as low as ten ( but frequently this number is scaled up and up in order for the developers to create more content without doing any real work ) .
When a character gains a level , she also gains stats .
She might gain in strength , dexterity , intellect , or whatever other attributes are put into the game .
The problem is she has 100 levels , so say she starts with 20 strength , and then gains a point in strength every level , now at level 100 she has 120 strength .
The newbie character logs in with his 20 strength newbie .
The problem is she is going to really be 6 times more powerful , so then , what happens if she decides now that she has maxed out her character , her new mission in life is to grief newbies .
The newbies do n't really have much of a chance against her .
But the real issue is that instead of 100 levels , there might be thousands of levels .
By the time you get a maxed leveled character , that is several years of work .
No lifers play day in and day out to get max level , and some games do n't even really have a cap on levels , so the no lifer has this character that is several times more powerful than that of the casual player .
The no lifer then dominates everyone , and everyone else realizes they will never get that powerful , so they quit .
This is bad for the game , because eventually the no-lifer realizes that he is the only one left playing it , and he would rather rank up on a chart where he has some real competition , not just who had no life for so many years .
Ultima Online did it well .
Swing a sword , gain points in dexterity and strength , cast a spell , gain a point in intellect , up to a reasonable cap for your total stats .
I think it was something like 255 total , with a max of 150 in any given stat , and up to 25 more points with stat scrolls .
But this way there were no uber l33t character with thousands more hit points than the newbie .
Sure , maxed our characters were more powerful than the newbies , but anyone could easily get a maxed out character with just a little bit of time and effort , so most people had maxed out characters .
The games focus was not on character development , beyond tweaking your template for a given game play change .
The focus was on actually playing the game , going to dungeons , finding loot , crafting , and finding resources , socializing , and trading .
People did not think of it as a grind game where the primary focus was character development .
How you played your character mattered far more , as did customizing your template and equipment for your play style .
I 've also reposted this in my blog http : //wogralddev.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] , along with a lot of other game development and design posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many typical RPGs and like games, such as Crossfire, have a level system.
This system frequently has levels that can go as high as in the 100's or as low as ten (but frequently this number is scaled up and up in order for the developers to create more  content without doing any real work).
When a character gains a level, she also gains stats.
She might gain in strength, dexterity, intellect, or whatever other attributes are put into the game.
The problem is she has 100 levels, so say she starts with 20 strength, and then gains a point in strength every level, now at level 100 she has 120 strength.
The newbie character logs in with his 20 strength newbie.
The problem is she is going to really be 6 times more powerful, so then, what happens if she decides now that she has maxed out her character, her new mission in life is to grief newbies.
The newbies don't really have much of a chance against her.
But the real issue is that instead of 100 levels, there might be thousands of levels.
By the time you get a maxed leveled character, that is several years of work.
No lifers  play day in and day out to get max level, and some games don't even really have a cap on levels, so the no lifer has this character that is several times more powerful than that of the casual player.
The no lifer then dominates everyone, and everyone else realizes they will never get that powerful, so they quit.
This is bad for the game, because eventually the  no-lifer realizes that he is the only one left playing it, and he would rather rank up  on a chart where he has some real competition, not just who had no life for so many years.
Ultima Online did it well.
Swing a sword, gain points in dexterity and strength, cast a spell, gain a point in intellect, up to a reasonable cap for your total stats.
I think it was something like 255 total, with a max of 150 in any given stat, and up to 25 more points with stat scrolls.
But this way there were no uber l33t character with thousands more hit points than the newbie.
Sure, maxed our characters were more powerful than the newbies, but anyone could easily get a maxed out character with just a little bit of time and effort, so most people had maxed out characters.
The games focus was not on character development, beyond tweaking your template for a given game play change.
The focus was on actually playing the game, going to dungeons, finding loot, crafting, and finding resources, socializing, and trading.
People did not think of it as a grind game where the primary focus was character development.
How you played your character mattered far more, as did customizing your template and equipment for your play style.
I've also reposted this in my blog http://wogralddev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] , along with a lot of other game development and design posts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610513</id>
	<title>Skills - yes please</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1246990920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it doesn't take skill, in these games, to go from level 1 to whatever.  Even in warhammer online where you have ranks (level) and renown ranks (primarly, but not always, levels from pvp) it doesn't really take skill.  Even a computer nub can hang out in pvp areas (in the warhammer example) and lose every single game and eventually get a high level. It will take him a long time but he will have it.  So no these are not measurements skill but are measurements of level.
Yes the game is button pressing and doing it in the correct order and when to do it - but isn't that the basis of EVERY SINGLE video game?  Pacman...when to move left, when to move right....Counter-strike...when to jump, when to crawl, when to duck, when to shoot.

<br> <br>

The only way to truely measure someone's skill in these games comes in two area's 1) pve and 2) pvp<br> <br>
1) PVE - Skill...if you can accomplish the quests, missions, raids, etc then you have skill in pve.  In the long run (once a mob is on farm status) it is easy.  The tactics are the same...just follow the formula and you should win each time (obviously bad electronic rolls can kill you).  But to get to that forumla you have to play and in a lot of games (world of warcraft) you have to play well and you have to play well with others.  Meaning - you could be the best fighter in the game, but without a good healer you are screwed....same goes the other way....you could be the best healer in the game but if the fighter doesn't know what equipment to use, abilities to purchase, and buttons to press (and when to press them) then you are screwed.  A skill player in this category is one who can successfully beat the monsters over and over. Once a monster is on FARM status that player mastered the skull of beating it. From then on it should be easy (as long as the formula is followed)<br> <br>

2) PVP - Skill is a bit trickier here because it not only requires knowledge of your enemies you get a lot of randomness. Even if you play the same opponents every single time (most likely NOT the case) and you realize you are playing that opponent (most likely NOT the case) people are random.  They may learn a new trick, or hell even learn YOUR tricks (most likely not the case). They may have a new mod to help them or new gear.  Things fluctuate.  You obviously will learn that when you, a fighter, encounter a mage there are certain things you can do which help you vs that mage.  The mage will try and counter based on the things they learned (e.g. mage should probably not go toe-to-toe with the fighter).  Once you have mastered the basic knowledge you have gained a lot of skill - then it is just your ability to act react.  The only way to really quantify how good you are is to record your win/loss ratio, kills/death ratio, etc.  There are all kinds of meters.  A player who just goes into a pvp area and is totally skill-less will probably have way more deaths then kills while a good player will have a better ratio.<br> <br>

These games require a lot of knowledge and a lot of skill...as you play them you gain both until they are second nature.  Remember when people look at their playtime for these games it generally is really high (e.g. many players can say they have played over 100 days of their character...that is 2,400 hours of game play).</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does n't take skill , in these games , to go from level 1 to whatever .
Even in warhammer online where you have ranks ( level ) and renown ranks ( primarly , but not always , levels from pvp ) it does n't really take skill .
Even a computer nub can hang out in pvp areas ( in the warhammer example ) and lose every single game and eventually get a high level .
It will take him a long time but he will have it .
So no these are not measurements skill but are measurements of level .
Yes the game is button pressing and doing it in the correct order and when to do it - but is n't that the basis of EVERY SINGLE video game ?
Pacman...when to move left , when to move right....Counter-strike...when to jump , when to crawl , when to duck , when to shoot .
The only way to truely measure someone 's skill in these games comes in two area 's 1 ) pve and 2 ) pvp 1 ) PVE - Skill...if you can accomplish the quests , missions , raids , etc then you have skill in pve .
In the long run ( once a mob is on farm status ) it is easy .
The tactics are the same...just follow the formula and you should win each time ( obviously bad electronic rolls can kill you ) .
But to get to that forumla you have to play and in a lot of games ( world of warcraft ) you have to play well and you have to play well with others .
Meaning - you could be the best fighter in the game , but without a good healer you are screwed....same goes the other way....you could be the best healer in the game but if the fighter does n't know what equipment to use , abilities to purchase , and buttons to press ( and when to press them ) then you are screwed .
A skill player in this category is one who can successfully beat the monsters over and over .
Once a monster is on FARM status that player mastered the skull of beating it .
From then on it should be easy ( as long as the formula is followed ) 2 ) PVP - Skill is a bit trickier here because it not only requires knowledge of your enemies you get a lot of randomness .
Even if you play the same opponents every single time ( most likely NOT the case ) and you realize you are playing that opponent ( most likely NOT the case ) people are random .
They may learn a new trick , or hell even learn YOUR tricks ( most likely not the case ) .
They may have a new mod to help them or new gear .
Things fluctuate .
You obviously will learn that when you , a fighter , encounter a mage there are certain things you can do which help you vs that mage .
The mage will try and counter based on the things they learned ( e.g .
mage should probably not go toe-to-toe with the fighter ) .
Once you have mastered the basic knowledge you have gained a lot of skill - then it is just your ability to act react .
The only way to really quantify how good you are is to record your win/loss ratio , kills/death ratio , etc .
There are all kinds of meters .
A player who just goes into a pvp area and is totally skill-less will probably have way more deaths then kills while a good player will have a better ratio .
These games require a lot of knowledge and a lot of skill...as you play them you gain both until they are second nature .
Remember when people look at their playtime for these games it generally is really high ( e.g .
many players can say they have played over 100 days of their character...that is 2,400 hours of game play ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it doesn't take skill, in these games, to go from level 1 to whatever.
Even in warhammer online where you have ranks (level) and renown ranks (primarly, but not always, levels from pvp) it doesn't really take skill.
Even a computer nub can hang out in pvp areas (in the warhammer example) and lose every single game and eventually get a high level.
It will take him a long time but he will have it.
So no these are not measurements skill but are measurements of level.
Yes the game is button pressing and doing it in the correct order and when to do it - but isn't that the basis of EVERY SINGLE video game?
Pacman...when to move left, when to move right....Counter-strike...when to jump, when to crawl, when to duck, when to shoot.
The only way to truely measure someone's skill in these games comes in two area's 1) pve and 2) pvp 
1) PVE - Skill...if you can accomplish the quests, missions, raids, etc then you have skill in pve.
In the long run (once a mob is on farm status) it is easy.
The tactics are the same...just follow the formula and you should win each time (obviously bad electronic rolls can kill you).
But to get to that forumla you have to play and in a lot of games (world of warcraft) you have to play well and you have to play well with others.
Meaning - you could be the best fighter in the game, but without a good healer you are screwed....same goes the other way....you could be the best healer in the game but if the fighter doesn't know what equipment to use, abilities to purchase, and buttons to press (and when to press them) then you are screwed.
A skill player in this category is one who can successfully beat the monsters over and over.
Once a monster is on FARM status that player mastered the skull of beating it.
From then on it should be easy (as long as the formula is followed) 

2) PVP - Skill is a bit trickier here because it not only requires knowledge of your enemies you get a lot of randomness.
Even if you play the same opponents every single time (most likely NOT the case) and you realize you are playing that opponent (most likely NOT the case) people are random.
They may learn a new trick, or hell even learn YOUR tricks (most likely not the case).
They may have a new mod to help them or new gear.
Things fluctuate.
You obviously will learn that when you, a fighter, encounter a mage there are certain things you can do which help you vs that mage.
The mage will try and counter based on the things they learned (e.g.
mage should probably not go toe-to-toe with the fighter).
Once you have mastered the basic knowledge you have gained a lot of skill - then it is just your ability to act react.
The only way to really quantify how good you are is to record your win/loss ratio, kills/death ratio, etc.
There are all kinds of meters.
A player who just goes into a pvp area and is totally skill-less will probably have way more deaths then kills while a good player will have a better ratio.
These games require a lot of knowledge and a lot of skill...as you play them you gain both until they are second nature.
Remember when people look at their playtime for these games it generally is really high (e.g.
many players can say they have played over 100 days of their character...that is 2,400 hours of game play).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610593</id>
	<title>It's a game.</title>
	<author>Mashhaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246991220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A game is a game, even a grandmaster at Chess isn't necessarily going to be good at anything else.  I would argue that anything that beats the other player (short of cheating/exploting/etc) comprises skill at that game.  Of course, that doesn't do you any good outside of the game, so I hesitate to call it a skill.  Unless you're one of the few who makes money as a professional gamer, being good at CS/WoW/SC/whatever is just being good at killing time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A game is a game , even a grandmaster at Chess is n't necessarily going to be good at anything else .
I would argue that anything that beats the other player ( short of cheating/exploting/etc ) comprises skill at that game .
Of course , that does n't do you any good outside of the game , so I hesitate to call it a skill .
Unless you 're one of the few who makes money as a professional gamer , being good at CS/WoW/SC/whatever is just being good at killing time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A game is a game, even a grandmaster at Chess isn't necessarily going to be good at anything else.
I would argue that anything that beats the other player (short of cheating/exploting/etc) comprises skill at that game.
Of course, that doesn't do you any good outside of the game, so I hesitate to call it a skill.
Unless you're one of the few who makes money as a professional gamer, being good at CS/WoW/SC/whatever is just being good at killing time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613773</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246960320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Following a recipe is a skill, it's just not a hard one to get good at.</p><p>you reference 'grinding' and that is a serperate issue, but one that can be minimized with good skill progression</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Following a recipe is a skill , it 's just not a hard one to get good at.you reference 'grinding ' and that is a serperate issue , but one that can be minimized with good skill progression</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following a recipe is a skill, it's just not a hard one to get good at.you reference 'grinding' and that is a serperate issue, but one that can be minimized with good skill progression</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612317</id>
	<title>Memorization!=skill</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1246997640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd disagree.  Take Chess or Go.</p><p>Mechanics are simple, but it takes a lifetime to master.</p><p>Take WoW.  The mechanics are complex, require a tome, a wiki, and a calculator to figure out.</p><p>Trying to figure out "where can my king move to get out of check" is infinitely easier, and requires fewer mechanics than "How much damage does my mage's spell do?"  ("Which spell?"  "Frostbolt level 8", "What stats do you have?", "[stats]", "Can you give me your build?", "Man, you'd get +1.429\% DPS if you used this staff I read about that came out yesterday!")</p><p>The only thing up for debate then, is whether rote memorization is a skill, which I'd say it's not.</p><p>Versus, ya know, actually figuring out complex strategies, using psychology to outwit your enemy, and hell, even twitch gaming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd disagree .
Take Chess or Go.Mechanics are simple , but it takes a lifetime to master.Take WoW .
The mechanics are complex , require a tome , a wiki , and a calculator to figure out.Trying to figure out " where can my king move to get out of check " is infinitely easier , and requires fewer mechanics than " How much damage does my mage 's spell do ?
" ( " Which spell ?
" " Frostbolt level 8 " , " What stats do you have ?
" , " [ stats ] " , " Can you give me your build ?
" , " Man , you 'd get + 1.429 \ % DPS if you used this staff I read about that came out yesterday !
" ) The only thing up for debate then , is whether rote memorization is a skill , which I 'd say it 's not.Versus , ya know , actually figuring out complex strategies , using psychology to outwit your enemy , and hell , even twitch gaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd disagree.
Take Chess or Go.Mechanics are simple, but it takes a lifetime to master.Take WoW.
The mechanics are complex, require a tome, a wiki, and a calculator to figure out.Trying to figure out "where can my king move to get out of check" is infinitely easier, and requires fewer mechanics than "How much damage does my mage's spell do?
"  ("Which spell?
"  "Frostbolt level 8", "What stats do you have?
", "[stats]", "Can you give me your build?
", "Man, you'd get +1.429\% DPS if you used this staff I read about that came out yesterday!
")The only thing up for debate then, is whether rote memorization is a skill, which I'd say it's not.Versus, ya know, actually figuring out complex strategies, using psychology to outwit your enemy, and hell, even twitch gaming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611339</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Locks have seen enough nerfs, let's nerf everyone else for once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Locks have seen enough nerfs , let 's nerf everyone else for once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Locks have seen enough nerfs, let's nerf everyone else for once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610537</id>
	<title>Won't be used...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246990980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The goal of MMORPGs are to make money. Because of that they need to reward those who have kept paying their fees and keep buying the expansion packs. As long as the subscription and expansion pack models stick around, you will see that the only methods that get used are those that reward play time with the best characters. Really, Blizzard wants you to have a better character if you are a person terrible at WoW but have been playing for the past 3 years, then the person who is amazing at RPGs and has only been playing for ~3 months.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal of MMORPGs are to make money .
Because of that they need to reward those who have kept paying their fees and keep buying the expansion packs .
As long as the subscription and expansion pack models stick around , you will see that the only methods that get used are those that reward play time with the best characters .
Really , Blizzard wants you to have a better character if you are a person terrible at WoW but have been playing for the past 3 years , then the person who is amazing at RPGs and has only been playing for ~ 3 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal of MMORPGs are to make money.
Because of that they need to reward those who have kept paying their fees and keep buying the expansion packs.
As long as the subscription and expansion pack models stick around, you will see that the only methods that get used are those that reward play time with the best characters.
Really, Blizzard wants you to have a better character if you are a person terrible at WoW but have been playing for the past 3 years, then the person who is amazing at RPGs and has only been playing for ~3 months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523</id>
	<title>Both are bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246990920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy, and hard encounters are impossible until you level up, at which point they are easy. It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher. You didn't learn shit.</p><p>It makes sense for your character to change over time: that makes the game keep feeling new. But the best system of all is one where your new characteristics are a tradeoff, and every player's capabilities remain somewhat balanced. Success should be from solving a problem in novel ways, not grinding. Like TF2, StarCraft. It is of course very hard to build games like this.</p><p>This has come up for me playing crap iPhone games. Since there isn't enough development time for them to put in real challenge, every goddamned thing has a level up mechanic. And certain things are just unbeatable until you level up, and then they are beatable through button mashing. It is lame as hell and apparently the customers don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy , and hard encounters are impossible until you level up , at which point they are easy .
It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game , which is enjoyable , but in fact your character is just tougher .
You did n't learn shit.It makes sense for your character to change over time : that makes the game keep feeling new .
But the best system of all is one where your new characteristics are a tradeoff , and every player 's capabilities remain somewhat balanced .
Success should be from solving a problem in novel ways , not grinding .
Like TF2 , StarCraft .
It is of course very hard to build games like this.This has come up for me playing crap iPhone games .
Since there is n't enough development time for them to put in real challenge , every goddamned thing has a level up mechanic .
And certain things are just unbeatable until you level up , and then they are beatable through button mashing .
It is lame as hell and apparently the customers do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy, and hard encounters are impossible until you level up, at which point they are easy.
It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher.
You didn't learn shit.It makes sense for your character to change over time: that makes the game keep feeling new.
But the best system of all is one where your new characteristics are a tradeoff, and every player's capabilities remain somewhat balanced.
Success should be from solving a problem in novel ways, not grinding.
Like TF2, StarCraft.
It is of course very hard to build games like this.This has come up for me playing crap iPhone games.
Since there isn't enough development time for them to put in real challenge, every goddamned thing has a level up mechanic.
And certain things are just unbeatable until you level up, and then they are beatable through button mashing.
It is lame as hell and apparently the customers don't care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611077</id>
	<title>Re:Both are bad.</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1246992960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher. You didn't learn shit.</p></div><p>Using WOW as an example, you the player learn skills when you can go kill orange or red mobs without dying. You also gain skill when you learn how to leverage each class in a small group and which roles your character can fill. Anyone who's been in a dungeon knows how easily Leroy Jenkins can get the whole group killed, so yes, there is some skill involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game , which is enjoyable , but in fact your character is just tougher .
You did n't learn shit.Using WOW as an example , you the player learn skills when you can go kill orange or red mobs without dying .
You also gain skill when you learn how to leverage each class in a small group and which roles your character can fill .
Anyone who 's been in a dungeon knows how easily Leroy Jenkins can get the whole group killed , so yes , there is some skill involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher.
You didn't learn shit.Using WOW as an example, you the player learn skills when you can go kill orange or red mobs without dying.
You also gain skill when you learn how to leverage each class in a small group and which roles your character can fill.
Anyone who's been in a dungeon knows how easily Leroy Jenkins can get the whole group killed, so yes, there is some skill involved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611891</id>
	<title>Re:Faced the same issue on the tabletop</title>
	<author>Dan Ost</author>
	<datestamp>1246995900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several classless tabletop systems.</p><p>GURPs is probably the most visible example, but the Heroes system and Fudge are both classless. The pre-D20 call of cthulu was also classless.</p><p>Fudge is my current favorite since it's so simple and resistant to rules-lawyering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several classless tabletop systems.GURPs is probably the most visible example , but the Heroes system and Fudge are both classless .
The pre-D20 call of cthulu was also classless.Fudge is my current favorite since it 's so simple and resistant to rules-lawyering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several classless tabletop systems.GURPs is probably the most visible example, but the Heroes system and Fudge are both classless.
The pre-D20 call of cthulu was also classless.Fudge is my current favorite since it's so simple and resistant to rules-lawyering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612451</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>El Gigante de Justic</author>
	<datestamp>1246998120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The two previous responders have already pointed out that in Smash Bros, the \% damage does increase the risk of a smash attack ringing you out (at 300-400\% any hard hit guarantees it, usually even if you're in a fairly enclosed area)</p><p>What they haven't pointed out is that Smash Bros does also include a mode where each character has Hit Points (typically 300) and at 0 you die/respawn.  Most people don't play that way because the \% based mode is more fun and requires more skill, especially when you try to keep surviving at higher and higher percentages.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The one thing in the latest addition that did remove any skill was the new insta-kill Kirby's air sled item - sure you have to collect all three pieces and you can potentially dodge it if you're fast enough, it's still a cheap kill - especially since the AI controlled opponents will always target a human player with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The two previous responders have already pointed out that in Smash Bros , the \ % damage does increase the risk of a smash attack ringing you out ( at 300-400 \ % any hard hit guarantees it , usually even if you 're in a fairly enclosed area ) What they have n't pointed out is that Smash Bros does also include a mode where each character has Hit Points ( typically 300 ) and at 0 you die/respawn .
Most people do n't play that way because the \ % based mode is more fun and requires more skill , especially when you try to keep surviving at higher and higher percentages .
      The one thing in the latest addition that did remove any skill was the new insta-kill Kirby 's air sled item - sure you have to collect all three pieces and you can potentially dodge it if you 're fast enough , it 's still a cheap kill - especially since the AI controlled opponents will always target a human player with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two previous responders have already pointed out that in Smash Bros, the \% damage does increase the risk of a smash attack ringing you out (at 300-400\% any hard hit guarantees it, usually even if you're in a fairly enclosed area)What they haven't pointed out is that Smash Bros does also include a mode where each character has Hit Points (typically 300) and at 0 you die/respawn.
Most people don't play that way because the \% based mode is more fun and requires more skill, especially when you try to keep surviving at higher and higher percentages.
      The one thing in the latest addition that did remove any skill was the new insta-kill Kirby's air sled item - sure you have to collect all three pieces and you can potentially dodge it if you're fast enough, it's still a cheap kill - especially since the AI controlled opponents will always target a human player with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615045</id>
	<title>Puzzle Pirates</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1246965480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once upon a time in that game what mattered was real player skill solving game puzzles. Even if you create a new char or a new account, what matters is your own skill, and you get some sort of status and even better chances of in game profit because of that. Then they added poker and what mattered most was accumulated wealth and puzzles went into second row.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time in that game what mattered was real player skill solving game puzzles .
Even if you create a new char or a new account , what matters is your own skill , and you get some sort of status and even better chances of in game profit because of that .
Then they added poker and what mattered most was accumulated wealth and puzzles went into second row .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once upon a time in that game what mattered was real player skill solving game puzzles.
Even if you create a new char or a new account, what matters is your own skill, and you get some sort of status and even better chances of in game profit because of that.
Then they added poker and what mattered most was accumulated wealth and puzzles went into second row.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28623965</id>
	<title>Re:some advantages of class-based system</title>
	<author>Krieghund</author>
	<datestamp>1247074080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But with a skill based system the disadvantage of any given skill is that you didn't spend your skill points on something else.

A classic fighter type spends all his points on weapon and armor skills, so he can't use magic.  A classic mage type spends all his points on magic, so he can't use weapons and armor.  And a classic hybrid spends just a few points in each skill tree so he isn't great at anything.

And if you want, for setting or balance reasons to say that if you take a certain skill then you can't take a certain other skill, that is trivial to implement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But with a skill based system the disadvantage of any given skill is that you did n't spend your skill points on something else .
A classic fighter type spends all his points on weapon and armor skills , so he ca n't use magic .
A classic mage type spends all his points on magic , so he ca n't use weapons and armor .
And a classic hybrid spends just a few points in each skill tree so he is n't great at anything .
And if you want , for setting or balance reasons to say that if you take a certain skill then you ca n't take a certain other skill , that is trivial to implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But with a skill based system the disadvantage of any given skill is that you didn't spend your skill points on something else.
A classic fighter type spends all his points on weapon and armor skills, so he can't use magic.
A classic mage type spends all his points on magic, so he can't use weapons and armor.
And a classic hybrid spends just a few points in each skill tree so he isn't great at anything.
And if you want, for setting or balance reasons to say that if you take a certain skill then you can't take a certain other skill, that is trivial to implement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610809</id>
	<title>Neither</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1246992000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were doing a system of ranking and the like, I would create some sort of standardized testing that would include areas of knowledge and different types of skills.  It would be only through testing that players could advance themselves to different tiers.</p><p>This would nearly eliminate the need to "build and grow" characters and bring it back to the player himself.  This would be rather like the martial arts ranking system of belt color ranking in a way.  So you could still have achievements and stuff, but people could classify themselves through testing and train themselves more to achieve those higher ranks.  This way a user who wants to create a new character in WoW, for example, could immediately bring him up to "black belt" (or whatever equivalent) by running through some tests that he had passed before using an older character.  The age and experience of a character might still be factored in there somehow as well, but it would really go a long way to eliminate some of the tedious aspects of the games that lead to gold farming and the like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were doing a system of ranking and the like , I would create some sort of standardized testing that would include areas of knowledge and different types of skills .
It would be only through testing that players could advance themselves to different tiers.This would nearly eliminate the need to " build and grow " characters and bring it back to the player himself .
This would be rather like the martial arts ranking system of belt color ranking in a way .
So you could still have achievements and stuff , but people could classify themselves through testing and train themselves more to achieve those higher ranks .
This way a user who wants to create a new character in WoW , for example , could immediately bring him up to " black belt " ( or whatever equivalent ) by running through some tests that he had passed before using an older character .
The age and experience of a character might still be factored in there somehow as well , but it would really go a long way to eliminate some of the tedious aspects of the games that lead to gold farming and the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were doing a system of ranking and the like, I would create some sort of standardized testing that would include areas of knowledge and different types of skills.
It would be only through testing that players could advance themselves to different tiers.This would nearly eliminate the need to "build and grow" characters and bring it back to the player himself.
This would be rather like the martial arts ranking system of belt color ranking in a way.
So you could still have achievements and stuff, but people could classify themselves through testing and train themselves more to achieve those higher ranks.
This way a user who wants to create a new character in WoW, for example, could immediately bring him up to "black belt" (or whatever equivalent) by running through some tests that he had passed before using an older character.
The age and experience of a character might still be factored in there somehow as well, but it would really go a long way to eliminate some of the tedious aspects of the games that lead to gold farming and the like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610969</id>
	<title>Re:Guild Wars</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1246992540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was the first game I thought of, too.  It was designed from the ground up to depend on the 'skill' of the player, rather than stats, for competitions.  Everyone has access to everything (with a little effort) and the level cap is low and easy to reach within a few hours.</p><p>I think it's a great game, and I still play it occasionally...  I can't say that about any level-based games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was the first game I thought of , too .
It was designed from the ground up to depend on the 'skill ' of the player , rather than stats , for competitions .
Everyone has access to everything ( with a little effort ) and the level cap is low and easy to reach within a few hours.I think it 's a great game , and I still play it occasionally... I ca n't say that about any level-based games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was the first game I thought of, too.
It was designed from the ground up to depend on the 'skill' of the player, rather than stats, for competitions.
Everyone has access to everything (with a little effort) and the level cap is low and easy to reach within a few hours.I think it's a great game, and I still play it occasionally...  I can't say that about any level-based games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611573</id>
	<title>Re:WoW works!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246994820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>12 million can't be wrong....</p></div><p>There are 12 million people who play WoW, and over 6 billion people who don't. You might want to reconsider your notion that popular things must be objectively good - because there are five hundred times as many non-WoW-players as there are WoW-players.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>12 million ca n't be wrong....There are 12 million people who play WoW , and over 6 billion people who do n't .
You might want to reconsider your notion that popular things must be objectively good - because there are five hundred times as many non-WoW-players as there are WoW-players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>12 million can't be wrong....There are 12 million people who play WoW, and over 6 billion people who don't.
You might want to reconsider your notion that popular things must be objectively good - because there are five hundred times as many non-WoW-players as there are WoW-players.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612791</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>PhxBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1246999380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The skilled innovator is the person who goes into an unknown situation, say a boss that nobody has ever encountered, and figures out a way to beat it (we call that the <b>master chief</b>).</p> </div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The skilled innovator is the person who goes into an unknown situation , say a boss that nobody has ever encountered , and figures out a way to beat it ( we call that the master chief ) .
There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The skilled innovator is the person who goes into an unknown situation, say a boss that nobody has ever encountered, and figures out a way to beat it (we call that the master chief).
There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28623477</id>
	<title>The problem isn't with leveling systems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't with leveling systems--and I consider skill-based progress a leveling system just as much as "gain xp, increase level."  Whether your stat increases come from experience points, usage based skill improvement, or some hybrid, your character is getting better at what s/he does through experience.  Just like in the real world.  There has to be some system for a character to improve in an RPG, otherwise the RPG fails an the essential realism test.  It's also failing to provide lasting interest.</p><p>But *that* is where the problem really lies.  Game developers do not create enough interest beyond leveling and do not emphasize the experience at *all* levels.  As a player at level 1, one's goal is to get to the maximum level and improve one's character's skillset and equipment.  All activities really emphasize that goal: kill mobs to gain experience/items, go on quests to gain experience/items   Then the player must look at what is left--that is the game's meat and potatoes.</p><p>To use WoW as an example, what are players expected to do once they are at a high level?  Raid to get more items in order to continue to improve a character whose level has peaked.  But people eat this up!  Either improving a character is the main attraction of playing a MMORPG or the attraction is the story of each area and community and cooperation required for raiding.</p><p>I'd venture to guess it's a bit of both.  But, again using WoW as an example, I find that unfulfilling.  The community of WoW players, as a group, are immature, insulting, and arrogant (though as individuals WoW players are not necessarily so).  Once I realized that, unless I found endlessly tweaking my character entertaining, all I would be left with was interacting with WoW players in raids, I quit playing.  There was not enough interest beyond the dubious attraction of obsessively-compulsively improving a character.  The quests were only useful as leveling or learning aids and lacked any independent entertainment value.</p><p>The games I find most fun are The Elder Scrolls.  They aren't perfect by a long shot and each successive generation brings as much devolution as improvement, but they do provide me with enough variety and interest to make improving my character entertaining and playing without paying much attention to improving my character entertaining as well.  (Oblivion, for all its advantages in some areas, forgot a lot of the things that make TES *fun*.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't with leveling systems--and I consider skill-based progress a leveling system just as much as " gain xp , increase level .
" Whether your stat increases come from experience points , usage based skill improvement , or some hybrid , your character is getting better at what s/he does through experience .
Just like in the real world .
There has to be some system for a character to improve in an RPG , otherwise the RPG fails an the essential realism test .
It 's also failing to provide lasting interest.But * that * is where the problem really lies .
Game developers do not create enough interest beyond leveling and do not emphasize the experience at * all * levels .
As a player at level 1 , one 's goal is to get to the maximum level and improve one 's character 's skillset and equipment .
All activities really emphasize that goal : kill mobs to gain experience/items , go on quests to gain experience/items Then the player must look at what is left--that is the game 's meat and potatoes.To use WoW as an example , what are players expected to do once they are at a high level ?
Raid to get more items in order to continue to improve a character whose level has peaked .
But people eat this up !
Either improving a character is the main attraction of playing a MMORPG or the attraction is the story of each area and community and cooperation required for raiding.I 'd venture to guess it 's a bit of both .
But , again using WoW as an example , I find that unfulfilling .
The community of WoW players , as a group , are immature , insulting , and arrogant ( though as individuals WoW players are not necessarily so ) .
Once I realized that , unless I found endlessly tweaking my character entertaining , all I would be left with was interacting with WoW players in raids , I quit playing .
There was not enough interest beyond the dubious attraction of obsessively-compulsively improving a character .
The quests were only useful as leveling or learning aids and lacked any independent entertainment value.The games I find most fun are The Elder Scrolls .
They are n't perfect by a long shot and each successive generation brings as much devolution as improvement , but they do provide me with enough variety and interest to make improving my character entertaining and playing without paying much attention to improving my character entertaining as well .
( Oblivion , for all its advantages in some areas , forgot a lot of the things that make TES * fun * .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't with leveling systems--and I consider skill-based progress a leveling system just as much as "gain xp, increase level.
"  Whether your stat increases come from experience points, usage based skill improvement, or some hybrid, your character is getting better at what s/he does through experience.
Just like in the real world.
There has to be some system for a character to improve in an RPG, otherwise the RPG fails an the essential realism test.
It's also failing to provide lasting interest.But *that* is where the problem really lies.
Game developers do not create enough interest beyond leveling and do not emphasize the experience at *all* levels.
As a player at level 1, one's goal is to get to the maximum level and improve one's character's skillset and equipment.
All activities really emphasize that goal: kill mobs to gain experience/items, go on quests to gain experience/items   Then the player must look at what is left--that is the game's meat and potatoes.To use WoW as an example, what are players expected to do once they are at a high level?
Raid to get more items in order to continue to improve a character whose level has peaked.
But people eat this up!
Either improving a character is the main attraction of playing a MMORPG or the attraction is the story of each area and community and cooperation required for raiding.I'd venture to guess it's a bit of both.
But, again using WoW as an example, I find that unfulfilling.
The community of WoW players, as a group, are immature, insulting, and arrogant (though as individuals WoW players are not necessarily so).
Once I realized that, unless I found endlessly tweaking my character entertaining, all I would be left with was interacting with WoW players in raids, I quit playing.
There was not enough interest beyond the dubious attraction of obsessively-compulsively improving a character.
The quests were only useful as leveling or learning aids and lacked any independent entertainment value.The games I find most fun are The Elder Scrolls.
They aren't perfect by a long shot and each successive generation brings as much devolution as improvement, but they do provide me with enough variety and interest to make improving my character entertaining and playing without paying much attention to improving my character entertaining as well.
(Oblivion, for all its advantages in some areas, forgot a lot of the things that make TES *fun*.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613025</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1246957380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I was a DM with my own AD&amp;D campaign, I tried to work those things in.  If the player could describe a special attack or strategy that utilized the environment which was described, he was awared extra XP.  Those who just made the rolls and took the spoils advanced more slowly.  I think such a system would be <i>extremely</i> difficult to code into any MMO, however, since the logic would need to anticipate certain methods and allocate XP for them.  A player could come up with a completely novel approach that works swimmingly, but if the code doesn't interpret it as unique or particularly skillful, they would only get normal amounts of XP.  To me, it seems that the XP-for-creativity option is best for the tabletop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a DM with my own AD&amp;D campaign , I tried to work those things in .
If the player could describe a special attack or strategy that utilized the environment which was described , he was awared extra XP .
Those who just made the rolls and took the spoils advanced more slowly .
I think such a system would be extremely difficult to code into any MMO , however , since the logic would need to anticipate certain methods and allocate XP for them .
A player could come up with a completely novel approach that works swimmingly , but if the code does n't interpret it as unique or particularly skillful , they would only get normal amounts of XP .
To me , it seems that the XP-for-creativity option is best for the tabletop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a DM with my own AD&amp;D campaign, I tried to work those things in.
If the player could describe a special attack or strategy that utilized the environment which was described, he was awared extra XP.
Those who just made the rolls and took the spoils advanced more slowly.
I think such a system would be extremely difficult to code into any MMO, however, since the logic would need to anticipate certain methods and allocate XP for them.
A player could come up with a completely novel approach that works swimmingly, but if the code doesn't interpret it as unique or particularly skillful, they would only get normal amounts of XP.
To me, it seems that the XP-for-creativity option is best for the tabletop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610791</id>
	<title>Rule of Megaman 2</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1246991940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fixing it is easy, just compare it to winning Megaman 2 without cheating.  That game is so hard, there is no way to win just on getting items alone.  It will take you multiple tries, and there is not a video game expert in the world that could sit down cold and beat even the last "level" of that game without having to try at least twice.</p><p>Button-mashing won't do it, knowing the timing of things won't do it, you still can easily slip and miss a jump, select the wrong weapon, or any number of other things, and then bam, dead.</p><p>However, if you actually beat the thing, you really feel like you did something that not everyone can do just by dumb luck or gold farming or whatever gameplay your choice of  modern games has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixing it is easy , just compare it to winning Megaman 2 without cheating .
That game is so hard , there is no way to win just on getting items alone .
It will take you multiple tries , and there is not a video game expert in the world that could sit down cold and beat even the last " level " of that game without having to try at least twice.Button-mashing wo n't do it , knowing the timing of things wo n't do it , you still can easily slip and miss a jump , select the wrong weapon , or any number of other things , and then bam , dead.However , if you actually beat the thing , you really feel like you did something that not everyone can do just by dumb luck or gold farming or whatever gameplay your choice of modern games has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixing it is easy, just compare it to winning Megaman 2 without cheating.
That game is so hard, there is no way to win just on getting items alone.
It will take you multiple tries, and there is not a video game expert in the world that could sit down cold and beat even the last "level" of that game without having to try at least twice.Button-mashing won't do it, knowing the timing of things won't do it, you still can easily slip and miss a jump, select the wrong weapon, or any number of other things, and then bam, dead.However, if you actually beat the thing, you really feel like you did something that not everyone can do just by dumb luck or gold farming or whatever gameplay your choice of  modern games has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616855</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Battlefield 2 there was an unlocks system based on points.  The fastest way to get points was to revive fatally wounded teammates with the Medic's shock paddles.  There was no penalty if you revived them around a corner and they instantly got killed by gunfire (In fact, that was a reward because you could then revive them 2 seconds later).  In WoW, once you hit level cap, the primary reward is gear, which you get mostly as a result of your ability to a) be a good team member and b) find enough good team members to do the raid.  Metagaming skills are the only actual skills involved in WoW, and they won't help you get to level 80 much faster, but they will help you do raids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Battlefield 2 there was an unlocks system based on points .
The fastest way to get points was to revive fatally wounded teammates with the Medic 's shock paddles .
There was no penalty if you revived them around a corner and they instantly got killed by gunfire ( In fact , that was a reward because you could then revive them 2 seconds later ) .
In WoW , once you hit level cap , the primary reward is gear , which you get mostly as a result of your ability to a ) be a good team member and b ) find enough good team members to do the raid .
Metagaming skills are the only actual skills involved in WoW , and they wo n't help you get to level 80 much faster , but they will help you do raids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Battlefield 2 there was an unlocks system based on points.
The fastest way to get points was to revive fatally wounded teammates with the Medic's shock paddles.
There was no penalty if you revived them around a corner and they instantly got killed by gunfire (In fact, that was a reward because you could then revive them 2 seconds later).
In WoW, once you hit level cap, the primary reward is gear, which you get mostly as a result of your ability to a) be a good team member and b) find enough good team members to do the raid.
Metagaming skills are the only actual skills involved in WoW, and they won't help you get to level 80 much faster, but they will help you do raids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611093</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>clegrand</author>
	<datestamp>1246993080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

I'd have to agree. In the end, general familiarity with a given genre leads to uniform gaming experiences where the only differentiators are the relative coding skills of the programmer responsible for the module your are currently playing. A couple of examples might be: an out of place poly in an FPS can catch your toon or give an unfair advantage; aggro range on mobs in MMORPGs can directly affect the difficulty of an encounter. As skill, or <p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>... intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p></div><p> increases, you are in effect, playing against the programmer directly. A programmer who is hobbled by the required script.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have to agree .
In the end , general familiarity with a given genre leads to uniform gaming experiences where the only differentiators are the relative coding skills of the programmer responsible for the module your are currently playing .
A couple of examples might be : an out of place poly in an FPS can catch your toon or give an unfair advantage ; aggro range on mobs in MMORPGs can directly affect the difficulty of an encounter .
As skill , or ... intimate knowledge of a game 's mechanics ... increases , you are in effect , playing against the programmer directly .
A programmer who is hobbled by the required script .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

I'd have to agree.
In the end, general familiarity with a given genre leads to uniform gaming experiences where the only differentiators are the relative coding skills of the programmer responsible for the module your are currently playing.
A couple of examples might be: an out of place poly in an FPS can catch your toon or give an unfair advantage; aggro range on mobs in MMORPGs can directly affect the difficulty of an encounter.
As skill, or  ... intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics ... increases, you are in effect, playing against the programmer directly.
A programmer who is hobbled by the required script.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611289</id>
	<title>Re:Who wants Real Skill in an MMO?</title>
	<author>Broken scope</author>
	<datestamp>1246993740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are absolutely right, a popular MMO would never have players who spend massive amounts of time playing the game.
<p>
<i>Sorry guys, I don't have time to eat, I've got a raid in ten minutes and I have to get two more motes of shadow. Then I have to farm more honor with that other faction.</i>
</p><p>
You are absolutely right</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are absolutely right , a popular MMO would never have players who spend massive amounts of time playing the game .
Sorry guys , I do n't have time to eat , I 've got a raid in ten minutes and I have to get two more motes of shadow .
Then I have to farm more honor with that other faction .
You are absolutely right</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are absolutely right, a popular MMO would never have players who spend massive amounts of time playing the game.
Sorry guys, I don't have time to eat, I've got a raid in ten minutes and I have to get two more motes of shadow.
Then I have to farm more honor with that other faction.
You are absolutely right</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</id>
	<title>skill?</title>
	<author>tsm\_sf</author>
	<datestamp>1246990740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?</i> <br> <br>

I'd say that this is the definition of skill for an online game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At what point does intimate knowledge of a game 's mechanics make a player skilled ?
I 'd say that this is the definition of skill for an online game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?
I'd say that this is the definition of skill for an online game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613447</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246959060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your cook vs. master chef analogy fits us perfectly except my cook thinks master chef's are dumb.</p></div><p>Chef's innovate because they like to cook.  Cook's make food because they like to eat.  Problem is, your kid is just hungry.  He doesn't like playing, he likes winning; because why earn what you can take?<br>
&nbsp; <br>IANACP, but you might want to make sure that doesn't bleed into other aspects of his life; like work and school.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your cook vs. master chef analogy fits us perfectly except my cook thinks master chef 's are dumb.Chef 's innovate because they like to cook .
Cook 's make food because they like to eat .
Problem is , your kid is just hungry .
He does n't like playing , he likes winning ; because why earn what you can take ?
  IANACP , but you might want to make sure that does n't bleed into other aspects of his life ; like work and school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your cook vs. master chef analogy fits us perfectly except my cook thinks master chef's are dumb.Chef's innovate because they like to cook.
Cook's make food because they like to eat.
Problem is, your kid is just hungry.
He doesn't like playing, he likes winning; because why earn what you can take?
  IANACP, but you might want to make sure that doesn't bleed into other aspects of his life; like work and school.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611011</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246992720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...knows their tools (<b>there</b> characters), and knows their <b>recipie</b> (the tutorial). Great let them <b>back</b> us a cake.</p></div><p>Let me guess...  Not a native speaker?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...knows their tools ( there characters ) , and knows their recipie ( the tutorial ) .
Great let them back us a cake.Let me guess... Not a native speaker ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...knows their tools (there characters), and knows their recipie (the tutorial).
Great let them back us a cake.Let me guess...  Not a native speaker?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620995</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247063520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why not give XP for successful attacks, combos, or whatever defines your class?</p></div><p>It is difficult to do this. Of the games that I played (not that many, but a few) the best game to do this is warhammer.  In most games of that style killing the enemy gives you experience, items, money, etc.  If you are in a party everyone gets an even share.  In games like warhammer you share evenly in the items/money/experience but there is influence, renown and contribution.  You get more of those for doing your role.  A healer who heals a lot gets more of those points then a healer who just hangs out.  A damage dealer class obviously gets more points for doing more damage.  I have an Ironbreaker...an IB's goal is to defend players (not do damage, and in reality \o damage slightly above the healers).  So IBs gets points by attacking enemies who are attacking their allies!  Most of the IB abilities are about hampering the opponent - making their opponents do less damage, slowing them down, knocking them down, preventing them from getting to their allies, etc.  I've topped the experience/renown/influence charts (the rewards) but looking at the amount of damage I did, and kills I did I am ranked as one of the lowest (obviously no healing since IBs can't heal).  So games are acknowledging this -but it's a tricky metric.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why not give XP for successful attacks , combos , or whatever defines your class ? It is difficult to do this .
Of the games that I played ( not that many , but a few ) the best game to do this is warhammer .
In most games of that style killing the enemy gives you experience , items , money , etc .
If you are in a party everyone gets an even share .
In games like warhammer you share evenly in the items/money/experience but there is influence , renown and contribution .
You get more of those for doing your role .
A healer who heals a lot gets more of those points then a healer who just hangs out .
A damage dealer class obviously gets more points for doing more damage .
I have an Ironbreaker...an IB 's goal is to defend players ( not do damage , and in reality \ o damage slightly above the healers ) .
So IBs gets points by attacking enemies who are attacking their allies !
Most of the IB abilities are about hampering the opponent - making their opponents do less damage , slowing them down , knocking them down , preventing them from getting to their allies , etc .
I 've topped the experience/renown/influence charts ( the rewards ) but looking at the amount of damage I did , and kills I did I am ranked as one of the lowest ( obviously no healing since IBs ca n't heal ) .
So games are acknowledging this -but it 's a tricky metric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not give XP for successful attacks, combos, or whatever defines your class?It is difficult to do this.
Of the games that I played (not that many, but a few) the best game to do this is warhammer.
In most games of that style killing the enemy gives you experience, items, money, etc.
If you are in a party everyone gets an even share.
In games like warhammer you share evenly in the items/money/experience but there is influence, renown and contribution.
You get more of those for doing your role.
A healer who heals a lot gets more of those points then a healer who just hangs out.
A damage dealer class obviously gets more points for doing more damage.
I have an Ironbreaker...an IB's goal is to defend players (not do damage, and in reality \o damage slightly above the healers).
So IBs gets points by attacking enemies who are attacking their allies!
Most of the IB abilities are about hampering the opponent - making their opponents do less damage, slowing them down, knocking them down, preventing them from getting to their allies, etc.
I've topped the experience/renown/influence charts (the rewards) but looking at the amount of damage I did, and kills I did I am ranked as one of the lowest (obviously no healing since IBs can't heal).
So games are acknowledging this -but it's a tricky metric.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28630151</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Ifandbut</author>
	<datestamp>1247057580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actualy, in Lord of the Rings Online it is not health but Morale. Healing is based on improving your spirit so you can fight harder and longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actualy , in Lord of the Rings Online it is not health but Morale .
Healing is based on improving your spirit so you can fight harder and longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actualy, in Lord of the Rings Online it is not health but Morale.
Healing is based on improving your spirit so you can fight harder and longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28617633</id>
	<title>Re:Um, that's why they are games, not sports</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1246986060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree. The lastest WoW content, Ulduar, is very much about situational awareness and group coordination. Granted, an effective DPS/Heal/Tanking rotation is a plus, but what makes or breaks most of the fights is how quickly and reliably people manage to 1- jump out of harm's way or into good's way, and 2- do what they are supposed to do (target the right enemy, use such-and-such special class ability at the right time on the right target...)</p><p>As far as mashing keys fast, WoW never has been so much about that. There is a maximum "key-mashing" rate of 1 per second plus lag, called the Global Cooldown (GCD, is 1.5s to start with, but can be lowered to 1.0). And then, most key abilities have their own, longer, cooldown (CD), or require a specific rotation to apply a buff/debuff beforehand in order to make them more effective.</p><p>The article is about leveling your character with official levels, as opposed to leveling individuals competencies ("skills"). WoW has a bit of "skills" (trade,weapon), but is very much "level" based. It makes it easier to find partners of the right level while leveling up your character, but then becomes useless as a grouping criteria for the end game, where gear quality and PLAYER (as opposed to character) skill become the discriminating factors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
The lastest WoW content , Ulduar , is very much about situational awareness and group coordination .
Granted , an effective DPS/Heal/Tanking rotation is a plus , but what makes or breaks most of the fights is how quickly and reliably people manage to 1- jump out of harm 's way or into good 's way , and 2- do what they are supposed to do ( target the right enemy , use such-and-such special class ability at the right time on the right target... ) As far as mashing keys fast , WoW never has been so much about that .
There is a maximum " key-mashing " rate of 1 per second plus lag , called the Global Cooldown ( GCD , is 1.5s to start with , but can be lowered to 1.0 ) .
And then , most key abilities have their own , longer , cooldown ( CD ) , or require a specific rotation to apply a buff/debuff beforehand in order to make them more effective.The article is about leveling your character with official levels , as opposed to leveling individuals competencies ( " skills " ) .
WoW has a bit of " skills " ( trade,weapon ) , but is very much " level " based .
It makes it easier to find partners of the right level while leveling up your character , but then becomes useless as a grouping criteria for the end game , where gear quality and PLAYER ( as opposed to character ) skill become the discriminating factors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
The lastest WoW content, Ulduar, is very much about situational awareness and group coordination.
Granted, an effective DPS/Heal/Tanking rotation is a plus, but what makes or breaks most of the fights is how quickly and reliably people manage to 1- jump out of harm's way or into good's way, and 2- do what they are supposed to do (target the right enemy, use such-and-such special class ability at the right time on the right target...)As far as mashing keys fast, WoW never has been so much about that.
There is a maximum "key-mashing" rate of 1 per second plus lag, called the Global Cooldown (GCD, is 1.5s to start with, but can be lowered to 1.0).
And then, most key abilities have their own, longer, cooldown (CD), or require a specific rotation to apply a buff/debuff beforehand in order to make them more effective.The article is about leveling your character with official levels, as opposed to leveling individuals competencies ("skills").
WoW has a bit of "skills" (trade,weapon), but is very much "level" based.
It makes it easier to find partners of the right level while leveling up your character, but then becomes useless as a grouping criteria for the end game, where gear quality and PLAYER (as opposed to character) skill become the discriminating factors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615489</id>
	<title>Know how to move and hit buttons"knowing how to mo</title>
	<author>billysweetness</author>
	<datestamp>1246968300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"knowing how to move" or "knowing when to hit your buttons."

Congrats!  You just described video games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" knowing how to move " or " knowing when to hit your buttons .
" Congrats !
You just described video games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"knowing how to move" or "knowing when to hit your buttons.
"

Congrats!
You just described video games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613671</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is kinda misleading, actually</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1246959900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first game I thought of is Secret of Mana, which is somewhat of a hybrid system. You gain levels by killing monsters, and those character levels increase your hit points, strength, etc. Your weapon and magic skills, though, gain levels through use; X kills with a sword or castings of a type of spell increases your weapon or magic skill level by 1, giving you more powerful attacks or making your spells more effective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first game I thought of is Secret of Mana , which is somewhat of a hybrid system .
You gain levels by killing monsters , and those character levels increase your hit points , strength , etc .
Your weapon and magic skills , though , gain levels through use ; X kills with a sword or castings of a type of spell increases your weapon or magic skill level by 1 , giving you more powerful attacks or making your spells more effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first game I thought of is Secret of Mana, which is somewhat of a hybrid system.
You gain levels by killing monsters, and those character levels increase your hit points, strength, etc.
Your weapon and magic skills, though, gain levels through use; X kills with a sword or castings of a type of spell increases your weapon or magic skill level by 1, giving you more powerful attacks or making your spells more effective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615485</id>
	<title>Research, Strategy, and networking as skills</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1246968300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always found that the people "on top" in an mmorpg, are those that stay ahead of the knowledge curve.</p><p>You gain that knowledge by researching, socializing/networking, and coming up with effective strategies to use that knowledge.</p><p>The advancement system really doesn't matter when talking about what takes more skill.  Either a level based or skill-point based system could be implemented requiring equal skill to play, assuming the learning curve and required knowledge set was equally large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always found that the people " on top " in an mmorpg , are those that stay ahead of the knowledge curve.You gain that knowledge by researching , socializing/networking , and coming up with effective strategies to use that knowledge.The advancement system really does n't matter when talking about what takes more skill .
Either a level based or skill-point based system could be implemented requiring equal skill to play , assuming the learning curve and required knowledge set was equally large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always found that the people "on top" in an mmorpg, are those that stay ahead of the knowledge curve.You gain that knowledge by researching, socializing/networking, and coming up with effective strategies to use that knowledge.The advancement system really doesn't matter when talking about what takes more skill.
Either a level based or skill-point based system could be implemented requiring equal skill to play, assuming the learning curve and required knowledge set was equally large.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612295</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>A Friendly Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1246997580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>RTS: Its all about who is Korean. (I'm new to SC, want to play? I'm a nub go easy)</p></div><p>I know you were just going for the humour, but - it depends on the RTS.</p><p>Company of Heroes, for example, is a highly-advanced RTS that you can successfully play at reasonably high levels with a CPM of under 50. I've been hooked on the damn game for several years now, and every other RTS is just completely bland after it - mindless clickspamming and rushing for $BEST\_UNIT.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTS : Its all about who is Korean .
( I 'm new to SC , want to play ?
I 'm a nub go easy ) I know you were just going for the humour , but - it depends on the RTS.Company of Heroes , for example , is a highly-advanced RTS that you can successfully play at reasonably high levels with a CPM of under 50 .
I 've been hooked on the damn game for several years now , and every other RTS is just completely bland after it - mindless clickspamming and rushing for $ BEST \ _UNIT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTS: Its all about who is Korean.
(I'm new to SC, want to play?
I'm a nub go easy)I know you were just going for the humour, but - it depends on the RTS.Company of Heroes, for example, is a highly-advanced RTS that you can successfully play at reasonably high levels with a CPM of under 50.
I've been hooked on the damn game for several years now, and every other RTS is just completely bland after it - mindless clickspamming and rushing for $BEST\_UNIT.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613149</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1246957860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Straight up healers are a lame idea anyway, always have been.  Darned health bar voyeurs.  I mean, did Aragorn bring along a surgeon in his quest to destroy the ring?  Leave the healing-only clerics in the bloody church in the center of town...tithe them when you limp back in after battle and they'll patch you up and send you on your way.</p><p>But if you're out adventuring with me, you better know how to kill something.  The D&amp;D cleric, at least the way we played him, didn't just hang out in the back -- he went in with his mace, knocked a few helmets off, then healed people up as he could afterwards.</p><p>To implement this, change the damage system.  Aragorn got thrown across a cave into a stone wall by a troll...he got knocked out, but wasn't even badly bruised.  Make our characters heroes, not spreadsheets.  If we die, make it an epic death -- we're too cool to be chased down and mauled by a rodent.  If it doesn't kill us, let us carry on with our quest -- let us be heroes.  Dent our armor, even weaken our sword arm, but don't put us on the edge of a virtual cardiac arrest until we get magically healed or wait an hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Straight up healers are a lame idea anyway , always have been .
Darned health bar voyeurs .
I mean , did Aragorn bring along a surgeon in his quest to destroy the ring ?
Leave the healing-only clerics in the bloody church in the center of town...tithe them when you limp back in after battle and they 'll patch you up and send you on your way.But if you 're out adventuring with me , you better know how to kill something .
The D&amp;D cleric , at least the way we played him , did n't just hang out in the back -- he went in with his mace , knocked a few helmets off , then healed people up as he could afterwards.To implement this , change the damage system .
Aragorn got thrown across a cave into a stone wall by a troll...he got knocked out , but was n't even badly bruised .
Make our characters heroes , not spreadsheets .
If we die , make it an epic death -- we 're too cool to be chased down and mauled by a rodent .
If it does n't kill us , let us carry on with our quest -- let us be heroes .
Dent our armor , even weaken our sword arm , but do n't put us on the edge of a virtual cardiac arrest until we get magically healed or wait an hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Straight up healers are a lame idea anyway, always have been.
Darned health bar voyeurs.
I mean, did Aragorn bring along a surgeon in his quest to destroy the ring?
Leave the healing-only clerics in the bloody church in the center of town...tithe them when you limp back in after battle and they'll patch you up and send you on your way.But if you're out adventuring with me, you better know how to kill something.
The D&amp;D cleric, at least the way we played him, didn't just hang out in the back -- he went in with his mace, knocked a few helmets off, then healed people up as he could afterwards.To implement this, change the damage system.
Aragorn got thrown across a cave into a stone wall by a troll...he got knocked out, but wasn't even badly bruised.
Make our characters heroes, not spreadsheets.
If we die, make it an epic death -- we're too cool to be chased down and mauled by a rodent.
If it doesn't kill us, let us carry on with our quest -- let us be heroes.
Dent our armor, even weaken our sword arm, but don't put us on the edge of a virtual cardiac arrest until we get magically healed or wait an hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614625</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1246963740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The skilled innovator is the person who goes into an unknown situation, say a boss that nobody has ever encountered, and figures out a way to beat it (we call that the master chef). They have a skill - they know the game, they know their character, and they know how to solve puzzles.</p></div><p>There's also a difference between team skill and solo skill.</p><p>I have a ludicrous amount of solo skill, but I lack team skill; I adapt and learn extremely quick, but eventually somebody comes along that has calculated, studied, and practised much more than me, and easily surpasses me.</p><p>I never read guides. I just start playing. A few weeks back I started playing TF2 with some friends, on their own server. Short of L4D and BF2142(a few years back), I've never played any FPS's. For the first ~4 hours I played heavy and was useless. The next day I played another 4 hours, as pyro, and was in the top 3 every game.  The day after that I played another few hours - this time on a public server - and got my first 15-kill streak before dying.</p><p>Since then I've discovered that I'm not so good in 32p games, but I absolutely dominate in &lt; 12p games. It's not uncommon for me to use a scout, pyro, or spy to kill a demoman, soldier, heavy, medic, etc.; this almost never happens on a server with friends, which are all skilled, but happens plenty on public servers. Often I join a game where one team is a single clan - it's quite hilarious single-handedly dominating them, winning round after round, only to get kicked. It fuels my perception of my own awesomeness.</p><p>But on 32p servers, especially with friends, there's just too many people working together. I almost never get past 2k:1d. What can I do when there's 6 sentry guns and four heavies spraying bullets everywhere? Can't get close as a spy - can't destroy all of that even with 2 or 3 guys ubered and firing rockets and demoman bombs. Fighting skilled teams and coordinating so many people is an art, which I don't have. But 1 on 1 (or 1 on 3-4), I almost never lose.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>I don't like calculation heavy games like WoW. I don't like static maps that people can play and learn to perfection, since I'm not perfect, and anyone that practises endlessly will easily beat me. My ideal game would have completely randomly generated maps, because I adapt so fast while most people don't.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>And send me more of those horribly unskilled clans so I can feel superior and get accused of hacking. I love it. ^\_^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The skilled innovator is the person who goes into an unknown situation , say a boss that nobody has ever encountered , and figures out a way to beat it ( we call that the master chef ) .
They have a skill - they know the game , they know their character , and they know how to solve puzzles.There 's also a difference between team skill and solo skill.I have a ludicrous amount of solo skill , but I lack team skill ; I adapt and learn extremely quick , but eventually somebody comes along that has calculated , studied , and practised much more than me , and easily surpasses me.I never read guides .
I just start playing .
A few weeks back I started playing TF2 with some friends , on their own server .
Short of L4D and BF2142 ( a few years back ) , I 've never played any FPS 's .
For the first ~ 4 hours I played heavy and was useless .
The next day I played another 4 hours , as pyro , and was in the top 3 every game .
The day after that I played another few hours - this time on a public server - and got my first 15-kill streak before dying.Since then I 've discovered that I 'm not so good in 32p games , but I absolutely dominate in But on 32p servers , especially with friends , there 's just too many people working together .
I almost never get past 2k : 1d .
What can I do when there 's 6 sentry guns and four heavies spraying bullets everywhere ?
Ca n't get close as a spy - ca n't destroy all of that even with 2 or 3 guys ubered and firing rockets and demoman bombs .
Fighting skilled teams and coordinating so many people is an art , which I do n't have .
But 1 on 1 ( or 1 on 3-4 ) , I almost never lose .
; ) I do n't like calculation heavy games like WoW .
I do n't like static maps that people can play and learn to perfection , since I 'm not perfect , and anyone that practises endlessly will easily beat me .
My ideal game would have completely randomly generated maps , because I adapt so fast while most people do n't .
: PAnd send me more of those horribly unskilled clans so I can feel superior and get accused of hacking .
I love it .
^ \ _ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The skilled innovator is the person who goes into an unknown situation, say a boss that nobody has ever encountered, and figures out a way to beat it (we call that the master chef).
They have a skill - they know the game, they know their character, and they know how to solve puzzles.There's also a difference between team skill and solo skill.I have a ludicrous amount of solo skill, but I lack team skill; I adapt and learn extremely quick, but eventually somebody comes along that has calculated, studied, and practised much more than me, and easily surpasses me.I never read guides.
I just start playing.
A few weeks back I started playing TF2 with some friends, on their own server.
Short of L4D and BF2142(a few years back), I've never played any FPS's.
For the first ~4 hours I played heavy and was useless.
The next day I played another 4 hours, as pyro, and was in the top 3 every game.
The day after that I played another few hours - this time on a public server - and got my first 15-kill streak before dying.Since then I've discovered that I'm not so good in 32p games, but I absolutely dominate in But on 32p servers, especially with friends, there's just too many people working together.
I almost never get past 2k:1d.
What can I do when there's 6 sentry guns and four heavies spraying bullets everywhere?
Can't get close as a spy - can't destroy all of that even with 2 or 3 guys ubered and firing rockets and demoman bombs.
Fighting skilled teams and coordinating so many people is an art, which I don't have.
But 1 on 1 (or 1 on 3-4), I almost never lose.
;)I don't like calculation heavy games like WoW.
I don't like static maps that people can play and learn to perfection, since I'm not perfect, and anyone that practises endlessly will easily beat me.
My ideal game would have completely randomly generated maps, because I adapt so fast while most people don't.
:PAnd send me more of those horribly unskilled clans so I can feel superior and get accused of hacking.
I love it.
^\_^
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618349</id>
	<title>Walkthroughs</title>
	<author>Zalminen</author>
	<datestamp>1246993680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use walkthroughs (mostly in single player RPGs) for exactly one reason. I hate missing out on content.<br> <br>

It's very annoying to find out later on that if you had just taken the other road in the beginning of chapter 3 you'd have found the rare weapon X. Or that gaining skill Y would have required you to choose the third conversation option with NPC Z.<br> <br>

Sure you could find many of these hidden extras if you played through the game several times, searched everywhere and tried everything but how many of us has time for that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use walkthroughs ( mostly in single player RPGs ) for exactly one reason .
I hate missing out on content .
It 's very annoying to find out later on that if you had just taken the other road in the beginning of chapter 3 you 'd have found the rare weapon X. Or that gaining skill Y would have required you to choose the third conversation option with NPC Z . Sure you could find many of these hidden extras if you played through the game several times , searched everywhere and tried everything but how many of us has time for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use walkthroughs (mostly in single player RPGs) for exactly one reason.
I hate missing out on content.
It's very annoying to find out later on that if you had just taken the other road in the beginning of chapter 3 you'd have found the rare weapon X. Or that gaining skill Y would have required you to choose the third conversation option with NPC Z. 

Sure you could find many of these hidden extras if you played through the game several times, searched everywhere and tried everything but how many of us has time for that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612911</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247000040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Master Chef is awesome, he's got the coolest helmet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Master Chef is awesome , he 's got the coolest helmet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Master Chef is awesome, he's got the coolest helmet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611377</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1246994100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not for twitch games. Take Cod4 hardcore mode for example. Im brilliant when it comes to game mechanics. I know maps well, have memorized every nade spot, all gun stats, every single game timer. I use good headphones and almost always know where the enemy is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yet I still get shot plenty times in the face by 12 year old 0.00001s reflex kid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not for twitch games .
Take Cod4 hardcore mode for example .
Im brilliant when it comes to game mechanics .
I know maps well , have memorized every nade spot , all gun stats , every single game timer .
I use good headphones and almost always know where the enemy is ... yet I still get shot plenty times in the face by 12 year old 0.00001s reflex kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not for twitch games.
Take Cod4 hardcore mode for example.
Im brilliant when it comes to game mechanics.
I know maps well, have memorized every nade spot, all gun stats, every single game timer.
I use good headphones and almost always know where the enemy is ... yet I still get shot plenty times in the face by 12 year old 0.00001s reflex kid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612247</id>
	<title>Skill better, but harder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having both played Guild Wars and World of Warcraft, I would have to say skill based is the funnest, but unfortunately requires the most content to keep the player occupied. Without the gratification of a skill level to display to others, you are left with the need to conquer more and harder areas and wear more unique and rare gear. If you're a business, having a level based game is the smartest most economical solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having both played Guild Wars and World of Warcraft , I would have to say skill based is the funnest , but unfortunately requires the most content to keep the player occupied .
Without the gratification of a skill level to display to others , you are left with the need to conquer more and harder areas and wear more unique and rare gear .
If you 're a business , having a level based game is the smartest most economical solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having both played Guild Wars and World of Warcraft, I would have to say skill based is the funnest, but unfortunately requires the most content to keep the player occupied.
Without the gratification of a skill level to display to others, you are left with the need to conquer more and harder areas and wear more unique and rare gear.
If you're a business, having a level based game is the smartest most economical solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611897</id>
	<title>WoW, EVE</title>
	<author>onedobb</author>
	<datestamp>1246995900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what this sounds like is kinda like WoW level based versus EVE Online individual skill based leveling.  I've played EVE Online and as I have played City of Heroes among other level based games, and I see the advantages and downfalls of both.  It would be nice to see skill based leveling more often as I believe it allows more variety of game play options and more thought in your ability selections.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what this sounds like is kinda like WoW level based versus EVE Online individual skill based leveling .
I 've played EVE Online and as I have played City of Heroes among other level based games , and I see the advantages and downfalls of both .
It would be nice to see skill based leveling more often as I believe it allows more variety of game play options and more thought in your ability selections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what this sounds like is kinda like WoW level based versus EVE Online individual skill based leveling.
I've played EVE Online and as I have played City of Heroes among other level based games, and I see the advantages and downfalls of both.
It would be nice to see skill based leveling more often as I believe it allows more variety of game play options and more thought in your ability selections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616781</id>
	<title>No superstar players in MMO and this is why</title>
	<author>Golbez81</author>
	<datestamp>1246978020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've played in competitive gaming since Quake 1 hit the internet.  I've also played every big RTS and MMO game to hit the net.  IMHO the best way to go for competition is FPS &gt; RTS &gt; MMO.  Does anyone really want to sit around and WATCH a WoW Arena match?  Unless you play wow and just like drueling over gear and seeing high numbers pop up I don't see how.  I mean its just a bunch of tunes running around casting spells and spamming macros.  In Asia they have almost made Starcraft a sport to watch just like soccer.  Here in the US, I remember when Quake and Tribes matches were broadcast like huge sporting events.  Huge prizes like Ferraris and thousands of dollars.  You will not and will never get that level of excitement in watching a competition in MMO.  It's the difference between watching baseball vs football or basketball.  The plays and "Ooohs and Ahhs" that you get from watching a high level FPS is just amazing.

I think a lot of the unskilled players tend to sway toward MMOs because, honestly losing sucks so they just go to the easiest medium for them to succeed.  I've never seen people have world wide reputations in the MMO community such as Thresh did for Quake or Agent911 for Starcraft.  When you play against those players, it's not their gear, everyone knows they are good so they almost have an aura when you play against them unlike in MMOs on who had the right paper rock scissors combination.  You know you have to be smarter and play better than them to beat them, and for this reason, MMOs will never have true super stars that emerge from higher skill based games like FPS or RTS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've played in competitive gaming since Quake 1 hit the internet .
I 've also played every big RTS and MMO game to hit the net .
IMHO the best way to go for competition is FPS &gt; RTS &gt; MMO .
Does anyone really want to sit around and WATCH a WoW Arena match ?
Unless you play wow and just like drueling over gear and seeing high numbers pop up I do n't see how .
I mean its just a bunch of tunes running around casting spells and spamming macros .
In Asia they have almost made Starcraft a sport to watch just like soccer .
Here in the US , I remember when Quake and Tribes matches were broadcast like huge sporting events .
Huge prizes like Ferraris and thousands of dollars .
You will not and will never get that level of excitement in watching a competition in MMO .
It 's the difference between watching baseball vs football or basketball .
The plays and " Ooohs and Ahhs " that you get from watching a high level FPS is just amazing .
I think a lot of the unskilled players tend to sway toward MMOs because , honestly losing sucks so they just go to the easiest medium for them to succeed .
I 've never seen people have world wide reputations in the MMO community such as Thresh did for Quake or Agent911 for Starcraft .
When you play against those players , it 's not their gear , everyone knows they are good so they almost have an aura when you play against them unlike in MMOs on who had the right paper rock scissors combination .
You know you have to be smarter and play better than them to beat them , and for this reason , MMOs will never have true super stars that emerge from higher skill based games like FPS or RTS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've played in competitive gaming since Quake 1 hit the internet.
I've also played every big RTS and MMO game to hit the net.
IMHO the best way to go for competition is FPS &gt; RTS &gt; MMO.
Does anyone really want to sit around and WATCH a WoW Arena match?
Unless you play wow and just like drueling over gear and seeing high numbers pop up I don't see how.
I mean its just a bunch of tunes running around casting spells and spamming macros.
In Asia they have almost made Starcraft a sport to watch just like soccer.
Here in the US, I remember when Quake and Tribes matches were broadcast like huge sporting events.
Huge prizes like Ferraris and thousands of dollars.
You will not and will never get that level of excitement in watching a competition in MMO.
It's the difference between watching baseball vs football or basketball.
The plays and "Ooohs and Ahhs" that you get from watching a high level FPS is just amazing.
I think a lot of the unskilled players tend to sway toward MMOs because, honestly losing sucks so they just go to the easiest medium for them to succeed.
I've never seen people have world wide reputations in the MMO community such as Thresh did for Quake or Agent911 for Starcraft.
When you play against those players, it's not their gear, everyone knows they are good so they almost have an aura when you play against them unlike in MMOs on who had the right paper rock scissors combination.
You know you have to be smarter and play better than them to beat them, and for this reason, MMOs will never have true super stars that emerge from higher skill based games like FPS or RTS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618667</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is kinda misleading, actually</title>
	<author>Roman Coder</author>
	<datestamp>1247083800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  When I think of "advancement through skill" I think of Ryzom or how SWG was when it first came out, and for "advancement through leveling" I think of WoW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
When I think of " advancement through skill " I think of Ryzom or how SWG was when it first came out , and for " advancement through leveling " I think of WoW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
When I think of "advancement through skill" I think of Ryzom or how SWG was when it first came out, and for "advancement through leveling" I think of WoW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614329</id>
	<title>Skill in FPS: Q2 vs TF2 vs COD4</title>
	<author>JonnyBlade</author>
	<datestamp>1246962480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Skill is a pretty generic term when you think about it for

really, there are different types of skills; mainly motor

vs academic.  RPG is mainly bound to the academic skills;

computation and critical reasoning.<br>
FPS on the other hand, is more of a mix of both motor and

academic skills.  Being an old school FPS gamer, I found

this conversation interesting in light of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well getting

old and the evolution in FPS in general.<br> <br>
There is little doubt to the significance and magnitude of

online multiplayer Quake2. <br>Even today, I would rank Q2 as

one of pre-eminent motor skill FPS games.  Power ups did

not come in some sort of coded advantage such as access to

better weapons or increases in probability skills, but

manifested themselves in proficiencies in the mechanics of

the game. <br> <br> The fast mouse, slightly exaggerated jumping

and, of course, the game changing grappling hook allowed

for players to develop some truly sick skills over time

that could even be appreciated by those who would end  up

being abused by them. <br> <br> Perhaps no greater example of an

earned motor skill in FPS was the legendary Railgun.<br> Easy

to use, difficult to master, the Railgun was rarely used

(although available) by novice or intermediate players but

could dominiate in the hands of an expert.<br>
While there were certainly academic skills involved, Q2

was truly one of the great motor skill FPS games.<br> <br>
I see Team Fortress in the same class as Q2 but for very

different reasons. <br>While motor skills have always played a

significant part in the game, it really was the FPS to

introduce game changing academic skills into the mix.  I

think that trait has only gotten stronger TF2. <br> <br> Having

said that, there is really a sliding scale of motor vs

academic skills based on character selection in TF2.  <br>At

one extreme you the highly motor dependent scout character

and at the other, the highly academic dependent engineer

class, with the other characters falling somewhere in

between.  <br>TF2 is perhaps the poster child for the motor vs academic balanced game, there is truly something for everyone.
<br> <br>Thinking about it, you might be able to say that tactical FPS really defines the pinnicle of academic skills in FPS.  <br>Whether it be CounterStrike, Rainbow6 or COD tactical the idea of stratigic positioning (i.e. cover) being the game changer has finally emeraged as a viable skill. <br>I find in my older age and declining motor skills, this to be the venue where I can still truly dominiate 0.00009 sec reaction time of 12 year old.  <br> <br>Interestingly enough, I also find COD (esp. non tactical) to perhaps be the most collaberative FPS with respect to age. I tend to gravitate toward support roles, holding strategic positions, while my younger and more agile minded teamates initiate the attacks.
<br> <br>
I think academic skill will continue to push the FPS paradigm in the future.  Of course, motor skill will always play a significant role but in general, I think we will see more tactical advancements such as command structures and coordinated attacks as the future of FPS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skill is a pretty generic term when you think about it for really , there are different types of skills ; mainly motor vs academic .
RPG is mainly bound to the academic skills ; computation and critical reasoning .
FPS on the other hand , is more of a mix of both motor and academic skills .
Being an old school FPS gamer , I found this conversation interesting in light of ... well getting old and the evolution in FPS in general .
There is little doubt to the significance and magnitude of online multiplayer Quake2 .
Even today , I would rank Q2 as one of pre-eminent motor skill FPS games .
Power ups did not come in some sort of coded advantage such as access to better weapons or increases in probability skills , but manifested themselves in proficiencies in the mechanics of the game .
The fast mouse , slightly exaggerated jumping and , of course , the game changing grappling hook allowed for players to develop some truly sick skills over time that could even be appreciated by those who would end up being abused by them .
Perhaps no greater example of an earned motor skill in FPS was the legendary Railgun .
Easy to use , difficult to master , the Railgun was rarely used ( although available ) by novice or intermediate players but could dominiate in the hands of an expert .
While there were certainly academic skills involved , Q2 was truly one of the great motor skill FPS games .
I see Team Fortress in the same class as Q2 but for very different reasons .
While motor skills have always played a significant part in the game , it really was the FPS to introduce game changing academic skills into the mix .
I think that trait has only gotten stronger TF2 .
Having said that , there is really a sliding scale of motor vs academic skills based on character selection in TF2 .
At one extreme you the highly motor dependent scout character and at the other , the highly academic dependent engineer class , with the other characters falling somewhere in between .
TF2 is perhaps the poster child for the motor vs academic balanced game , there is truly something for everyone .
Thinking about it , you might be able to say that tactical FPS really defines the pinnicle of academic skills in FPS .
Whether it be CounterStrike , Rainbow6 or COD tactical the idea of stratigic positioning ( i.e .
cover ) being the game changer has finally emeraged as a viable skill .
I find in my older age and declining motor skills , this to be the venue where I can still truly dominiate 0.00009 sec reaction time of 12 year old .
Interestingly enough , I also find COD ( esp .
non tactical ) to perhaps be the most collaberative FPS with respect to age .
I tend to gravitate toward support roles , holding strategic positions , while my younger and more agile minded teamates initiate the attacks .
I think academic skill will continue to push the FPS paradigm in the future .
Of course , motor skill will always play a significant role but in general , I think we will see more tactical advancements such as command structures and coordinated attacks as the future of FPS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skill is a pretty generic term when you think about it for

really, there are different types of skills; mainly motor

vs academic.
RPG is mainly bound to the academic skills;

computation and critical reasoning.
FPS on the other hand, is more of a mix of both motor and

academic skills.
Being an old school FPS gamer, I found

this conversation interesting in light of ... well getting

old and the evolution in FPS in general.
There is little doubt to the significance and magnitude of

online multiplayer Quake2.
Even today, I would rank Q2 as

one of pre-eminent motor skill FPS games.
Power ups did

not come in some sort of coded advantage such as access to

better weapons or increases in probability skills, but

manifested themselves in proficiencies in the mechanics of

the game.
The fast mouse, slightly exaggerated jumping

and, of course, the game changing grappling hook allowed

for players to develop some truly sick skills over time

that could even be appreciated by those who would end  up

being abused by them.
Perhaps no greater example of an

earned motor skill in FPS was the legendary Railgun.
Easy

to use, difficult to master, the Railgun was rarely used

(although available) by novice or intermediate players but

could dominiate in the hands of an expert.
While there were certainly academic skills involved, Q2

was truly one of the great motor skill FPS games.
I see Team Fortress in the same class as Q2 but for very

different reasons.
While motor skills have always played a

significant part in the game, it really was the FPS to

introduce game changing academic skills into the mix.
I

think that trait has only gotten stronger TF2.
Having

said that, there is really a sliding scale of motor vs

academic skills based on character selection in TF2.
At

one extreme you the highly motor dependent scout character

and at the other, the highly academic dependent engineer

class, with the other characters falling somewhere in

between.
TF2 is perhaps the poster child for the motor vs academic balanced game, there is truly something for everyone.
Thinking about it, you might be able to say that tactical FPS really defines the pinnicle of academic skills in FPS.
Whether it be CounterStrike, Rainbow6 or COD tactical the idea of stratigic positioning (i.e.
cover) being the game changer has finally emeraged as a viable skill.
I find in my older age and declining motor skills, this to be the venue where I can still truly dominiate 0.00009 sec reaction time of 12 year old.
Interestingly enough, I also find COD (esp.
non tactical) to perhaps be the most collaberative FPS with respect to age.
I tend to gravitate toward support roles, holding strategic positions, while my younger and more agile minded teamates initiate the attacks.
I think academic skill will continue to push the FPS paradigm in the future.
Of course, motor skill will always play a significant role but in general, I think we will see more tactical advancements such as command structures and coordinated attacks as the future of FPS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610777</id>
	<title>Fix Summary!</title>
	<author>Jartan</author>
	<datestamp>1246991880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please fix the summary.  Nobody is going to RTFA and now we'll never have an interesting discussion.  Stats vs Twitch is an old convo that happens every time games are even discussed on slashdot.  Ultima Online skill system vs Everquest leveling is something that would be interesting though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please fix the summary .
Nobody is going to RTFA and now we 'll never have an interesting discussion .
Stats vs Twitch is an old convo that happens every time games are even discussed on slashdot .
Ultima Online skill system vs Everquest leveling is something that would be interesting though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please fix the summary.
Nobody is going to RTFA and now we'll never have an interesting discussion.
Stats vs Twitch is an old convo that happens every time games are even discussed on slashdot.
Ultima Online skill system vs Everquest leveling is something that would be interesting though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610433</id>
	<title>skill?</title>
	<author>markringen</author>
	<datestamp>1246990620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's more about gaining levels, skill has nothing to do with it.
it's a game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's more about gaining levels , skill has nothing to do with it .
it 's a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's more about gaining levels, skill has nothing to do with it.
it's a game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611645</id>
	<title>It's a role</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1246995060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just play the role of someone who is skilled and of high level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just play the role of someone who is skilled and of high level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just play the role of someone who is skilled and of high level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615369</id>
	<title>I will not move when flame wreath is cast...</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1246967700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Knowing is not enough, you must apply.</i><p>Granted, that was one of the strengths of WoW after the Burning Crusade expansion, in that there were much less "tank and spank" encounters and more requirement for interaction amongst members of the group and their environments.  You could read all about encounters on wowhead and thottbot and have all the right gear and still end up dying repeatedly if... well, how hard was it to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcA6y7sxKcA" title="youtube.com">NOT move when flame wreath is cast?</a> [youtube.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowing is not enough , you must apply.Granted , that was one of the strengths of WoW after the Burning Crusade expansion , in that there were much less " tank and spank " encounters and more requirement for interaction amongst members of the group and their environments .
You could read all about encounters on wowhead and thottbot and have all the right gear and still end up dying repeatedly if... well , how hard was it to NOT move when flame wreath is cast ?
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowing is not enough, you must apply.Granted, that was one of the strengths of WoW after the Burning Crusade expansion, in that there were much less "tank and spank" encounters and more requirement for interaction amongst members of the group and their environments.
You could read all about encounters on wowhead and thottbot and have all the right gear and still end up dying repeatedly if... well, how hard was it to NOT move when flame wreath is cast?
[youtube.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28643383</id>
	<title>Re:Um, that's why they are games, not sports</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1247138520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They do not require a great deal of skill, or they would be a sport.</p></div><p>Sports require a great deal of skill?</p><p>4 year olds play sports, and have fun doing it.  They don't usually keep score.  Perhaps what you meant was: "Winning at top-tier leagues of competitive games"?</p><p>The most successful games are not the most successful because they're the easiest.  It's because they have a gradual enough learning curve to keep people engaged and making progress.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do not require a great deal of skill , or they would be a sport.Sports require a great deal of skill ? 4 year olds play sports , and have fun doing it .
They do n't usually keep score .
Perhaps what you meant was : " Winning at top-tier leagues of competitive games " ? The most successful games are not the most successful because they 're the easiest .
It 's because they have a gradual enough learning curve to keep people engaged and making progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do not require a great deal of skill, or they would be a sport.Sports require a great deal of skill?4 year olds play sports, and have fun doing it.
They don't usually keep score.
Perhaps what you meant was: "Winning at top-tier leagues of competitive games"?The most successful games are not the most successful because they're the easiest.
It's because they have a gradual enough learning curve to keep people engaged and making progress.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616481</id>
	<title>Re:Skills - yes please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246975680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In WoW, perseverence is just as important as skill.  There are two general paths to gear in WoW as soon as the 80 achivement flings across the bottom of the screen:</p><p>The first is PvE:  Once you get 80, there is a stage of gearing one goes through.  First, it's dumping any and all green items by running heroic instances.  Bewtween instances, one runs dailies to get rep with groups, then buys the occasional usable blue or purple offered that is of use, such as the Runeblade of Demonstrable Power obtainable at revered with the Knights of the Ebon Blade.  The cash from dailies can go for player made gear.</p><p>Once geared enough to run heroics well, then one hits Naxx 10.  For the most part, most raid guilds have passed this, but it shouldn't be hard to get a semi-PUG to get people to run this on a weekly basis for emblems and multiple shots at decent gear.  Come 3.2, the emblems can be used for better gear than one gets in the instance, so the run can be just for getting emblems and emblems fast.</p><p>After that, its to Naxx 25 and Ulduar.</p><p>PvP is a different road.  Instead of trying to get a raid or group together, its about being able to deal day in and day out with getting nailed repeatedly in BGs.  It is slow at first, but one then can buy resiliance gear that causes deaths to be less frequent.  Sometimes you actually wih WG or other BGs.  Here, patience is key.  It is a grind, but it won't be long if playing often to get a decent set of gear.  Generally PvP gear isn't great in PvE and the other way around, but purples are purples and someone with S7 gear should be able to do OK in ulduar provided they know the fights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In WoW , perseverence is just as important as skill .
There are two general paths to gear in WoW as soon as the 80 achivement flings across the bottom of the screen : The first is PvE : Once you get 80 , there is a stage of gearing one goes through .
First , it 's dumping any and all green items by running heroic instances .
Bewtween instances , one runs dailies to get rep with groups , then buys the occasional usable blue or purple offered that is of use , such as the Runeblade of Demonstrable Power obtainable at revered with the Knights of the Ebon Blade .
The cash from dailies can go for player made gear.Once geared enough to run heroics well , then one hits Naxx 10 .
For the most part , most raid guilds have passed this , but it should n't be hard to get a semi-PUG to get people to run this on a weekly basis for emblems and multiple shots at decent gear .
Come 3.2 , the emblems can be used for better gear than one gets in the instance , so the run can be just for getting emblems and emblems fast.After that , its to Naxx 25 and Ulduar.PvP is a different road .
Instead of trying to get a raid or group together , its about being able to deal day in and day out with getting nailed repeatedly in BGs .
It is slow at first , but one then can buy resiliance gear that causes deaths to be less frequent .
Sometimes you actually wih WG or other BGs .
Here , patience is key .
It is a grind , but it wo n't be long if playing often to get a decent set of gear .
Generally PvP gear is n't great in PvE and the other way around , but purples are purples and someone with S7 gear should be able to do OK in ulduar provided they know the fights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In WoW, perseverence is just as important as skill.
There are two general paths to gear in WoW as soon as the 80 achivement flings across the bottom of the screen:The first is PvE:  Once you get 80, there is a stage of gearing one goes through.
First, it's dumping any and all green items by running heroic instances.
Bewtween instances, one runs dailies to get rep with groups, then buys the occasional usable blue or purple offered that is of use, such as the Runeblade of Demonstrable Power obtainable at revered with the Knights of the Ebon Blade.
The cash from dailies can go for player made gear.Once geared enough to run heroics well, then one hits Naxx 10.
For the most part, most raid guilds have passed this, but it shouldn't be hard to get a semi-PUG to get people to run this on a weekly basis for emblems and multiple shots at decent gear.
Come 3.2, the emblems can be used for better gear than one gets in the instance, so the run can be just for getting emblems and emblems fast.After that, its to Naxx 25 and Ulduar.PvP is a different road.
Instead of trying to get a raid or group together, its about being able to deal day in and day out with getting nailed repeatedly in BGs.
It is slow at first, but one then can buy resiliance gear that causes deaths to be less frequent.
Sometimes you actually wih WG or other BGs.
Here, patience is key.
It is a grind, but it won't be long if playing often to get a decent set of gear.
Generally PvP gear isn't great in PvE and the other way around, but purples are purples and someone with S7 gear should be able to do OK in ulduar provided they know the fights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610773</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Lunatrik</author>
	<datestamp>1246991880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Star Wars Galaxies tried something like this - e.g., healers got XP for healing ect., but it made different classes *far* easier to level and thus they ended up with a dramatic shortage of some classes.  Its no fun LFG for two hours!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Star Wars Galaxies tried something like this - e.g. , healers got XP for healing ect. , but it made different classes * far * easier to level and thus they ended up with a dramatic shortage of some classes .
Its no fun LFG for two hours !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Star Wars Galaxies tried something like this - e.g., healers got XP for healing ect., but it made different classes *far* easier to level and thus they ended up with a dramatic shortage of some classes.
Its no fun LFG for two hours!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611325</id>
	<title>Mod parent up</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1246993860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really think Guild Wars is the only MMO where something like skill, as opposed to bunny hopping, loot gathering, and spending 3 weeks of your life getting a character up to 80, only to discover the class categorically sucks at PvP.  I also think the class definitions are more complex than the traditional tank/healer/dps.</p><p>I also really really love the multiclass aspect which yields a much larger amount of viable and interesting builds, combined with the free skill rebalancing, makes tweaking your character/skill setup part of the game.  Unlike other MMOs where you essentially go to a website and download the build for your class based on the most recent patch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really think Guild Wars is the only MMO where something like skill , as opposed to bunny hopping , loot gathering , and spending 3 weeks of your life getting a character up to 80 , only to discover the class categorically sucks at PvP .
I also think the class definitions are more complex than the traditional tank/healer/dps.I also really really love the multiclass aspect which yields a much larger amount of viable and interesting builds , combined with the free skill rebalancing , makes tweaking your character/skill setup part of the game .
Unlike other MMOs where you essentially go to a website and download the build for your class based on the most recent patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really think Guild Wars is the only MMO where something like skill, as opposed to bunny hopping, loot gathering, and spending 3 weeks of your life getting a character up to 80, only to discover the class categorically sucks at PvP.
I also think the class definitions are more complex than the traditional tank/healer/dps.I also really really love the multiclass aspect which yields a much larger amount of viable and interesting builds, combined with the free skill rebalancing, makes tweaking your character/skill setup part of the game.
Unlike other MMOs where you essentially go to a website and download the build for your class based on the most recent patch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613231</id>
	<title>Re:wrong skills</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1246958220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Someone decides that the best way to do it is to put 10 in swords, 11 in shields, and 15 in fireballs...and all of a sudden that's what everyone is playing. So you wind up with absolutely no variety.</i></p><p>One solution to this is, of course, to design the PvE encounters so that a variety of different skills are needed, and \_different players have to have them\_.  Sure, you need a player who's good at fireballs, but he needs to be standing back and handling the horde of little monsters that will heal the boss monster if they get too close, while your guy who's good with his sword and shield gets up close and finishes off the boss.  Or other scenarios like that where you need two or more players who are good with just one or two different skills, rather than one ultra-powerful player who can do everything.  And each encounter will require a different combination of skills.  Some skills will be useless in some encounters; sometimes a particular skill will basically be essential.  Design the game to encourage specialisation and cooperation rather than individual players learning everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone decides that the best way to do it is to put 10 in swords , 11 in shields , and 15 in fireballs...and all of a sudden that 's what everyone is playing .
So you wind up with absolutely no variety.One solution to this is , of course , to design the PvE encounters so that a variety of different skills are needed , and \ _different players have to have them \ _ .
Sure , you need a player who 's good at fireballs , but he needs to be standing back and handling the horde of little monsters that will heal the boss monster if they get too close , while your guy who 's good with his sword and shield gets up close and finishes off the boss .
Or other scenarios like that where you need two or more players who are good with just one or two different skills , rather than one ultra-powerful player who can do everything .
And each encounter will require a different combination of skills .
Some skills will be useless in some encounters ; sometimes a particular skill will basically be essential .
Design the game to encourage specialisation and cooperation rather than individual players learning everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone decides that the best way to do it is to put 10 in swords, 11 in shields, and 15 in fireballs...and all of a sudden that's what everyone is playing.
So you wind up with absolutely no variety.One solution to this is, of course, to design the PvE encounters so that a variety of different skills are needed, and \_different players have to have them\_.
Sure, you need a player who's good at fireballs, but he needs to be standing back and handling the horde of little monsters that will heal the boss monster if they get too close, while your guy who's good with his sword and shield gets up close and finishes off the boss.
Or other scenarios like that where you need two or more players who are good with just one or two different skills, rather than one ultra-powerful player who can do everything.
And each encounter will require a different combination of skills.
Some skills will be useless in some encounters; sometimes a particular skill will basically be essential.
Design the game to encourage specialisation and cooperation rather than individual players learning everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612095</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246996800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" Except, get this, wait for it...., you don't die at 100\%. In fact there's no set limit you die at. The game just decides it's your time to die. Sometimes their damage is at 150\% or higher"</p><p>The problem is you haven't played smash brothers, smash brothers is in fact a skill based game.  The more damage you take the easier it is to ring you out, the idea is to take the least damage as possible because the more damage you take using special moves at higher damage percentages will ring you out instantly for a win.</p><p>You just have to learn which moves will ring out and smash people out of the screen at high percentages.</p><p>The damage system is actually innovative in that you *do* increase your risk of dying by people who actually attempted to understand the game.</p><p>Ironically your complaint that your son didn't try to figure it out himself, when you didn't try to figure out smash brothers system is itself a bit humorous.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Except , get this , wait for it.... , you do n't die at 100 \ % .
In fact there 's no set limit you die at .
The game just decides it 's your time to die .
Sometimes their damage is at 150 \ % or higher " The problem is you have n't played smash brothers , smash brothers is in fact a skill based game .
The more damage you take the easier it is to ring you out , the idea is to take the least damage as possible because the more damage you take using special moves at higher damage percentages will ring you out instantly for a win.You just have to learn which moves will ring out and smash people out of the screen at high percentages.The damage system is actually innovative in that you * do * increase your risk of dying by people who actually attempted to understand the game.Ironically your complaint that your son did n't try to figure it out himself , when you did n't try to figure out smash brothers system is itself a bit humorous .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Except, get this, wait for it...., you don't die at 100\%.
In fact there's no set limit you die at.
The game just decides it's your time to die.
Sometimes their damage is at 150\% or higher"The problem is you haven't played smash brothers, smash brothers is in fact a skill based game.
The more damage you take the easier it is to ring you out, the idea is to take the least damage as possible because the more damage you take using special moves at higher damage percentages will ring you out instantly for a win.You just have to learn which moves will ring out and smash people out of the screen at high percentages.The damage system is actually innovative in that you *do* increase your risk of dying by people who actually attempted to understand the game.Ironically your complaint that your son didn't try to figure it out himself, when you didn't try to figure out smash brothers system is itself a bit humorous.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611721</id>
	<title>It's all about the algorithm</title>
	<author>Apreche</author>
	<datestamp>1246995300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about Sudoku for a second. Let's say you never played it before. Someone gives you a board and the rules. The first step you have is to figure out how to solve it. Eventually you develop an algorithm that can solve any sudoku. Once you have developed this algorithm, sudoku is no longer an intellectual exercise. It is no longer a matter of solving a problem, but merely executing an algorithm. It becomes manual labor. Likewise, if someone gives you the algorithm, you can bypass the first part entirely.</p><p>An MMO is very similar. In the beginning you don't know what to do. You have to learn the game and solve problems. Many of the rules of the game are hidden or secret. Thus, it can take awhile. However, eventually, you learn it. You know exactly what to press in order to do the maximum damage per unit time in any given situation with any given character. You don't even need to learn this, either. Someone can just tell you.</p><p>At some point you switch from developing an algorithm to executing an algorithm. You switch from developing a solution to executing a known solution. You switch from skill to knowledge.</p><p>This is why there is such an attraction t&#239;o eurogames like Puerto Rico, Agricola, Caylus, Power Grid, Tigris and Euphrates, etc. These games tend to have little to no randomness, so they aren't games of chance. They are complex enough that it is very difficult to solve them, though perhaps not as complex as Go. They also have a significant theme and other elements that make them more "fun" than a game like Go or Chess.</p><p>Even so, many eurogames are solvable. We have a shelf full of games, but we only actually play about half of them. For the other half, everyone already knows the algorithm for optimal play. When we play with each other, it becomes a perfect Nash equilibrium. When we play with anyone else who hasn't solved the game, they are completely crushed.</p><p>The answer is to never play a game you have solved, and never play games that are easily solvable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about Sudoku for a second .
Let 's say you never played it before .
Someone gives you a board and the rules .
The first step you have is to figure out how to solve it .
Eventually you develop an algorithm that can solve any sudoku .
Once you have developed this algorithm , sudoku is no longer an intellectual exercise .
It is no longer a matter of solving a problem , but merely executing an algorithm .
It becomes manual labor .
Likewise , if someone gives you the algorithm , you can bypass the first part entirely.An MMO is very similar .
In the beginning you do n't know what to do .
You have to learn the game and solve problems .
Many of the rules of the game are hidden or secret .
Thus , it can take awhile .
However , eventually , you learn it .
You know exactly what to press in order to do the maximum damage per unit time in any given situation with any given character .
You do n't even need to learn this , either .
Someone can just tell you.At some point you switch from developing an algorithm to executing an algorithm .
You switch from developing a solution to executing a known solution .
You switch from skill to knowledge.This is why there is such an attraction t   o eurogames like Puerto Rico , Agricola , Caylus , Power Grid , Tigris and Euphrates , etc .
These games tend to have little to no randomness , so they are n't games of chance .
They are complex enough that it is very difficult to solve them , though perhaps not as complex as Go .
They also have a significant theme and other elements that make them more " fun " than a game like Go or Chess.Even so , many eurogames are solvable .
We have a shelf full of games , but we only actually play about half of them .
For the other half , everyone already knows the algorithm for optimal play .
When we play with each other , it becomes a perfect Nash equilibrium .
When we play with anyone else who has n't solved the game , they are completely crushed.The answer is to never play a game you have solved , and never play games that are easily solvable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about Sudoku for a second.
Let's say you never played it before.
Someone gives you a board and the rules.
The first step you have is to figure out how to solve it.
Eventually you develop an algorithm that can solve any sudoku.
Once you have developed this algorithm, sudoku is no longer an intellectual exercise.
It is no longer a matter of solving a problem, but merely executing an algorithm.
It becomes manual labor.
Likewise, if someone gives you the algorithm, you can bypass the first part entirely.An MMO is very similar.
In the beginning you don't know what to do.
You have to learn the game and solve problems.
Many of the rules of the game are hidden or secret.
Thus, it can take awhile.
However, eventually, you learn it.
You know exactly what to press in order to do the maximum damage per unit time in any given situation with any given character.
You don't even need to learn this, either.
Someone can just tell you.At some point you switch from developing an algorithm to executing an algorithm.
You switch from developing a solution to executing a known solution.
You switch from skill to knowledge.This is why there is such an attraction tïo eurogames like Puerto Rico, Agricola, Caylus, Power Grid, Tigris and Euphrates, etc.
These games tend to have little to no randomness, so they aren't games of chance.
They are complex enough that it is very difficult to solve them, though perhaps not as complex as Go.
They also have a significant theme and other elements that make them more "fun" than a game like Go or Chess.Even so, many eurogames are solvable.
We have a shelf full of games, but we only actually play about half of them.
For the other half, everyone already knows the algorithm for optimal play.
When we play with each other, it becomes a perfect Nash equilibrium.
When we play with anyone else who hasn't solved the game, they are completely crushed.The answer is to never play a game you have solved, and never play games that are easily solvable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610681</id>
	<title>levels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246991580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You guys notice they are talking about skill 'levels' in games and not skill in the sense of a twitch gamer, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys notice they are talking about skill 'levels ' in games and not skill in the sense of a twitch gamer , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys notice they are talking about skill 'levels' in games and not skill in the sense of a twitch gamer, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611381</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1246994100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about eliminating the grind altogether by making XP the measure of your highest achieved level of proficiency at something rather than the accumulation of points for doing X thing Y times? So if I can kill a level 10 monster that makes me level 10. Then I have to gear up, learn some tactics, whatever before I can beat a level 11 monster. But if you already know or have that stuff you can just jump ahead. Oh wait there goes the "Over 50 hours of gameplay!" tag...</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about eliminating the grind altogether by making XP the measure of your highest achieved level of proficiency at something rather than the accumulation of points for doing X thing Y times ?
So if I can kill a level 10 monster that makes me level 10 .
Then I have to gear up , learn some tactics , whatever before I can beat a level 11 monster .
But if you already know or have that stuff you can just jump ahead .
Oh wait there goes the " Over 50 hours of gameplay !
" tag.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about eliminating the grind altogether by making XP the measure of your highest achieved level of proficiency at something rather than the accumulation of points for doing X thing Y times?
So if I can kill a level 10 monster that makes me level 10.
Then I have to gear up, learn some tactics, whatever before I can beat a level 11 monster.
But if you already know or have that stuff you can just jump ahead.
Oh wait there goes the "Over 50 hours of gameplay!
" tag...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610715</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>CoccoBill</author>
	<datestamp>1246991640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I concur. As in, what is "skill" in for example chess or any other "skill-based" game, if not the knowledge of the game's mechanics? ESP? Force?</p><p>Main Entry: skill<br>Function: noun<br>Etymology: Middle English skil, from Old Norse, distinction, knowledge; probably akin to Old English scylian to separate, sciell shell &#226;" more at shell<br>Date: 13th century</p><p>1 (obsolete): cause, reason<br>2 a: the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance b: dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks<br>3: a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I concur .
As in , what is " skill " in for example chess or any other " skill-based " game , if not the knowledge of the game 's mechanics ?
ESP ? Force ? Main Entry : skillFunction : nounEtymology : Middle English skil , from Old Norse , distinction , knowledge ; probably akin to Old English scylian to separate , sciell shell   " more at shellDate : 13th century1 ( obsolete ) : cause , reason2 a : the ability to use one 's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance b : dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks3 : a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I concur.
As in, what is "skill" in for example chess or any other "skill-based" game, if not the knowledge of the game's mechanics?
ESP? Force?Main Entry: skillFunction: nounEtymology: Middle English skil, from Old Norse, distinction, knowledge; probably akin to Old English scylian to separate, sciell shell â" more at shellDate: 13th century1 (obsolete): cause, reason2 a: the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance b: dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks3: a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611401</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>TerribleNews</author>
	<datestamp>1246994160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you are able to do something you have a skill in it. If you can pump gas into your car then you have a skill - pumping gas. Some skills are easier then others (pumping gas vs replacing your breaks).</p>  </div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...versus correctly spelling the names of common automobile components.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are able to do something you have a skill in it .
If you can pump gas into your car then you have a skill - pumping gas .
Some skills are easier then others ( pumping gas vs replacing your breaks ) .
...versus correctly spelling the names of common automobile components .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are able to do something you have a skill in it.
If you can pump gas into your car then you have a skill - pumping gas.
Some skills are easier then others (pumping gas vs replacing your breaks).
...versus correctly spelling the names of common automobile components.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28630555</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>pbaer</author>
	<datestamp>1247059800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fighting games: All about predicting your opponent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fighting games : All about predicting your opponent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fighting games: All about predicting your opponent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612897</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>greyline</author>
	<datestamp>1246999980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in New Jersey, and we do <b>not</b> pump gas, my friend. Bad analogy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in New Jersey , and we do not pump gas , my friend .
Bad analogy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in New Jersey, and we do not pump gas, my friend.
Bad analogy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614515</id>
	<title>Re:Both are bad.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1246963200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy, and hard encounters are impossible until you level up, at which point they are easy. It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher. You didn't learn shit.</i></p><p>Gaining skill isn't the point of an RPG.  It's progression through the plot that's enjoyable. When I want a challenge, I'll play a shmup.  RPGs are for relaxing and getting told a story.  A little bit of stat management keeps it interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy , and hard encounters are impossible until you level up , at which point they are easy .
It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game , which is enjoyable , but in fact your character is just tougher .
You did n't learn shit.Gaining skill is n't the point of an RPG .
It 's progression through the plot that 's enjoyable .
When I want a challenge , I 'll play a shmup .
RPGs are for relaxing and getting told a story .
A little bit of stat management keeps it interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy, and hard encounters are impossible until you level up, at which point they are easy.
It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher.
You didn't learn shit.Gaining skill isn't the point of an RPG.
It's progression through the plot that's enjoyable.
When I want a challenge, I'll play a shmup.
RPGs are for relaxing and getting told a story.
A little bit of stat management keeps it interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612973</id>
	<title>Lack of cleverness/open ended game play</title>
	<author>seifried</author>
	<datestamp>1247000340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me the whole leveling idea is just a brute force solution to the problem of how do we reward people for spending a LOT Of time in the game grinding away. Which makes sense if you're charging them 20-30$ a month to level up and want to keep them paying. But as an occasional game player (occasional due to a lack of interesting games to play) I really wish they would a) take more of a skills based approach (which is still leveling, but in a more discreet fashion) and b) have more open ended game play so that those skills could be used cleverly, i.e. setting traps, using illusions, using spells in interesting ways and so on (basically all the stuff that makes tabletop D&amp;D fun). In other words take out the suck and replace it with some fun.

My solution to this desire to game but lack of fun computer games has been simple: I bought myself some games like Risk and invite friends over to play and drink and eat every once in a while. Personally I've pretty much given up on computer games (even my Nintendo Wii sits unused), there's a real lack of open ended games (which is understandable since that type of problem is surprisingly difficult to program for).</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me the whole leveling idea is just a brute force solution to the problem of how do we reward people for spending a LOT Of time in the game grinding away .
Which makes sense if you 're charging them 20-30 $ a month to level up and want to keep them paying .
But as an occasional game player ( occasional due to a lack of interesting games to play ) I really wish they would a ) take more of a skills based approach ( which is still leveling , but in a more discreet fashion ) and b ) have more open ended game play so that those skills could be used cleverly , i.e .
setting traps , using illusions , using spells in interesting ways and so on ( basically all the stuff that makes tabletop D&amp;D fun ) .
In other words take out the suck and replace it with some fun .
My solution to this desire to game but lack of fun computer games has been simple : I bought myself some games like Risk and invite friends over to play and drink and eat every once in a while .
Personally I 've pretty much given up on computer games ( even my Nintendo Wii sits unused ) , there 's a real lack of open ended games ( which is understandable since that type of problem is surprisingly difficult to program for ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me the whole leveling idea is just a brute force solution to the problem of how do we reward people for spending a LOT Of time in the game grinding away.
Which makes sense if you're charging them 20-30$ a month to level up and want to keep them paying.
But as an occasional game player (occasional due to a lack of interesting games to play) I really wish they would a) take more of a skills based approach (which is still leveling, but in a more discreet fashion) and b) have more open ended game play so that those skills could be used cleverly, i.e.
setting traps, using illusions, using spells in interesting ways and so on (basically all the stuff that makes tabletop D&amp;D fun).
In other words take out the suck and replace it with some fun.
My solution to this desire to game but lack of fun computer games has been simple: I bought myself some games like Risk and invite friends over to play and drink and eat every once in a while.
Personally I've pretty much given up on computer games (even my Nintendo Wii sits unused), there's a real lack of open ended games (which is understandable since that type of problem is surprisingly difficult to program for).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613265</id>
	<title>What?  No.</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1246958400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They are games for a reason. They're entertaining. They do not require a great deal of skill, or they would be a sport.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is just wrong on both counts:
</p><ol>
<li>There are hard games that they require lots of skill to play well.  Prime example: chess.</li>
<li>Lots of people who aren't terribly skilled play sports because they're entertaining, and their lives tend to be better for it.</li>
</ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are games for a reason .
They 're entertaining .
They do not require a great deal of skill , or they would be a sport.This is just wrong on both counts : There are hard games that they require lots of skill to play well .
Prime example : chess .
Lots of people who are n't terribly skilled play sports because they 're entertaining , and their lives tend to be better for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are games for a reason.
They're entertaining.
They do not require a great deal of skill, or they would be a sport.This is just wrong on both counts:

There are hard games that they require lots of skill to play well.
Prime example: chess.
Lots of people who aren't terribly skilled play sports because they're entertaining, and their lives tend to be better for it.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613481</id>
	<title>Starcraft</title>
	<author>rehevkor5</author>
	<datestamp>1246959180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been watching a lot of pro Starcraft casts lately (hooray for Cholera!), and to me it's clear that skill is a major factor.</p><p>

Using a build is just like using an opening in chess. It helps you make the first, say, ten moves. After that you're in uncharted territory. In fact, Starcraft players have it harder than chess players when it comes to the opening. If the player isn't timely with a scout into the enemy base, and then skillful with microing it, the player will have no idea what build the other player is using. Chess players can just see it on the board without any effort or probe/drone/scv micro skill. If you don't have that skill, you're not going to be able to adjust your strategy to account for the other players strategy.</p><p>

A lot of the game also depends on your meaningful APM (actions per minute). Pro players have an APM around 250-400. The sheer concentration and quick thinking needed to maintain such a hectic rate of play isn't something that just anyone can step up and do. Using a good build has nothing to do with it. If you don't have good APM one or both of micro and macro will suffer.</p><p>

Along with APM comes micro. In Z/Z, for example, a single well-placed plague can turn the game. For protoss, micro of a shuttle/reaver combo or of high templar storms can be crucial. I can't come up with a good example for Terrans, but basically in Starcraft your units are only as good as your micro.</p><p>

Personally I'd take a skill-based game like CounterStrike or Starcraft over a level-based game like WoW any day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been watching a lot of pro Starcraft casts lately ( hooray for Cholera !
) , and to me it 's clear that skill is a major factor .
Using a build is just like using an opening in chess .
It helps you make the first , say , ten moves .
After that you 're in uncharted territory .
In fact , Starcraft players have it harder than chess players when it comes to the opening .
If the player is n't timely with a scout into the enemy base , and then skillful with microing it , the player will have no idea what build the other player is using .
Chess players can just see it on the board without any effort or probe/drone/scv micro skill .
If you do n't have that skill , you 're not going to be able to adjust your strategy to account for the other players strategy .
A lot of the game also depends on your meaningful APM ( actions per minute ) .
Pro players have an APM around 250-400 .
The sheer concentration and quick thinking needed to maintain such a hectic rate of play is n't something that just anyone can step up and do .
Using a good build has nothing to do with it .
If you do n't have good APM one or both of micro and macro will suffer .
Along with APM comes micro .
In Z/Z , for example , a single well-placed plague can turn the game .
For protoss , micro of a shuttle/reaver combo or of high templar storms can be crucial .
I ca n't come up with a good example for Terrans , but basically in Starcraft your units are only as good as your micro .
Personally I 'd take a skill-based game like CounterStrike or Starcraft over a level-based game like WoW any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been watching a lot of pro Starcraft casts lately (hooray for Cholera!
), and to me it's clear that skill is a major factor.
Using a build is just like using an opening in chess.
It helps you make the first, say, ten moves.
After that you're in uncharted territory.
In fact, Starcraft players have it harder than chess players when it comes to the opening.
If the player isn't timely with a scout into the enemy base, and then skillful with microing it, the player will have no idea what build the other player is using.
Chess players can just see it on the board without any effort or probe/drone/scv micro skill.
If you don't have that skill, you're not going to be able to adjust your strategy to account for the other players strategy.
A lot of the game also depends on your meaningful APM (actions per minute).
Pro players have an APM around 250-400.
The sheer concentration and quick thinking needed to maintain such a hectic rate of play isn't something that just anyone can step up and do.
Using a good build has nothing to do with it.
If you don't have good APM one or both of micro and macro will suffer.
Along with APM comes micro.
In Z/Z, for example, a single well-placed plague can turn the game.
For protoss, micro of a shuttle/reaver combo or of high templar storms can be crucial.
I can't come up with a good example for Terrans, but basically in Starcraft your units are only as good as your micro.
Personally I'd take a skill-based game like CounterStrike or Starcraft over a level-based game like WoW any day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620893</id>
	<title>Re:Both are bad.</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247063100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy, and hard encounters are impossible until you level up, at which point they are easy. It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher. You didn't learn shit.</b><p>Not necessarily true. A level 20 player goes to fight a level 20 mob and dies. Now level 20 player is a level 40 player. They go back to the same level 20 mob and beat it.  The player's skill did not improve necessarily, their character is just 20 levels more powerful.  But when you are max level and you get to end-game this is where skill shows.  Items help a lot (duh) but the difference in games like WoW from say tier 6 to tier 7 is marginal....so what changes? You learned how the boss abilities, you learned your environment, you learned how to work better with your team....you may have gotten better equipment but for the most part it is a marginal change.  So your skill increased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy , and hard encounters are impossible until you level up , at which point they are easy .
It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game , which is enjoyable , but in fact your character is just tougher .
You did n't learn shit.Not necessarily true .
A level 20 player goes to fight a level 20 mob and dies .
Now level 20 player is a level 40 player .
They go back to the same level 20 mob and beat it .
The player 's skill did not improve necessarily , their character is just 20 levels more powerful .
But when you are max level and you get to end-game this is where skill shows .
Items help a lot ( duh ) but the difference in games like WoW from say tier 6 to tier 7 is marginal....so what changes ?
You learned how the boss abilities , you learned your environment , you learned how to work better with your team....you may have gotten better equipment but for the most part it is a marginal change .
So your skill increased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy, and hard encounters are impossible until you level up, at which point they are easy.
It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher.
You didn't learn shit.Not necessarily true.
A level 20 player goes to fight a level 20 mob and dies.
Now level 20 player is a level 40 player.
They go back to the same level 20 mob and beat it.
The player's skill did not improve necessarily, their character is just 20 levels more powerful.
But when you are max level and you get to end-game this is where skill shows.
Items help a lot (duh) but the difference in games like WoW from say tier 6 to tier 7 is marginal....so what changes?
You learned how the boss abilities, you learned your environment, you learned how to work better with your team....you may have gotten better equipment but for the most part it is a marginal change.
So your skill increased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613525</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1246959300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's fine, but it would not eliminate grinding.  People would just find out the fastest way to get xp, post it online, and everyone would do that.  It wouldn't change a thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's fine , but it would not eliminate grinding .
People would just find out the fastest way to get xp , post it online , and everyone would do that .
It would n't change a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's fine, but it would not eliminate grinding.
People would just find out the fastest way to get xp, post it online, and everyone would do that.
It wouldn't change a thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631</id>
	<title>Guild Wars</title>
	<author>bhsx</author>
	<datestamp>1246991340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again I think this is an area where Guild Wars does well. There is a lvl20 cap on all players.  The game mechanics become very important, it's all basically rock, paper, scissors.  Everything has a counter.  It makes for a much "tighter" pvp game if that makes any sense.  Basically all you have is what's on your bar, and it's only eight skills max, and in pvp you want one of those skills to be resurrection signet.  It becomes a game of how much power you can pack into those by "chaining" them together.  There's no changing armor in pvp, no potions or elixers to boost your health; those have to be fit into your skillbar as well.
I think it's a fine balance that takes so much of the grind out of the game, at that point it's all up to how you like to play, and GW gives you tons of options there through different ways to pvp, pve, and in some circumstances pva(all).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again I think this is an area where Guild Wars does well .
There is a lvl20 cap on all players .
The game mechanics become very important , it 's all basically rock , paper , scissors .
Everything has a counter .
It makes for a much " tighter " pvp game if that makes any sense .
Basically all you have is what 's on your bar , and it 's only eight skills max , and in pvp you want one of those skills to be resurrection signet .
It becomes a game of how much power you can pack into those by " chaining " them together .
There 's no changing armor in pvp , no potions or elixers to boost your health ; those have to be fit into your skillbar as well .
I think it 's a fine balance that takes so much of the grind out of the game , at that point it 's all up to how you like to play , and GW gives you tons of options there through different ways to pvp , pve , and in some circumstances pva ( all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again I think this is an area where Guild Wars does well.
There is a lvl20 cap on all players.
The game mechanics become very important, it's all basically rock, paper, scissors.
Everything has a counter.
It makes for a much "tighter" pvp game if that makes any sense.
Basically all you have is what's on your bar, and it's only eight skills max, and in pvp you want one of those skills to be resurrection signet.
It becomes a game of how much power you can pack into those by "chaining" them together.
There's no changing armor in pvp, no potions or elixers to boost your health; those have to be fit into your skillbar as well.
I think it's a fine balance that takes so much of the grind out of the game, at that point it's all up to how you like to play, and GW gives you tons of options there through different ways to pvp, pve, and in some circumstances pva(all).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612439</id>
	<title>some advantages of class-based system</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1246998120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The class-based system lets the developer balance whole sets of skills at once, which means that the advantages of one skill could be offset by the disadvantages of a lack of skill or even a penalty in a class. This means that not every skill has to be balanced relative to each other; only the classes themselves need to be balanced.</p><p>Disadvantages include stuff like, inability to wield bladed weapons, or inability to wear armor, etc.</p><p>Disadvantages are difficult to incorporate into a purely skill-based system because nobody is going to pick a disadvantage unless forced, and so the developer has to arbitrarily staple them onto a skill. Like, wielding weapons means you suck at casting spells, or wearing armor means you can't sneak around. Congratulations, you've just implemented classes in a skill-based system.</p><p>It seems like most games these days are using primarily a class-based system with some "accessory" skills, which is essentially a class-based system with some extra flavor. It's because people haven't really figured out how to balance a purely skill-based system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The class-based system lets the developer balance whole sets of skills at once , which means that the advantages of one skill could be offset by the disadvantages of a lack of skill or even a penalty in a class .
This means that not every skill has to be balanced relative to each other ; only the classes themselves need to be balanced.Disadvantages include stuff like , inability to wield bladed weapons , or inability to wear armor , etc.Disadvantages are difficult to incorporate into a purely skill-based system because nobody is going to pick a disadvantage unless forced , and so the developer has to arbitrarily staple them onto a skill .
Like , wielding weapons means you suck at casting spells , or wearing armor means you ca n't sneak around .
Congratulations , you 've just implemented classes in a skill-based system.It seems like most games these days are using primarily a class-based system with some " accessory " skills , which is essentially a class-based system with some extra flavor .
It 's because people have n't really figured out how to balance a purely skill-based system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The class-based system lets the developer balance whole sets of skills at once, which means that the advantages of one skill could be offset by the disadvantages of a lack of skill or even a penalty in a class.
This means that not every skill has to be balanced relative to each other; only the classes themselves need to be balanced.Disadvantages include stuff like, inability to wield bladed weapons, or inability to wear armor, etc.Disadvantages are difficult to incorporate into a purely skill-based system because nobody is going to pick a disadvantage unless forced, and so the developer has to arbitrarily staple them onto a skill.
Like, wielding weapons means you suck at casting spells, or wearing armor means you can't sneak around.
Congratulations, you've just implemented classes in a skill-based system.It seems like most games these days are using primarily a class-based system with some "accessory" skills, which is essentially a class-based system with some extra flavor.
It's because people haven't really figured out how to balance a purely skill-based system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612571</id>
	<title>Re:Skills - yes please</title>
	<author>subanark</author>
	<datestamp>1246998600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Currently in WoW, when you play a character there are 2 categories of progression. First is leveling: you only need a little skill to level, more skill may let you level faster (or enjoy it more as you do), but ultimately if you stick to the game long enough you will get to the maximum level. Second is simply known as end content: You progress in PvE by obtaining better gear, although you can obtain good gear with little skill (and without friends) it will take a while as you would either need to purchase tradeable gear from other players (which is never top end, and quite expensive) or spending time getting reputation up (which cannot be sped up by player more).</p><p>With skill and friends you can attempt various levels of group content that give different levels of gear. As your gear improves and as developers add new content to the game, these encounters become easier. When the content becomes so easy that it is trivial, you will probably find there is little reward for doing this content, and you need to try more difficult stuff available. Currently there is content that is sufficiently challenging to everyone (the top elite players out there claim the most difficult challenge is impossible), you are more likely going to get board, not because there is nothing left to do, but rather because enough of your friends got frustrated that you cannot get a good enough group together to try the challenging stuff.</p><p>Remember, the more real time that passes, the most in game content that is added, which allows players to catch up and do the most challenging content, and try the once challenging content on an easier level. Once an expansion hits (every 1-2 years) the level cap is increased which put the players at maximum level at almost equal footing.</p><p>As far as PvP goes, there is casual PvP (battlegrounds) up to and including maximum level (battlegrounds) which will reward good, but not the best gear. In battlegrounds many players (10 - 40 per side) compete within a set of special rules (capture the flag, control bases, ect...). On the more serious side there is arena where players compete competitively in small teams with simple rules. The best gear is awarded to the players who can get a high rating and who spend at least a moderate amount of time participating. Every 3 months or so, better gear is released, allowing players who do better in the current time period to get better gear than those who did good in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently in WoW , when you play a character there are 2 categories of progression .
First is leveling : you only need a little skill to level , more skill may let you level faster ( or enjoy it more as you do ) , but ultimately if you stick to the game long enough you will get to the maximum level .
Second is simply known as end content : You progress in PvE by obtaining better gear , although you can obtain good gear with little skill ( and without friends ) it will take a while as you would either need to purchase tradeable gear from other players ( which is never top end , and quite expensive ) or spending time getting reputation up ( which can not be sped up by player more ) .With skill and friends you can attempt various levels of group content that give different levels of gear .
As your gear improves and as developers add new content to the game , these encounters become easier .
When the content becomes so easy that it is trivial , you will probably find there is little reward for doing this content , and you need to try more difficult stuff available .
Currently there is content that is sufficiently challenging to everyone ( the top elite players out there claim the most difficult challenge is impossible ) , you are more likely going to get board , not because there is nothing left to do , but rather because enough of your friends got frustrated that you can not get a good enough group together to try the challenging stuff.Remember , the more real time that passes , the most in game content that is added , which allows players to catch up and do the most challenging content , and try the once challenging content on an easier level .
Once an expansion hits ( every 1-2 years ) the level cap is increased which put the players at maximum level at almost equal footing.As far as PvP goes , there is casual PvP ( battlegrounds ) up to and including maximum level ( battlegrounds ) which will reward good , but not the best gear .
In battlegrounds many players ( 10 - 40 per side ) compete within a set of special rules ( capture the flag , control bases , ect... ) .
On the more serious side there is arena where players compete competitively in small teams with simple rules .
The best gear is awarded to the players who can get a high rating and who spend at least a moderate amount of time participating .
Every 3 months or so , better gear is released , allowing players who do better in the current time period to get better gear than those who did good in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently in WoW, when you play a character there are 2 categories of progression.
First is leveling: you only need a little skill to level, more skill may let you level faster (or enjoy it more as you do), but ultimately if you stick to the game long enough you will get to the maximum level.
Second is simply known as end content: You progress in PvE by obtaining better gear, although you can obtain good gear with little skill (and without friends) it will take a while as you would either need to purchase tradeable gear from other players (which is never top end, and quite expensive) or spending time getting reputation up (which cannot be sped up by player more).With skill and friends you can attempt various levels of group content that give different levels of gear.
As your gear improves and as developers add new content to the game, these encounters become easier.
When the content becomes so easy that it is trivial, you will probably find there is little reward for doing this content, and you need to try more difficult stuff available.
Currently there is content that is sufficiently challenging to everyone (the top elite players out there claim the most difficult challenge is impossible), you are more likely going to get board, not because there is nothing left to do, but rather because enough of your friends got frustrated that you cannot get a good enough group together to try the challenging stuff.Remember, the more real time that passes, the most in game content that is added, which allows players to catch up and do the most challenging content, and try the once challenging content on an easier level.
Once an expansion hits (every 1-2 years) the level cap is increased which put the players at maximum level at almost equal footing.As far as PvP goes, there is casual PvP (battlegrounds) up to and including maximum level (battlegrounds) which will reward good, but not the best gear.
In battlegrounds many players (10 - 40 per side) compete within a set of special rules (capture the flag, control bases, ect...).
On the more serious side there is arena where players compete competitively in small teams with simple rules.
The best gear is awarded to the players who can get a high rating and who spend at least a moderate amount of time participating.
Every 3 months or so, better gear is released, allowing players who do better in the current time period to get better gear than those who did good in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612927</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Schadrach</author>
	<datestamp>1247000100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not base healer XP on damage/DPS taken by the group, excluding any damage in the X seconds before a given member dies?  IOW, the better the healer keeps the group going, the better.  More importantly, this can be modified to work for something like a City of Heroes Defender, where several of them fill the "healer" role by preventing damage from happening in the first place, such as by reducing the chance to hit for enemy units.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not base healer XP on damage/DPS taken by the group , excluding any damage in the X seconds before a given member dies ?
IOW , the better the healer keeps the group going , the better .
More importantly , this can be modified to work for something like a City of Heroes Defender , where several of them fill the " healer " role by preventing damage from happening in the first place , such as by reducing the chance to hit for enemy units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not base healer XP on damage/DPS taken by the group, excluding any damage in the X seconds before a given member dies?
IOW, the better the healer keeps the group going, the better.
More importantly, this can be modified to work for something like a City of Heroes Defender, where several of them fill the "healer" role by preventing damage from happening in the first place, such as by reducing the chance to hit for enemy units.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618805</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>The boojum</author>
	<datestamp>1247085360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to play a ton of instagib CTF on the Unreal Tournament series.  No powerups, health boxes, armor, ammo, or weapons to collect.  All you got was the super shockrifle: a beam weapon that killed instantly and had effectively infinite ammo but did no splash damage.</p><p>Skill in that game involved speed and accuracy with firing, learning the dodge combos to move evasively, and knowing the maps.</p><p>I always liked it because it felt more like a pure contest of skill to me than the FPS games that involved collecting weapons.  Things like standing around guarding the rocket launcher from the guy with the pistol always seemed like a cheese tactic.  The fully loaded player guarding the rockets might actually be the better player, or it could have been a lucky fluke that they capitalized on.  The difference in power always seemed to me to obscure the connection between skill and performance.</p><p>By contrast, with instagib a player had to repeatedly prove that they really were the superior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to play a ton of instagib CTF on the Unreal Tournament series .
No powerups , health boxes , armor , ammo , or weapons to collect .
All you got was the super shockrifle : a beam weapon that killed instantly and had effectively infinite ammo but did no splash damage.Skill in that game involved speed and accuracy with firing , learning the dodge combos to move evasively , and knowing the maps.I always liked it because it felt more like a pure contest of skill to me than the FPS games that involved collecting weapons .
Things like standing around guarding the rocket launcher from the guy with the pistol always seemed like a cheese tactic .
The fully loaded player guarding the rockets might actually be the better player , or it could have been a lucky fluke that they capitalized on .
The difference in power always seemed to me to obscure the connection between skill and performance.By contrast , with instagib a player had to repeatedly prove that they really were the superior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to play a ton of instagib CTF on the Unreal Tournament series.
No powerups, health boxes, armor, ammo, or weapons to collect.
All you got was the super shockrifle: a beam weapon that killed instantly and had effectively infinite ammo but did no splash damage.Skill in that game involved speed and accuracy with firing, learning the dodge combos to move evasively, and knowing the maps.I always liked it because it felt more like a pure contest of skill to me than the FPS games that involved collecting weapons.
Things like standing around guarding the rocket launcher from the guy with the pistol always seemed like a cheese tactic.
The fully loaded player guarding the rockets might actually be the better player, or it could have been a lucky fluke that they capitalized on.
The difference in power always seemed to me to obscure the connection between skill and performance.By contrast, with instagib a player had to repeatedly prove that they really were the superior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611875</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine XP for "how well you fought" would end up looking something like this:

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Skillful Execution (Knight Class) - Execute a 3 Hit Combo
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Skillful Execution (Mage Class) - Killed ice spider with fireball
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Really Needed it (Healer Class) - Healed someone with less than 10HP
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Just in Case (Healer Class) - Group Heal
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Slow and Steady - Level up by killing 1,000 123exp monsters</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine XP for " how well you fought " would end up looking something like this : ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED : Skillful Execution ( Knight Class ) - Execute a 3 Hit Combo ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED : Skillful Execution ( Mage Class ) - Killed ice spider with fireball ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED : Really Needed it ( Healer Class ) - Healed someone with less than 10HP ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED : Just in Case ( Healer Class ) - Group Heal ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED : Slow and Steady - Level up by killing 1,000 123exp monsters</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine XP for "how well you fought" would end up looking something like this:

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Skillful Execution (Knight Class) - Execute a 3 Hit Combo
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Skillful Execution (Mage Class) - Killed ice spider with fireball
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Really Needed it (Healer Class) - Healed someone with less than 10HP
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Just in Case (Healer Class) - Group Heal
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Slow and Steady - Level up by killing 1,000 123exp monsters</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Maniacal</author>
	<datestamp>1246995240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My kid plays Runescape and anytime he as a quest (or whatever the hell it's called) to complete he pulls up walk-throughs on the web and follows them to get past it.  Besides fighting other players or the standard NPC's he doesn't figure out anything on his own.  It's very frustrating for me.  I can't even watch him play.  Hate to get all geezer here but when I was a kid playing Ultima IV for countless hours on my IBM PCjr I had to figure out all that stuff on my own.  For me that was where all the fun was.  I completed it, I figured it out, and I thought I was awesome because of it.  I wouldn't get so nuts about him playing the way he does if I could just figure out what he's actually getting out of it.  It's not just Runescape either.  When he gets a new game he immediately pulls up some site that has the cheats.  I don't mind cheats that give you cool skins or something that doesn't alter the difficulty of the game but he'll cheat for step 1.  On top of that he's baffled that I won't use the cheats.  Your cook vs. master chef analogy fits us perfectly except my cook thinks master chef's are dumb.
<br> <br>
This is offtopic but while I'm ranting about my kids game play I have to get something off my chest.  When he and his friends get together and play they often like to play something called "Super Smash Brothers".  For you guys as old as me out there, it's a fighting game with all the Nintendo characters as the fighters.  When you play the game your damage is counted up as a percentage.  Except, get this, wait for it...., you don't die at 100\%.  In fact there's no set limit you die at.  The game just decides it's your time to die.  Sometimes their damage is at 150\% or higher.  WTF is with that.  I can't even be in the same room when they're playing that.  I go friggin nuts.  The game itself makes me nuts because of what I just described but the bulk of my frustration comes from him and his friends not recognizing and acknowledging that there is something screwy about it.  They look at me like I'm nuts.
<br> <br>
Maybe I am nuts.  Before you post a bunch of "lighten up psycho" messages know that I'm not this crazy controlling freak.  I've just always been a gamer (not hardcore, just a gamer) and I always looked forward to sharing that with my kids.  The way gaming has changed came as a surprise to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My kid plays Runescape and anytime he as a quest ( or whatever the hell it 's called ) to complete he pulls up walk-throughs on the web and follows them to get past it .
Besides fighting other players or the standard NPC 's he does n't figure out anything on his own .
It 's very frustrating for me .
I ca n't even watch him play .
Hate to get all geezer here but when I was a kid playing Ultima IV for countless hours on my IBM PCjr I had to figure out all that stuff on my own .
For me that was where all the fun was .
I completed it , I figured it out , and I thought I was awesome because of it .
I would n't get so nuts about him playing the way he does if I could just figure out what he 's actually getting out of it .
It 's not just Runescape either .
When he gets a new game he immediately pulls up some site that has the cheats .
I do n't mind cheats that give you cool skins or something that does n't alter the difficulty of the game but he 'll cheat for step 1 .
On top of that he 's baffled that I wo n't use the cheats .
Your cook vs. master chef analogy fits us perfectly except my cook thinks master chef 's are dumb .
This is offtopic but while I 'm ranting about my kids game play I have to get something off my chest .
When he and his friends get together and play they often like to play something called " Super Smash Brothers " .
For you guys as old as me out there , it 's a fighting game with all the Nintendo characters as the fighters .
When you play the game your damage is counted up as a percentage .
Except , get this , wait for it.... , you do n't die at 100 \ % .
In fact there 's no set limit you die at .
The game just decides it 's your time to die .
Sometimes their damage is at 150 \ % or higher .
WTF is with that .
I ca n't even be in the same room when they 're playing that .
I go friggin nuts .
The game itself makes me nuts because of what I just described but the bulk of my frustration comes from him and his friends not recognizing and acknowledging that there is something screwy about it .
They look at me like I 'm nuts .
Maybe I am nuts .
Before you post a bunch of " lighten up psycho " messages know that I 'm not this crazy controlling freak .
I 've just always been a gamer ( not hardcore , just a gamer ) and I always looked forward to sharing that with my kids .
The way gaming has changed came as a surprise to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My kid plays Runescape and anytime he as a quest (or whatever the hell it's called) to complete he pulls up walk-throughs on the web and follows them to get past it.
Besides fighting other players or the standard NPC's he doesn't figure out anything on his own.
It's very frustrating for me.
I can't even watch him play.
Hate to get all geezer here but when I was a kid playing Ultima IV for countless hours on my IBM PCjr I had to figure out all that stuff on my own.
For me that was where all the fun was.
I completed it, I figured it out, and I thought I was awesome because of it.
I wouldn't get so nuts about him playing the way he does if I could just figure out what he's actually getting out of it.
It's not just Runescape either.
When he gets a new game he immediately pulls up some site that has the cheats.
I don't mind cheats that give you cool skins or something that doesn't alter the difficulty of the game but he'll cheat for step 1.
On top of that he's baffled that I won't use the cheats.
Your cook vs. master chef analogy fits us perfectly except my cook thinks master chef's are dumb.
This is offtopic but while I'm ranting about my kids game play I have to get something off my chest.
When he and his friends get together and play they often like to play something called "Super Smash Brothers".
For you guys as old as me out there, it's a fighting game with all the Nintendo characters as the fighters.
When you play the game your damage is counted up as a percentage.
Except, get this, wait for it...., you don't die at 100\%.
In fact there's no set limit you die at.
The game just decides it's your time to die.
Sometimes their damage is at 150\% or higher.
WTF is with that.
I can't even be in the same room when they're playing that.
I go friggin nuts.
The game itself makes me nuts because of what I just described but the bulk of my frustration comes from him and his friends not recognizing and acknowledging that there is something screwy about it.
They look at me like I'm nuts.
Maybe I am nuts.
Before you post a bunch of "lighten up psycho" messages know that I'm not this crazy controlling freak.
I've just always been a gamer (not hardcore, just a gamer) and I always looked forward to sharing that with my kids.
The way gaming has changed came as a surprise to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619207</id>
	<title>Re:MMOs with Leveling are inherently broken</title>
	<author>Terrasque</author>
	<datestamp>1247047680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been thinking a bit about a skill based leveling system.. Where your level doesn't show how much time you wasted on the game, but rather how well you can play your character.</p><p>The basic idea is that you kill mobs and do quests to get gear and get experience playing the class. Then you go to an arena-alike area where you have to defeat a specific mob. First levels will be rather easy, but it will steadily be harder and harder. At the end you not only need the best gear, but will also have to have a deep insight into your class. You can still have talent points and spells for each level, and level dependant armor and similar.</p><p>The first rounds would be really easy ones, maybe starting (as in WoW's start areas) non-agressive weak mobs, and then go up from there. The last fights should be akin to soloing Heroic bosses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been thinking a bit about a skill based leveling system.. Where your level does n't show how much time you wasted on the game , but rather how well you can play your character.The basic idea is that you kill mobs and do quests to get gear and get experience playing the class .
Then you go to an arena-alike area where you have to defeat a specific mob .
First levels will be rather easy , but it will steadily be harder and harder .
At the end you not only need the best gear , but will also have to have a deep insight into your class .
You can still have talent points and spells for each level , and level dependant armor and similar.The first rounds would be really easy ones , maybe starting ( as in WoW 's start areas ) non-agressive weak mobs , and then go up from there .
The last fights should be akin to soloing Heroic bosses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been thinking a bit about a skill based leveling system.. Where your level doesn't show how much time you wasted on the game, but rather how well you can play your character.The basic idea is that you kill mobs and do quests to get gear and get experience playing the class.
Then you go to an arena-alike area where you have to defeat a specific mob.
First levels will be rather easy, but it will steadily be harder and harder.
At the end you not only need the best gear, but will also have to have a deep insight into your class.
You can still have talent points and spells for each level, and level dependant armor and similar.The first rounds would be really easy ones, maybe starting (as in WoW's start areas) non-agressive weak mobs, and then go up from there.
The last fights should be akin to soloing Heroic bosses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611123</id>
	<title>Re:Editor didn't read the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely correct.</p><p>A skill-based training system refers to a character schema without levels, but with skills that have a proficiency rating.  Players receive skill points to allocate towards proficiency, or use-based increases in proficiency.  Skills in this context are also occassionally taught by PCs or learned from NPCs, without level restrictions or the abstraction of experience points.</p><p>In many games, levels and experience points never actually factor into game logic other than to establish skill and gear hierarchies.  It's an unnecessary abstraction, and I think skill-less systems allow for much more interesting character development.  Non-combatant characters become feasible (and sensible, in a roleplaying setting) without the experience abstraction, as they can advance directly from the use of their skills without the need to participate in a party as dead weight.</p><p>Coordinated, group activities can be more complex and span several rooms without the experience abstraction.  Unlimited remote experience sharing would generally lead to abuse such as power-levelling, whereas restricting experience sharing to a locality limits the scope of party activities.  As characters achieve their individual advancement simply by participating in many skill-based designs, there is no need to formally declare to the game intent to share points.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely correct.A skill-based training system refers to a character schema without levels , but with skills that have a proficiency rating .
Players receive skill points to allocate towards proficiency , or use-based increases in proficiency .
Skills in this context are also occassionally taught by PCs or learned from NPCs , without level restrictions or the abstraction of experience points.In many games , levels and experience points never actually factor into game logic other than to establish skill and gear hierarchies .
It 's an unnecessary abstraction , and I think skill-less systems allow for much more interesting character development .
Non-combatant characters become feasible ( and sensible , in a roleplaying setting ) without the experience abstraction , as they can advance directly from the use of their skills without the need to participate in a party as dead weight.Coordinated , group activities can be more complex and span several rooms without the experience abstraction .
Unlimited remote experience sharing would generally lead to abuse such as power-levelling , whereas restricting experience sharing to a locality limits the scope of party activities .
As characters achieve their individual advancement simply by participating in many skill-based designs , there is no need to formally declare to the game intent to share points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely correct.A skill-based training system refers to a character schema without levels, but with skills that have a proficiency rating.
Players receive skill points to allocate towards proficiency, or use-based increases in proficiency.
Skills in this context are also occassionally taught by PCs or learned from NPCs, without level restrictions or the abstraction of experience points.In many games, levels and experience points never actually factor into game logic other than to establish skill and gear hierarchies.
It's an unnecessary abstraction, and I think skill-less systems allow for much more interesting character development.
Non-combatant characters become feasible (and sensible, in a roleplaying setting) without the experience abstraction, as they can advance directly from the use of their skills without the need to participate in a party as dead weight.Coordinated, group activities can be more complex and span several rooms without the experience abstraction.
Unlimited remote experience sharing would generally lead to abuse such as power-levelling, whereas restricting experience sharing to a locality limits the scope of party activities.
As characters achieve their individual advancement simply by participating in many skill-based designs, there is no need to formally declare to the game intent to share points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615337</id>
	<title>Re:Um, that's why they are games, not sports</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1246967400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. It pisses me off how much money is wasted on "professional", college and public school sports. School sports REALLY piss me off. School is there to learn, not for the public to pay for two dozens kids' entertainment on the football team. You want to play sports in school? Then YOUR family should pay for it, not mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
It pisses me off how much money is wasted on " professional " , college and public school sports .
School sports REALLY piss me off .
School is there to learn , not for the public to pay for two dozens kids ' entertainment on the football team .
You want to play sports in school ?
Then YOUR family should pay for it , not mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
It pisses me off how much money is wasted on "professional", college and public school sports.
School sports REALLY piss me off.
School is there to learn, not for the public to pay for two dozens kids' entertainment on the football team.
You want to play sports in school?
Then YOUR family should pay for it, not mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615499</id>
	<title>I hate these discussions</title>
	<author>greymond</author>
	<datestamp>1246968360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want enjoy playing with people online and taking your time with no where to go or nothing in particular to kill then play an mmo, if you want immediate hack and slash action and gratification then play a rts or fps or something other than an mmo.</p><p>I don't understand why this topic keeps coming up UGH I AM PUKING NOW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want enjoy playing with people online and taking your time with no where to go or nothing in particular to kill then play an mmo , if you want immediate hack and slash action and gratification then play a rts or fps or something other than an mmo.I do n't understand why this topic keeps coming up UGH I AM PUKING NOW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want enjoy playing with people online and taking your time with no where to go or nothing in particular to kill then play an mmo, if you want immediate hack and slash action and gratification then play a rts or fps or something other than an mmo.I don't understand why this topic keeps coming up UGH I AM PUKING NOW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611559</id>
	<title>wrong skills</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1246994760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Relatedly, I've seen a growing trend of players saying that such games don't really take much skill at all. The standard argument is that it just boils down to "knowing how to move" or "knowing when to hit your buttons." In the MMO community, people often make references to FPS or RTS games, saying they have a higher skill cap. However, the same complaints also come from within those communities, with comments like "you just need to know the map," or "it's all about a good build order." At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?</p></div><p>Wrong skills.  They aren't talking about player skills vs. character level in game...  They're talking about character's skills vs. character's level in game.</p><p>Some games use a level system.  You kill rats for a while, get XP, and eventually <b>ding</b> you're level 2.  You get more HP, you do more damage, etc.</p><p>Some games use a skill system.  You swing your sword for a while, and your sword skill gets better, so you do more damage.  You hide behind a shield for a while, and your shield skill gets better, so you take less damage.</p><p>Personally, I prefer a purely skill-driven system as it puts fewer restrictions on the player.  You want to swing a sword and wear plate armor?  Go right ahead.  You change your mind and decide you want to hurl fireballs instead?  Sure thing.  The problem is that this almost invariably leads to some kind of "perfect" build.  Someone decides that the best way to do it is to put 10 in swords, 11 in shields, and 15 in fireballs...and all of a sudden that's what everyone is playing.  So you wind up with absolutely no variety.  The counter to this is to make cross-training painful.  Make it take enough time/effort/money/whatever to develop your sword skills that you'll have to actually choose whether you want swords or fireballs.</p><p>Player skills certainly enter into the equation...  Though I don't know if I'd call them <i>skills</i> so much as <i>knowledge</i>.  Someone who knows where the best place is to hunt will do better than someone who doesn't, regardless of how powerful their character is.  Someone who knows what kind of damage to use against the monster will do better than someone who doesn't, regardless of how powerful their character is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Relatedly , I 've seen a growing trend of players saying that such games do n't really take much skill at all .
The standard argument is that it just boils down to " knowing how to move " or " knowing when to hit your buttons .
" In the MMO community , people often make references to FPS or RTS games , saying they have a higher skill cap .
However , the same complaints also come from within those communities , with comments like " you just need to know the map , " or " it 's all about a good build order .
" At what point does intimate knowledge of a game 's mechanics make a player skilled ? Wrong skills .
They are n't talking about player skills vs. character level in game... They 're talking about character 's skills vs. character 's level in game.Some games use a level system .
You kill rats for a while , get XP , and eventually ding you 're level 2 .
You get more HP , you do more damage , etc.Some games use a skill system .
You swing your sword for a while , and your sword skill gets better , so you do more damage .
You hide behind a shield for a while , and your shield skill gets better , so you take less damage.Personally , I prefer a purely skill-driven system as it puts fewer restrictions on the player .
You want to swing a sword and wear plate armor ?
Go right ahead .
You change your mind and decide you want to hurl fireballs instead ?
Sure thing .
The problem is that this almost invariably leads to some kind of " perfect " build .
Someone decides that the best way to do it is to put 10 in swords , 11 in shields , and 15 in fireballs...and all of a sudden that 's what everyone is playing .
So you wind up with absolutely no variety .
The counter to this is to make cross-training painful .
Make it take enough time/effort/money/whatever to develop your sword skills that you 'll have to actually choose whether you want swords or fireballs.Player skills certainly enter into the equation... Though I do n't know if I 'd call them skills so much as knowledge .
Someone who knows where the best place is to hunt will do better than someone who does n't , regardless of how powerful their character is .
Someone who knows what kind of damage to use against the monster will do better than someone who does n't , regardless of how powerful their character is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relatedly, I've seen a growing trend of players saying that such games don't really take much skill at all.
The standard argument is that it just boils down to "knowing how to move" or "knowing when to hit your buttons.
" In the MMO community, people often make references to FPS or RTS games, saying they have a higher skill cap.
However, the same complaints also come from within those communities, with comments like "you just need to know the map," or "it's all about a good build order.
" At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?Wrong skills.
They aren't talking about player skills vs. character level in game...  They're talking about character's skills vs. character's level in game.Some games use a level system.
You kill rats for a while, get XP, and eventually ding you're level 2.
You get more HP, you do more damage, etc.Some games use a skill system.
You swing your sword for a while, and your sword skill gets better, so you do more damage.
You hide behind a shield for a while, and your shield skill gets better, so you take less damage.Personally, I prefer a purely skill-driven system as it puts fewer restrictions on the player.
You want to swing a sword and wear plate armor?
Go right ahead.
You change your mind and decide you want to hurl fireballs instead?
Sure thing.
The problem is that this almost invariably leads to some kind of "perfect" build.
Someone decides that the best way to do it is to put 10 in swords, 11 in shields, and 15 in fireballs...and all of a sudden that's what everyone is playing.
So you wind up with absolutely no variety.
The counter to this is to make cross-training painful.
Make it take enough time/effort/money/whatever to develop your sword skills that you'll have to actually choose whether you want swords or fireballs.Player skills certainly enter into the equation...  Though I don't know if I'd call them skills so much as knowledge.
Someone who knows where the best place is to hunt will do better than someone who doesn't, regardless of how powerful their character is.
Someone who knows what kind of damage to use against the monster will do better than someone who doesn't, regardless of how powerful their character is.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610985</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1246992600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can bake a great loaf of bread if I follow a recipe exactly, but I'm not a savant who can stray from the recipe and make novel things taste good.</p></div><p>That's because you haven't. Take some time to understand why the recipe tells you to do certain things and experiment with changes and you will.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can bake a great loaf of bread if I follow a recipe exactly , but I 'm not a savant who can stray from the recipe and make novel things taste good.That 's because you have n't .
Take some time to understand why the recipe tells you to do certain things and experiment with changes and you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can bake a great loaf of bread if I follow a recipe exactly, but I'm not a savant who can stray from the recipe and make novel things taste good.That's because you haven't.
Take some time to understand why the recipe tells you to do certain things and experiment with changes and you will.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613843</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>Darktyco</author>
	<datestamp>1246960620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One person may have intimate knowledge of how to hit a tennis ball but still be terrible when it comes to hitting the ball. Practice and experience develops skill, so player can gradually become excellent at hitting. The same applies in some types of video games, like fighting or FPS games such as UT and Quake. You can study the game all you want, but only talent and practice will give you skill. Other games, like many MMORPGs, reward time spent more than they reward player skill.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One person may have intimate knowledge of how to hit a tennis ball but still be terrible when it comes to hitting the ball .
Practice and experience develops skill , so player can gradually become excellent at hitting .
The same applies in some types of video games , like fighting or FPS games such as UT and Quake .
You can study the game all you want , but only talent and practice will give you skill .
Other games , like many MMORPGs , reward time spent more than they reward player skill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One person may have intimate knowledge of how to hit a tennis ball but still be terrible when it comes to hitting the ball.
Practice and experience develops skill, so player can gradually become excellent at hitting.
The same applies in some types of video games, like fighting or FPS games such as UT and Quake.
You can study the game all you want, but only talent and practice will give you skill.
Other games, like many MMORPGs, reward time spent more than they reward player skill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611317</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>NotJesus</author>
	<datestamp>1246993860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I really want to see is a skill based leveling game. I'm thinking of something like an online Way of the Samurai game where you have to react to your opponents attack by blocking and or throwing in a push to your attack making attacks rely more on precise timing and not just level. Then if you were more skill based you would be able to kill more guys and level faster still. I agree that they need to do away with the just click to attack and and click to do a certain spell type of grinding.

Another random thought would be for spells to require you to do random things like those Olympic games for the consoles. Nothing too hard but would reward you if you were good at it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I really want to see is a skill based leveling game .
I 'm thinking of something like an online Way of the Samurai game where you have to react to your opponents attack by blocking and or throwing in a push to your attack making attacks rely more on precise timing and not just level .
Then if you were more skill based you would be able to kill more guys and level faster still .
I agree that they need to do away with the just click to attack and and click to do a certain spell type of grinding .
Another random thought would be for spells to require you to do random things like those Olympic games for the consoles .
Nothing too hard but would reward you if you were good at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I really want to see is a skill based leveling game.
I'm thinking of something like an online Way of the Samurai game where you have to react to your opponents attack by blocking and or throwing in a push to your attack making attacks rely more on precise timing and not just level.
Then if you were more skill based you would be able to kill more guys and level faster still.
I agree that they need to do away with the just click to attack and and click to do a certain spell type of grinding.
Another random thought would be for spells to require you to do random things like those Olympic games for the consoles.
Nothing too hard but would reward you if you were good at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619133</id>
	<title>Re:Both are bad.</title>
	<author>Terrasque</author>
	<datestamp>1247046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One important point to MMO's, gear building. Now that can be an art, and can also make a huge difference. Only when your class, playstyle, talents (or skills), spells and gear are focused on the same goal will you have greatness. Actual playing skill is just a part of the overall picture.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But the best system of all is one where your new characteristics are a tradeoff, and every player's capabilities remain somewhat balanced.</p></div><p>There is a game I played earlier that did this extremely well (in my opinion) : <a href="http://www.hyperbol.com/Default2.aspx" title="hyperbol.com" rel="nofollow">ThreadSpace: Hyperbol</a> [hyperbol.com]. The items you can modify your ship with always cuts down on a different part. +50 to speed? Then it's -50 to some other stat. You level up, but that only allows you to buy greater modifications (100 instead of 50 for example). So as you build up your strength in one area, you will have a weakness in a different area.</p><p>It's a great game, but never had enough players for a game based on online gameplay. And nowadays it's hardly anyone online there.. Too bad, the game itself is brilliant. Every action have a countermeasure. Every weapon you use can be turned against you by a good player. Fights between two people can last a few seconds, or go into minutes long epic battles, depending on how good the players are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One important point to MMO 's , gear building .
Now that can be an art , and can also make a huge difference .
Only when your class , playstyle , talents ( or skills ) , spells and gear are focused on the same goal will you have greatness .
Actual playing skill is just a part of the overall picture.But the best system of all is one where your new characteristics are a tradeoff , and every player 's capabilities remain somewhat balanced.There is a game I played earlier that did this extremely well ( in my opinion ) : ThreadSpace : Hyperbol [ hyperbol.com ] .
The items you can modify your ship with always cuts down on a different part .
+ 50 to speed ?
Then it 's -50 to some other stat .
You level up , but that only allows you to buy greater modifications ( 100 instead of 50 for example ) .
So as you build up your strength in one area , you will have a weakness in a different area.It 's a great game , but never had enough players for a game based on online gameplay .
And nowadays it 's hardly anyone online there.. Too bad , the game itself is brilliant .
Every action have a countermeasure .
Every weapon you use can be turned against you by a good player .
Fights between two people can last a few seconds , or go into minutes long epic battles , depending on how good the players are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One important point to MMO's, gear building.
Now that can be an art, and can also make a huge difference.
Only when your class, playstyle, talents (or skills), spells and gear are focused on the same goal will you have greatness.
Actual playing skill is just a part of the overall picture.But the best system of all is one where your new characteristics are a tradeoff, and every player's capabilities remain somewhat balanced.There is a game I played earlier that did this extremely well (in my opinion) : ThreadSpace: Hyperbol [hyperbol.com].
The items you can modify your ship with always cuts down on a different part.
+50 to speed?
Then it's -50 to some other stat.
You level up, but that only allows you to buy greater modifications (100 instead of 50 for example).
So as you build up your strength in one area, you will have a weakness in a different area.It's a great game, but never had enough players for a game based on online gameplay.
And nowadays it's hardly anyone online there.. Too bad, the game itself is brilliant.
Every action have a countermeasure.
Every weapon you use can be turned against you by a good player.
Fights between two people can last a few seconds, or go into minutes long epic battles, depending on how good the players are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610607</id>
	<title>Over-Simplification</title>
	<author>Spike15</author>
	<datestamp>1246991280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That it boils down to "knowing how to move" and/or "knowing when to hit your buttons" is a vast over-simplification of finesse in video games, and can really be applied to anything.  I mean, if you say that these two are not examples of "skill", then what is an example of skill?  I am an IT professional, you could simplify my job to "knowing where to click the mouse" or "knowing where to plug in the cables" and say that my job is not therefore "skilled".</p><p>Level-based advancement is fine-and-dandy -- it's a heuristic thrown in your way for several reasons -- but the fact-of-the-matter is, is that most MMORPGs have a level cap.  Once you've leveled so far you cannot level any further and therefore this level-based advantage you once had over other players becomes moot, and it's all about skill (or gear).  To say that games like FPSes and RTSes have a higher "skill cap" is largely inaccurate, they just rely on different skills and, in many [read: most] cases, are divorced from RPG-exclusive concepts such as "gear".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That it boils down to " knowing how to move " and/or " knowing when to hit your buttons " is a vast over-simplification of finesse in video games , and can really be applied to anything .
I mean , if you say that these two are not examples of " skill " , then what is an example of skill ?
I am an IT professional , you could simplify my job to " knowing where to click the mouse " or " knowing where to plug in the cables " and say that my job is not therefore " skilled " .Level-based advancement is fine-and-dandy -- it 's a heuristic thrown in your way for several reasons -- but the fact-of-the-matter is , is that most MMORPGs have a level cap .
Once you 've leveled so far you can not level any further and therefore this level-based advantage you once had over other players becomes moot , and it 's all about skill ( or gear ) .
To say that games like FPSes and RTSes have a higher " skill cap " is largely inaccurate , they just rely on different skills and , in many [ read : most ] cases , are divorced from RPG-exclusive concepts such as " gear " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That it boils down to "knowing how to move" and/or "knowing when to hit your buttons" is a vast over-simplification of finesse in video games, and can really be applied to anything.
I mean, if you say that these two are not examples of "skill", then what is an example of skill?
I am an IT professional, you could simplify my job to "knowing where to click the mouse" or "knowing where to plug in the cables" and say that my job is not therefore "skilled".Level-based advancement is fine-and-dandy -- it's a heuristic thrown in your way for several reasons -- but the fact-of-the-matter is, is that most MMORPGs have a level cap.
Once you've leveled so far you cannot level any further and therefore this level-based advantage you once had over other players becomes moot, and it's all about skill (or gear).
To say that games like FPSes and RTSes have a higher "skill cap" is largely inaccurate, they just rely on different skills and, in many [read: most] cases, are divorced from RPG-exclusive concepts such as "gear".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610595</id>
	<title>Oldschool Ultima Online = Skilled</title>
	<author>HerculesMO</author>
	<datestamp>1246991220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skill systems can work, so can level systems... it depends a lot of game mechanics.</p><p>UO back in the day had a system that incorporated twitch skill, combo skill (ie, street fighter), tactics, teamwork, etc to make the game interesting. Everybody would max out eventually and then the game would have balance amongst EVERYBODY.</p><p>The thing in level based games, there are also 'classes', so one class may not be well balanced against another class. For example in WOW, a rogue generally can own a mage pretty fast, while a mage can own large swaths of players too. It's balanced overall, but not balanced for 1v1. UO was balanced for 1v1 as well as team fighting for tactics.</p><p>Either way though, I am looking forward to Mortal Online which is supposed to have balance for individuals like UO did, but we'll see how that works out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skill systems can work , so can level systems... it depends a lot of game mechanics.UO back in the day had a system that incorporated twitch skill , combo skill ( ie , street fighter ) , tactics , teamwork , etc to make the game interesting .
Everybody would max out eventually and then the game would have balance amongst EVERYBODY.The thing in level based games , there are also 'classes ' , so one class may not be well balanced against another class .
For example in WOW , a rogue generally can own a mage pretty fast , while a mage can own large swaths of players too .
It 's balanced overall , but not balanced for 1v1 .
UO was balanced for 1v1 as well as team fighting for tactics.Either way though , I am looking forward to Mortal Online which is supposed to have balance for individuals like UO did , but we 'll see how that works out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skill systems can work, so can level systems... it depends a lot of game mechanics.UO back in the day had a system that incorporated twitch skill, combo skill (ie, street fighter), tactics, teamwork, etc to make the game interesting.
Everybody would max out eventually and then the game would have balance amongst EVERYBODY.The thing in level based games, there are also 'classes', so one class may not be well balanced against another class.
For example in WOW, a rogue generally can own a mage pretty fast, while a mage can own large swaths of players too.
It's balanced overall, but not balanced for 1v1.
UO was balanced for 1v1 as well as team fighting for tactics.Either way though, I am looking forward to Mortal Online which is supposed to have balance for individuals like UO did, but we'll see how that works out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613553</id>
	<title>Re:Character vs. Player skill</title>
	<author>Feyshtey</author>
	<datestamp>1246959420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The editor understood. Which is why he started his statement with "Relatedly..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The editor understood .
Which is why he started his statement with " Relatedly... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The editor understood.
Which is why he started his statement with "Relatedly..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28621061</id>
	<title>Re:Guild Wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or people like jumping, and having 3-dimensional spell effects.<br>
<br>
But seriously... the biggest complaint I had with GW, was the 8 skill bar.  The game had so many interesting and useful abilities... that never get used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or people like jumping , and having 3-dimensional spell effects .
But seriously... the biggest complaint I had with GW , was the 8 skill bar .
The game had so many interesting and useful abilities... that never get used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or people like jumping, and having 3-dimensional spell effects.
But seriously... the biggest complaint I had with GW, was the 8 skill bar.
The game had so many interesting and useful abilities... that never get used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614399</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>hairykrishna</author>
	<datestamp>1246962720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post was funny but it fairly neatly shoots a hole in their argument against FPS skill. All of the good players know the maps. The reason that Thresh would own us is not because he knows where the rocketlauncher is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post was funny but it fairly neatly shoots a hole in their argument against FPS skill .
All of the good players know the maps .
The reason that Thresh would own us is not because he knows where the rocketlauncher is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post was funny but it fairly neatly shoots a hole in their argument against FPS skill.
All of the good players know the maps.
The reason that Thresh would own us is not because he knows where the rocketlauncher is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613385</id>
	<title>Meta Mechanics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246958760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Knowing the map" -- "knowing the build" -- "following the recipe" -- these are the first layer of understanding the mechanics of the game. They are learning to balance a bicycle or to push off with roller blades.</p><p>There is almost always deeper mechanics involved with a game.</p><p>The layout of a map may favor a particular weapon, but that weapon will have its weaknesses. A shotgun can be kited. A sniper can be ambushed. The accuracy and evasiveness of the player are infinitely improvable.</p><p>The long build strategy can be rushed. The rush strategy can be blocked. The short range unit can be defeated by the long range unit. The long range unit can be defeated by the stealthy unit.</p><p>The more mechanics that are included in the game, the more skill is required to be competitive. Some people enjoy a game requiring high skill, but most people do not.</p><p>Most people play games for success-gratification, and not for quality-of-success.</p><p>That's why the kid likes to cheat. He just wants to win and he doesn't care if it was fair for the computer.</p><p>That's why people like MMOs. The game presents a system where success is guaranteed as long as you put time in. Players don't feel like they are cheating, and they constantly get the gratification they desire.</p><p>I used to be an MMO addict when I was a teenager, but now Guild Wars PvP is the only MMO I've touched in years and I play it maybe a couple hours every few months. I think it has something to do with the fact that at the time I needed to feel successful because my life sucked. -- I'm a level 55 in real life now, so I don't really feel the need for extra gratification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Knowing the map " -- " knowing the build " -- " following the recipe " -- these are the first layer of understanding the mechanics of the game .
They are learning to balance a bicycle or to push off with roller blades.There is almost always deeper mechanics involved with a game.The layout of a map may favor a particular weapon , but that weapon will have its weaknesses .
A shotgun can be kited .
A sniper can be ambushed .
The accuracy and evasiveness of the player are infinitely improvable.The long build strategy can be rushed .
The rush strategy can be blocked .
The short range unit can be defeated by the long range unit .
The long range unit can be defeated by the stealthy unit.The more mechanics that are included in the game , the more skill is required to be competitive .
Some people enjoy a game requiring high skill , but most people do not.Most people play games for success-gratification , and not for quality-of-success.That 's why the kid likes to cheat .
He just wants to win and he does n't care if it was fair for the computer.That 's why people like MMOs .
The game presents a system where success is guaranteed as long as you put time in .
Players do n't feel like they are cheating , and they constantly get the gratification they desire.I used to be an MMO addict when I was a teenager , but now Guild Wars PvP is the only MMO I 've touched in years and I play it maybe a couple hours every few months .
I think it has something to do with the fact that at the time I needed to feel successful because my life sucked .
-- I 'm a level 55 in real life now , so I do n't really feel the need for extra gratification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Knowing the map" -- "knowing the build" -- "following the recipe" -- these are the first layer of understanding the mechanics of the game.
They are learning to balance a bicycle or to push off with roller blades.There is almost always deeper mechanics involved with a game.The layout of a map may favor a particular weapon, but that weapon will have its weaknesses.
A shotgun can be kited.
A sniper can be ambushed.
The accuracy and evasiveness of the player are infinitely improvable.The long build strategy can be rushed.
The rush strategy can be blocked.
The short range unit can be defeated by the long range unit.
The long range unit can be defeated by the stealthy unit.The more mechanics that are included in the game, the more skill is required to be competitive.
Some people enjoy a game requiring high skill, but most people do not.Most people play games for success-gratification, and not for quality-of-success.That's why the kid likes to cheat.
He just wants to win and he doesn't care if it was fair for the computer.That's why people like MMOs.
The game presents a system where success is guaranteed as long as you put time in.
Players don't feel like they are cheating, and they constantly get the gratification they desire.I used to be an MMO addict when I was a teenager, but now Guild Wars PvP is the only MMO I've touched in years and I play it maybe a couple hours every few months.
I think it has something to do with the fact that at the time I needed to feel successful because my life sucked.
-- I'm a level 55 in real life now, so I don't really feel the need for extra gratification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610707</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246991640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intimate knowledge of the (relatively simple) mechanics of chess, poker, or go, is more or less required to play. However is in now way sufficient to make you skilled at these games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intimate knowledge of the ( relatively simple ) mechanics of chess , poker , or go , is more or less required to play .
However is in now way sufficient to make you skilled at these games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intimate knowledge of the (relatively simple) mechanics of chess, poker, or go, is more or less required to play.
However is in now way sufficient to make you skilled at these games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612243</id>
	<title>Editing for the win!</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1246997400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take an article that goes out of its way to state up front that it isn't about player skill since that would be an easy mistake to make.</p><p>And have the slashdot discussion torpedoed (for those of us who find the actual article topic interesting) anyway by an idiot editor who decides to write about that completely unrelated aspect of video games.</p><p>But I guess "relatedly" makes it all fine, even though it's not even vaguely related other than happening to use the same word in the description.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take an article that goes out of its way to state up front that it is n't about player skill since that would be an easy mistake to make.And have the slashdot discussion torpedoed ( for those of us who find the actual article topic interesting ) anyway by an idiot editor who decides to write about that completely unrelated aspect of video games.But I guess " relatedly " makes it all fine , even though it 's not even vaguely related other than happening to use the same word in the description .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take an article that goes out of its way to state up front that it isn't about player skill since that would be an easy mistake to make.And have the slashdot discussion torpedoed (for those of us who find the actual article topic interesting) anyway by an idiot editor who decides to write about that completely unrelated aspect of video games.But I guess "relatedly" makes it all fine, even though it's not even vaguely related other than happening to use the same word in the description.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615595</id>
	<title>Tabletop RPG's have the same divide</title>
	<author>kzieli</author>
	<datestamp>1246968960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Table top RPGs have the same divide. Take D&amp;D and Gurps for example. The first started out as a purly class and level based system. the Latter started out as a purly skill based system. In practice they have tended towards eachother with D &amp; D adding multiclassing and eventually a skill system to give more flexibility. While GURPS added a system of racial and career templates to give some consistency and make NPC creation easier.

</p><p>Incidently I believe that class &amp; level based systems came first. and Skill based system came later. Perhapse we will see the same thing with MMORPG's

</p><p>In terms of rules on paper a class based system is harder as you need a lot of special case rules for different classes. Original D &amp; D had a lot of mechanics. While Skill based system are easier and can get down to we have contested and uncontested skill checks. end of story.

</p><p>When you move to writing software the class and level system is much simpler to implement. the ruels are fairly clear cut about what each caracter can do. And Individual character profiles are reletivly simple.

</p><p>Skill based systems are harder as their is a lot more combinations of skills actions to take into account, and the abilities of particular caracters are more variable. At the table top heavy reliance is made on the players and game masters understanding of how skills can be used. Computers do not however possess common sense so every permutation needs to be coded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Table top RPGs have the same divide .
Take D&amp;D and Gurps for example .
The first started out as a purly class and level based system .
the Latter started out as a purly skill based system .
In practice they have tended towards eachother with D &amp; D adding multiclassing and eventually a skill system to give more flexibility .
While GURPS added a system of racial and career templates to give some consistency and make NPC creation easier .
Incidently I believe that class &amp; level based systems came first .
and Skill based system came later .
Perhapse we will see the same thing with MMORPG 's In terms of rules on paper a class based system is harder as you need a lot of special case rules for different classes .
Original D &amp; D had a lot of mechanics .
While Skill based system are easier and can get down to we have contested and uncontested skill checks .
end of story .
When you move to writing software the class and level system is much simpler to implement .
the ruels are fairly clear cut about what each caracter can do .
And Individual character profiles are reletivly simple .
Skill based systems are harder as their is a lot more combinations of skills actions to take into account , and the abilities of particular caracters are more variable .
At the table top heavy reliance is made on the players and game masters understanding of how skills can be used .
Computers do not however possess common sense so every permutation needs to be coded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Table top RPGs have the same divide.
Take D&amp;D and Gurps for example.
The first started out as a purly class and level based system.
the Latter started out as a purly skill based system.
In practice they have tended towards eachother with D &amp; D adding multiclassing and eventually a skill system to give more flexibility.
While GURPS added a system of racial and career templates to give some consistency and make NPC creation easier.
Incidently I believe that class &amp; level based systems came first.
and Skill based system came later.
Perhapse we will see the same thing with MMORPG's

In terms of rules on paper a class based system is harder as you need a lot of special case rules for different classes.
Original D &amp; D had a lot of mechanics.
While Skill based system are easier and can get down to we have contested and uncontested skill checks.
end of story.
When you move to writing software the class and level system is much simpler to implement.
the ruels are fairly clear cut about what each caracter can do.
And Individual character profiles are reletivly simple.
Skill based systems are harder as their is a lot more combinations of skills actions to take into account, and the abilities of particular caracters are more variable.
At the table top heavy reliance is made on the players and game masters understanding of how skills can be used.
Computers do not however possess common sense so every permutation needs to be coded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697</id>
	<title>MMOs with Leveling are inherently broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246991580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that levels themselves are throw back to a system where it would be very difficult to measure success another way on pen and paper.</p><p>Since the first MUDs and CRPGs just emulated the pen and paper systems, they never considered that there might be better ways.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima\_pagan" title="wikipedia.org">Ultima Pagan</a> [wikipedia.org] and Ultima Online (and plenty others that it would take too long to mention) tried other system, but it developers unfamiliar with anything else kept with the old model in future MMOs because the formula worked.</p><p>Now the key problem with leveling in MMOs is that it first and for most segregates your gaming populace with what content they can share and interact with.</p><p>Warhammer Online resolves this simply by making it easy to grind to level 40 so everyone really just play the games at that point. The games go other problems but player segregation isn't one of them.</p><p>Now this is nothing to be said about skill at this point, but there other ways a game can have progression rather than arbitrary levels.</p><p>Personally if a publisher handed me a bunch of cash and said "Go make a game" I would opt for something along the lines of giving out 1000 skill points to a player at the character creation and that would be it. They could design him anyway they choose (and go back and redesign later) and let them go with that instead of level grind. There would need to be something else that involves them to keep playing so you would have to create player made content and politics at the same time finding a way to prevent over greifing with said content.</p><p>People are getting bored of the level grinding for sake of leveling... I mean I'm bored it of it. I don't want to play those games anymore. Give me a breathing world without mob killing to level.</p><p>Maybe Ultima Online spoiled but its been 10 years and no developer has done better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that levels themselves are throw back to a system where it would be very difficult to measure success another way on pen and paper.Since the first MUDs and CRPGs just emulated the pen and paper systems , they never considered that there might be better ways.Ultima Pagan [ wikipedia.org ] and Ultima Online ( and plenty others that it would take too long to mention ) tried other system , but it developers unfamiliar with anything else kept with the old model in future MMOs because the formula worked.Now the key problem with leveling in MMOs is that it first and for most segregates your gaming populace with what content they can share and interact with.Warhammer Online resolves this simply by making it easy to grind to level 40 so everyone really just play the games at that point .
The games go other problems but player segregation is n't one of them.Now this is nothing to be said about skill at this point , but there other ways a game can have progression rather than arbitrary levels.Personally if a publisher handed me a bunch of cash and said " Go make a game " I would opt for something along the lines of giving out 1000 skill points to a player at the character creation and that would be it .
They could design him anyway they choose ( and go back and redesign later ) and let them go with that instead of level grind .
There would need to be something else that involves them to keep playing so you would have to create player made content and politics at the same time finding a way to prevent over greifing with said content.People are getting bored of the level grinding for sake of leveling... I mean I 'm bored it of it .
I do n't want to play those games anymore .
Give me a breathing world without mob killing to level.Maybe Ultima Online spoiled but its been 10 years and no developer has done better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that levels themselves are throw back to a system where it would be very difficult to measure success another way on pen and paper.Since the first MUDs and CRPGs just emulated the pen and paper systems, they never considered that there might be better ways.Ultima Pagan [wikipedia.org] and Ultima Online (and plenty others that it would take too long to mention) tried other system, but it developers unfamiliar with anything else kept with the old model in future MMOs because the formula worked.Now the key problem with leveling in MMOs is that it first and for most segregates your gaming populace with what content they can share and interact with.Warhammer Online resolves this simply by making it easy to grind to level 40 so everyone really just play the games at that point.
The games go other problems but player segregation isn't one of them.Now this is nothing to be said about skill at this point, but there other ways a game can have progression rather than arbitrary levels.Personally if a publisher handed me a bunch of cash and said "Go make a game" I would opt for something along the lines of giving out 1000 skill points to a player at the character creation and that would be it.
They could design him anyway they choose (and go back and redesign later) and let them go with that instead of level grind.
There would need to be something else that involves them to keep playing so you would have to create player made content and politics at the same time finding a way to prevent over greifing with said content.People are getting bored of the level grinding for sake of leveling... I mean I'm bored it of it.
I don't want to play those games anymore.
Give me a breathing world without mob killing to level.Maybe Ultima Online spoiled but its been 10 years and no developer has done better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612329</id>
	<title>Re:Character vs. Player skill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Misleading summary on Slashdot?</p><p>That's unpossible!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Misleading summary on Slashdot ? That 's unpossible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Misleading summary on Slashdot?That's unpossible!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610857</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246992180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skill is how much of a head start you can give an opponent without allowing him to win against you, in all types of games. There are things you need to do right against a skilled player, like getting the right weapons and power-ups in a first person shooter, choosing the right build order in a real-time strategy game or an advantageous class in a massive multiplayer role playing game. How much can you deviate from these ideals and still win? That is skill. Good karma is to play against lesser-skilled players without going tactical on them. It's more fun too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skill is how much of a head start you can give an opponent without allowing him to win against you , in all types of games .
There are things you need to do right against a skilled player , like getting the right weapons and power-ups in a first person shooter , choosing the right build order in a real-time strategy game or an advantageous class in a massive multiplayer role playing game .
How much can you deviate from these ideals and still win ?
That is skill .
Good karma is to play against lesser-skilled players without going tactical on them .
It 's more fun too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skill is how much of a head start you can give an opponent without allowing him to win against you, in all types of games.
There are things you need to do right against a skilled player, like getting the right weapons and power-ups in a first person shooter, choosing the right build order in a real-time strategy game or an advantageous class in a massive multiplayer role playing game.
How much can you deviate from these ideals and still win?
That is skill.
Good karma is to play against lesser-skilled players without going tactical on them.
It's more fun too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611823</id>
	<title>Irregardless of genre, skill requirements vary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and anyone that doubts the level of skill required by [some] MMOs should seriously try holding an administrative position in a top 1\% tier guild.  Taking 50 random people from across the globe and getting them to move and work seamlessly as a team is quite a feat.</p><p>But even on the ground level, some of the most skill-intensive games I have ever played were Korean MMO betas. Helbreath, for example, had PvP so demanding that I could regularly get a full-on adrenaline rush from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and anyone that doubts the level of skill required by [ some ] MMOs should seriously try holding an administrative position in a top 1 \ % tier guild .
Taking 50 random people from across the globe and getting them to move and work seamlessly as a team is quite a feat.But even on the ground level , some of the most skill-intensive games I have ever played were Korean MMO betas .
Helbreath , for example , had PvP so demanding that I could regularly get a full-on adrenaline rush from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and anyone that doubts the level of skill required by [some] MMOs should seriously try holding an administrative position in a top 1\% tier guild.
Taking 50 random people from across the globe and getting them to move and work seamlessly as a team is quite a feat.But even on the ground level, some of the most skill-intensive games I have ever played were Korean MMO betas.
Helbreath, for example, had PvP so demanding that I could regularly get a full-on adrenaline rush from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615137</id>
	<title>Re:Editor didn't read the article</title>
	<author>justinlee37</author>
	<datestamp>1246966020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The editor understood as he began his commentary with the word "relatedly," meaning similar but different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The editor understood as he began his commentary with the word " relatedly , " meaning similar but different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The editor understood as he began his commentary with the word "relatedly," meaning similar but different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616145</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not really true though.  At least not in any MMO I've ever played.</p><p>Why?  Because the developers constantly subvert that.</p><p>Lets say you're at a brand new boss, you have no idea how to beat him.  But you've leveled all the way to 70 (or 80) questing and whatnot, so you know your class, and know what you're doing.</p><p>Uh oh, the boss is emoting a super move, better stun him - whoops he's immune to stuns.  Oh no - he's attacking the healer - better taunt him away, darn immune to taunts too.  Uh oh - a circle appeared on the floor - better move outta it.  Whoops - in this fight you need to stay in the circle when he does his mega move, otherwise it's insta death.  You lose.  I thought you knew how to play?</p><p>You did - the developers just tossed all the mechanics out the window for the boss.  They had to, or all bosses would be boring as hell.  But you aren't going to get past them until you just play them a few times and memorize their moves and patterns and foibles and act accordingly.</p><p>There's nothing to apply, the rules are completely different per boss.  You just need the knowledge.</p><p>There are tons of times when Iwas a druid tank, when I'dbe on new content for me and someone else would give me a sentence's worth of info before the fight, and we did just fine.  It usually boils down to: tank him  facing away from us, interrupt when he does this, burn dps cooldowns when he turns red, move out of the circle, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really true though .
At least not in any MMO I 've ever played.Why ?
Because the developers constantly subvert that.Lets say you 're at a brand new boss , you have no idea how to beat him .
But you 've leveled all the way to 70 ( or 80 ) questing and whatnot , so you know your class , and know what you 're doing.Uh oh , the boss is emoting a super move , better stun him - whoops he 's immune to stuns .
Oh no - he 's attacking the healer - better taunt him away , darn immune to taunts too .
Uh oh - a circle appeared on the floor - better move outta it .
Whoops - in this fight you need to stay in the circle when he does his mega move , otherwise it 's insta death .
You lose .
I thought you knew how to play ? You did - the developers just tossed all the mechanics out the window for the boss .
They had to , or all bosses would be boring as hell .
But you are n't going to get past them until you just play them a few times and memorize their moves and patterns and foibles and act accordingly.There 's nothing to apply , the rules are completely different per boss .
You just need the knowledge.There are tons of times when Iwas a druid tank , when I'dbe on new content for me and someone else would give me a sentence 's worth of info before the fight , and we did just fine .
It usually boils down to : tank him facing away from us , interrupt when he does this , burn dps cooldowns when he turns red , move out of the circle , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really true though.
At least not in any MMO I've ever played.Why?
Because the developers constantly subvert that.Lets say you're at a brand new boss, you have no idea how to beat him.
But you've leveled all the way to 70 (or 80) questing and whatnot, so you know your class, and know what you're doing.Uh oh, the boss is emoting a super move, better stun him - whoops he's immune to stuns.
Oh no - he's attacking the healer - better taunt him away, darn immune to taunts too.
Uh oh - a circle appeared on the floor - better move outta it.
Whoops - in this fight you need to stay in the circle when he does his mega move, otherwise it's insta death.
You lose.
I thought you knew how to play?You did - the developers just tossed all the mechanics out the window for the boss.
They had to, or all bosses would be boring as hell.
But you aren't going to get past them until you just play them a few times and memorize their moves and patterns and foibles and act accordingly.There's nothing to apply, the rules are completely different per boss.
You just need the knowledge.There are tons of times when Iwas a druid tank, when I'dbe on new content for me and someone else would give me a sentence's worth of info before the fight, and we did just fine.
It usually boils down to: tank him  facing away from us, interrupt when he does this, burn dps cooldowns when he turns red, move out of the circle, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614487</id>
	<title>If you want to play chess, go play chess.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246963080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>End of Message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>End of Message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>End of Message.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611165</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1246993380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?</i> <br>



I'd say that this is the definition of skill for an online game.</p></div><p>Oblig. Bruce Lee quote:<br>

<b> <i>Knowing is not enough, you must apply.</i></b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At what point does intimate knowledge of a game 's mechanics make a player skilled ?
I 'd say that this is the definition of skill for an online game.Oblig .
Bruce Lee quote : Knowing is not enough , you must apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> At what point does intimate knowledge of a game's mechanics make a player skilled?
I'd say that this is the definition of skill for an online game.Oblig.
Bruce Lee quote:

 Knowing is not enough, you must apply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616923</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>shoemilk</author>
	<datestamp>1246979520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How old are you? The Smash Brothers series has been around for 10 years now. Personally, I think this is the best fighting game ever made. Your problem is you look at it like another Street fighter, who ever gets the other guy to 0\% health first wins.<br>Smash brothers is more like king of the hill than a fighting game. You want to knock people off the hill. There's nothing screwy about the game, just you interpretation. You sound like a master chef who can't wrap his mind around sashimi "What?!? you don't cook the fish?! How can you not recognize there's something screwy about it?"<br>You should really try it sometime (smash brothers, that is. Unless you've also never had sashimi. You should try that, too). I don't like the new iterations as much, the levels are too violent and it takes away from the PvP. Find a N64, get the original Smash and see what you've been missing for 10 years</htmltext>
<tokenext>How old are you ?
The Smash Brothers series has been around for 10 years now .
Personally , I think this is the best fighting game ever made .
Your problem is you look at it like another Street fighter , who ever gets the other guy to 0 \ % health first wins.Smash brothers is more like king of the hill than a fighting game .
You want to knock people off the hill .
There 's nothing screwy about the game , just you interpretation .
You sound like a master chef who ca n't wrap his mind around sashimi " What ? ! ?
you do n't cook the fish ? !
How can you not recognize there 's something screwy about it ?
" You should really try it sometime ( smash brothers , that is .
Unless you 've also never had sashimi .
You should try that , too ) .
I do n't like the new iterations as much , the levels are too violent and it takes away from the PvP .
Find a N64 , get the original Smash and see what you 've been missing for 10 years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How old are you?
The Smash Brothers series has been around for 10 years now.
Personally, I think this is the best fighting game ever made.
Your problem is you look at it like another Street fighter, who ever gets the other guy to 0\% health first wins.Smash brothers is more like king of the hill than a fighting game.
You want to knock people off the hill.
There's nothing screwy about the game, just you interpretation.
You sound like a master chef who can't wrap his mind around sashimi "What?!?
you don't cook the fish?!
How can you not recognize there's something screwy about it?
"You should really try it sometime (smash brothers, that is.
Unless you've also never had sashimi.
You should try that, too).
I don't like the new iterations as much, the levels are too violent and it takes away from the PvP.
Find a N64, get the original Smash and see what you've been missing for 10 years</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613333</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1246958640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't a hard concept to understand, why do we need an analogy.  What you said isn't true.  I am good at FPSs.  I can join any FPS and within a few hours, I'll be topping people who have been playing for months.  Is it because I am a skilled innovator?  No, I just know how to move and shoot better than most.  In your example, I could read how to defeat a boss in a game, and then execute it.  While another person could read the same strategy but fail to defeat it because they can't aim or move as well.<br> <br>Skill based games are those where you all start out equal.  The better players are the ones who know the maps and have better twitch reflexes.  Level based games are ones where level make a large difference in power.  A lot of people like to say these are non-skill, but eventually you get to the same level.  Then people complain about gear.  But once you have the gear, and play those with the same, the excuse goes away.  But even so, lesser geared people can beat better geared people because they have more skill, so the argument is more for people who whine.<br> <br>A lot of games these days are a bit of a hybrid.  You start out pretty much the same, but if you do X, Y or Z so many times, you can unlock slight upgrades or sidegrades (TF2 for example).<br> <br>Ultimately, everything is a skill.  But to be skilled at something requires a combination of knowledge and the physical ability to execute that knowledge.  This is true of WoW or Counterstrike.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a hard concept to understand , why do we need an analogy .
What you said is n't true .
I am good at FPSs .
I can join any FPS and within a few hours , I 'll be topping people who have been playing for months .
Is it because I am a skilled innovator ?
No , I just know how to move and shoot better than most .
In your example , I could read how to defeat a boss in a game , and then execute it .
While another person could read the same strategy but fail to defeat it because they ca n't aim or move as well .
Skill based games are those where you all start out equal .
The better players are the ones who know the maps and have better twitch reflexes .
Level based games are ones where level make a large difference in power .
A lot of people like to say these are non-skill , but eventually you get to the same level .
Then people complain about gear .
But once you have the gear , and play those with the same , the excuse goes away .
But even so , lesser geared people can beat better geared people because they have more skill , so the argument is more for people who whine .
A lot of games these days are a bit of a hybrid .
You start out pretty much the same , but if you do X , Y or Z so many times , you can unlock slight upgrades or sidegrades ( TF2 for example ) .
Ultimately , everything is a skill .
But to be skilled at something requires a combination of knowledge and the physical ability to execute that knowledge .
This is true of WoW or Counterstrike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a hard concept to understand, why do we need an analogy.
What you said isn't true.
I am good at FPSs.
I can join any FPS and within a few hours, I'll be topping people who have been playing for months.
Is it because I am a skilled innovator?
No, I just know how to move and shoot better than most.
In your example, I could read how to defeat a boss in a game, and then execute it.
While another person could read the same strategy but fail to defeat it because they can't aim or move as well.
Skill based games are those where you all start out equal.
The better players are the ones who know the maps and have better twitch reflexes.
Level based games are ones where level make a large difference in power.
A lot of people like to say these are non-skill, but eventually you get to the same level.
Then people complain about gear.
But once you have the gear, and play those with the same, the excuse goes away.
But even so, lesser geared people can beat better geared people because they have more skill, so the argument is more for people who whine.
A lot of games these days are a bit of a hybrid.
You start out pretty much the same, but if you do X, Y or Z so many times, you can unlock slight upgrades or sidegrades (TF2 for example).
Ultimately, everything is a skill.
But to be skilled at something requires a combination of knowledge and the physical ability to execute that knowledge.
This is true of WoW or Counterstrike.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611085</id>
	<title>Re:Guild Wars</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1246993020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yar, I prefer the GW model of skill.  You take a week or two to level up, pretty much an extended tutorial and gradual easing into the real game.  By that time you also have the best armor and weapons you're going to get.  After that to get better you have to... get better.  Picking a good personal and team build for what you're doing is certainly a big help and you could argue that the next way to "level up" is just to learn all the skills and mechanics...<br>
<br>
But then you get into PvP and you realize that two teams with the exact same weapons, armor, skills, and attributes can still be horribly unequal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yar , I prefer the GW model of skill .
You take a week or two to level up , pretty much an extended tutorial and gradual easing into the real game .
By that time you also have the best armor and weapons you 're going to get .
After that to get better you have to... get better .
Picking a good personal and team build for what you 're doing is certainly a big help and you could argue that the next way to " level up " is just to learn all the skills and mechanics.. . But then you get into PvP and you realize that two teams with the exact same weapons , armor , skills , and attributes can still be horribly unequal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yar, I prefer the GW model of skill.
You take a week or two to level up, pretty much an extended tutorial and gradual easing into the real game.
By that time you also have the best armor and weapons you're going to get.
After that to get better you have to... get better.
Picking a good personal and team build for what you're doing is certainly a big help and you could argue that the next way to "level up" is just to learn all the skills and mechanics...

But then you get into PvP and you realize that two teams with the exact same weapons, armor, skills, and attributes can still be horribly unequal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612091</id>
	<title>Skills.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1246996800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be about skills, both user skills and numerical skills.  But numerical skills should be conservative:  The base skills (before magical items are taken into account) should sum to the same number.  Improving in one area comes at a cost of atrophy in another area, so that no matter how powerful your character becomes, there's always some kind of weakness that you need to overcome through cleverness or friends.  Even magical items should always come with some kind of negative effect, even if it doesn't affect your stats.</p><p>Also, the RNG shouldn't be involved in the damage equation.  The NPC move-decider, sure, but the damage equation should be deterministic based on the actions you and the thing you're fighting with decide upon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be about skills , both user skills and numerical skills .
But numerical skills should be conservative : The base skills ( before magical items are taken into account ) should sum to the same number .
Improving in one area comes at a cost of atrophy in another area , so that no matter how powerful your character becomes , there 's always some kind of weakness that you need to overcome through cleverness or friends .
Even magical items should always come with some kind of negative effect , even if it does n't affect your stats.Also , the RNG should n't be involved in the damage equation .
The NPC move-decider , sure , but the damage equation should be deterministic based on the actions you and the thing you 're fighting with decide upon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be about skills, both user skills and numerical skills.
But numerical skills should be conservative:  The base skills (before magical items are taken into account) should sum to the same number.
Improving in one area comes at a cost of atrophy in another area, so that no matter how powerful your character becomes, there's always some kind of weakness that you need to overcome through cleverness or friends.
Even magical items should always come with some kind of negative effect, even if it doesn't affect your stats.Also, the RNG shouldn't be involved in the damage equation.
The NPC move-decider, sure, but the damage equation should be deterministic based on the actions you and the thing you're fighting with decide upon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28625489</id>
	<title>Re:WoW works!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1247079360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And so the world goes round and round as the money keeps making it that way, n'est ce pas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And so the world goes round and round as the money keeps making it that way , n'est ce pas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And so the world goes round and round as the money keeps making it that way, n'est ce pas?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611933</id>
	<title>Re:Both are bad.</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1246996020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why there is a group of us that loved "hardcore" PvP in MMORPG's (ala Shadowbane).  Once you max out, everyone is on the same playing field as far as innate player skills and experience goes, but there is a LOT of customizability and there are a LOT of tradeoffs to be made to make the character how you want to play it based on your actual skills/strategy/style/etc.<br> <br>

MMORPG's that do it right and really have the PvP open give this element.  I'd say it's very difficult to implement well and those that don't like PvP won't like it at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why there is a group of us that loved " hardcore " PvP in MMORPG 's ( ala Shadowbane ) .
Once you max out , everyone is on the same playing field as far as innate player skills and experience goes , but there is a LOT of customizability and there are a LOT of tradeoffs to be made to make the character how you want to play it based on your actual skills/strategy/style/etc .
MMORPG 's that do it right and really have the PvP open give this element .
I 'd say it 's very difficult to implement well and those that do n't like PvP wo n't like it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why there is a group of us that loved "hardcore" PvP in MMORPG's (ala Shadowbane).
Once you max out, everyone is on the same playing field as far as innate player skills and experience goes, but there is a LOT of customizability and there are a LOT of tradeoffs to be made to make the character how you want to play it based on your actual skills/strategy/style/etc.
MMORPG's that do it right and really have the PvP open give this element.
I'd say it's very difficult to implement well and those that don't like PvP won't like it at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610711</id>
	<title>Who wants Real Skill in an MMO?</title>
	<author>decipher\_saint</author>
	<datestamp>1246991640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm asking because really I can't imagine any MMO getting popular if players had to do something repeatedly based on <i>actual</i> skills earned through playing the game itself.</p><p>Imagine a lush fantasy setting with all the higher level players as thoroughly addicted CounterStrike players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm asking because really I ca n't imagine any MMO getting popular if players had to do something repeatedly based on actual skills earned through playing the game itself.Imagine a lush fantasy setting with all the higher level players as thoroughly addicted CounterStrike players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm asking because really I can't imagine any MMO getting popular if players had to do something repeatedly based on actual skills earned through playing the game itself.Imagine a lush fantasy setting with all the higher level players as thoroughly addicted CounterStrike players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611331</id>
	<title>Re:WoW works!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't tell if this is a troll, someone who has been smoking Blizzard's wacky weed, or someone too clueless to have played other MMOs.</p><p>WoW caters to the lowest common denominator.  Almost all classes, you can make a one button macro to target a mob, either walk up to it, or pull it, mash a couple abilities, loot, then move to the next.  Pretty much, if you can do that, you can hit 80 in a reasonable amount of time.</p><p>Once 80, you can go into PvP where the class balance (especially compared to other PvP games like Guild Wars) absolutely stinks.  You have two classes who take no skill to play, and the rest of them are their honorable kills.  Sometimes one of the hind teat classes ends up actually not being a prison bitch in BGs and arenas for a couple months until its nerfed back into oblivion because of how the devs like their own pet classes.  Faction-wise, Horde or Alliance are just the left and right side of the short school bus.</p><p>Or you can raid, and compared to Everquest or EQ2, WoW's raiding experience is miserable.  You can go to the same two large raid zones each week, perhaps visit the three smaller ones, and that is it.  Raiding in WoW has been made so brain dead easy is mainly about trying to score numbers on recount, everything else be damned.  In fact, it doesn't even matter if you die during a boss fight, as long as you can pull 4k to 4500 DPS.</p><p>Blizzard barely puts out any content between their two year expansion cycles.  In the time BC was out, EQ1 and EQ2 had three expansions each, each one being almost the size of Northrend.</p><p>WoW isn't the only fantasy MMO out there.  It does serve a good purpose though.  It and a certain MMO which is still in beta in the US keep the real bad players away from real MMOs (LOTRO, EQ1, EQ2, Vanguard, even DDO.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't tell if this is a troll , someone who has been smoking Blizzard 's wacky weed , or someone too clueless to have played other MMOs.WoW caters to the lowest common denominator .
Almost all classes , you can make a one button macro to target a mob , either walk up to it , or pull it , mash a couple abilities , loot , then move to the next .
Pretty much , if you can do that , you can hit 80 in a reasonable amount of time.Once 80 , you can go into PvP where the class balance ( especially compared to other PvP games like Guild Wars ) absolutely stinks .
You have two classes who take no skill to play , and the rest of them are their honorable kills .
Sometimes one of the hind teat classes ends up actually not being a prison bitch in BGs and arenas for a couple months until its nerfed back into oblivion because of how the devs like their own pet classes .
Faction-wise , Horde or Alliance are just the left and right side of the short school bus.Or you can raid , and compared to Everquest or EQ2 , WoW 's raiding experience is miserable .
You can go to the same two large raid zones each week , perhaps visit the three smaller ones , and that is it .
Raiding in WoW has been made so brain dead easy is mainly about trying to score numbers on recount , everything else be damned .
In fact , it does n't even matter if you die during a boss fight , as long as you can pull 4k to 4500 DPS.Blizzard barely puts out any content between their two year expansion cycles .
In the time BC was out , EQ1 and EQ2 had three expansions each , each one being almost the size of Northrend.WoW is n't the only fantasy MMO out there .
It does serve a good purpose though .
It and a certain MMO which is still in beta in the US keep the real bad players away from real MMOs ( LOTRO , EQ1 , EQ2 , Vanguard , even DDO .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't tell if this is a troll, someone who has been smoking Blizzard's wacky weed, or someone too clueless to have played other MMOs.WoW caters to the lowest common denominator.
Almost all classes, you can make a one button macro to target a mob, either walk up to it, or pull it, mash a couple abilities, loot, then move to the next.
Pretty much, if you can do that, you can hit 80 in a reasonable amount of time.Once 80, you can go into PvP where the class balance (especially compared to other PvP games like Guild Wars) absolutely stinks.
You have two classes who take no skill to play, and the rest of them are their honorable kills.
Sometimes one of the hind teat classes ends up actually not being a prison bitch in BGs and arenas for a couple months until its nerfed back into oblivion because of how the devs like their own pet classes.
Faction-wise, Horde or Alliance are just the left and right side of the short school bus.Or you can raid, and compared to Everquest or EQ2, WoW's raiding experience is miserable.
You can go to the same two large raid zones each week, perhaps visit the three smaller ones, and that is it.
Raiding in WoW has been made so brain dead easy is mainly about trying to score numbers on recount, everything else be damned.
In fact, it doesn't even matter if you die during a boss fight, as long as you can pull 4k to 4500 DPS.Blizzard barely puts out any content between their two year expansion cycles.
In the time BC was out, EQ1 and EQ2 had three expansions each, each one being almost the size of Northrend.WoW isn't the only fantasy MMO out there.
It does serve a good purpose though.
It and a certain MMO which is still in beta in the US keep the real bad players away from real MMOs (LOTRO, EQ1, EQ2, Vanguard, even DDO.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613193</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1246957980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed... The problem is if you group with other players and you haven't read the walkthroughs, most get all pissy with you and kick you from the group. They want you to know how to do the quest before you've done it because they are on their 25th loot run of the day and don't want to be held up.</p><p>I prefer to figure the stuff out on my own. Most people prefer to "follow the recipe" to beat the quest and have all the figuring out done for them. Part of the reason I don't play MMO's...</p><p>I get 0 satisfaction from playing that way. Any time you see kids run out of content in the first week, it's because they play like this instead of "adventuring" and figuring it out the "hard" way. They are in a race to get it done and learn the stuff before any of their friends have so they can run the quests with good loot 100's of times and have better gear than anyone else.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/blech</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed... The problem is if you group with other players and you have n't read the walkthroughs , most get all pissy with you and kick you from the group .
They want you to know how to do the quest before you 've done it because they are on their 25th loot run of the day and do n't want to be held up.I prefer to figure the stuff out on my own .
Most people prefer to " follow the recipe " to beat the quest and have all the figuring out done for them .
Part of the reason I do n't play MMO 's...I get 0 satisfaction from playing that way .
Any time you see kids run out of content in the first week , it 's because they play like this instead of " adventuring " and figuring it out the " hard " way .
They are in a race to get it done and learn the stuff before any of their friends have so they can run the quests with good loot 100 's of times and have better gear than anyone else .
/blech</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed... The problem is if you group with other players and you haven't read the walkthroughs, most get all pissy with you and kick you from the group.
They want you to know how to do the quest before you've done it because they are on their 25th loot run of the day and don't want to be held up.I prefer to figure the stuff out on my own.
Most people prefer to "follow the recipe" to beat the quest and have all the figuring out done for them.
Part of the reason I don't play MMO's...I get 0 satisfaction from playing that way.
Any time you see kids run out of content in the first week, it's because they play like this instead of "adventuring" and figuring it out the "hard" way.
They are in a race to get it done and learn the stuff before any of their friends have so they can run the quests with good loot 100's of times and have better gear than anyone else.
/blech</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614935</id>
	<title>Re:Rule of Megaman 2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246965000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>??? Megaman 2 is the easiest Megaman game. If you're having problems with that one, I recommend you stay away from NES games in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>? ? ?
Megaman 2 is the easiest Megaman game .
If you 're having problems with that one , I recommend you stay away from NES games in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>???
Megaman 2 is the easiest Megaman game.
If you're having problems with that one, I recommend you stay away from NES games in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612425</id>
	<title>Blame the FPS demographic</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1246998060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "skill" issue has only ever really been brought up by FPS gamers who have a need to feel superior to everyone else.</p><p>Truthfully, I've always tended to believe that WoW's pre-Arena PvP actually involved a lot more skill than the FPS games I'd played prior to that.  The simple reason is actually <i>because</i> in WoW's PvP, you were able to stay alive for a certain period of time.</p><p>In a conventional FPS, it's one hit = dead.  You don't have time to be skilled or unskilled; most of the time, death has absolutely nothing to do with you at all.  You'd still die whether you were a decent player or not.</p><p>The FPS demographic won't agree, of course; and they have now destroyed WoW's PvP as well.  The Arena was brought into the game specifically to cater to them, and it destroyed the game not long after.</p><p>So it's a moot point either way.  The CounterStrike crowd get listened to and get what they want because they scream the loudest, not because they're actually <i>right.</i>  Blizzard (sorry, I mean Activision) listened to them with regards to the Arena, because they thought that's where the money was.</p><p>Also, for any Arena players who feel like responding to this and telling me about what awesome fun the Arena is, and how I'm wrong about that, etc etc, don't bother.  The entire thing is exploit based and always has been; it's based on composition and <i>healer</i> skill if anything, not offensive player skill.  It's CounterStrike with bubbles and HoTs if the Priest or Druid you've got with you is able to get them off in time.</p><p>If you don't have a healer in your comp, you're screwed, and it won't matter how good you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " skill " issue has only ever really been brought up by FPS gamers who have a need to feel superior to everyone else.Truthfully , I 've always tended to believe that WoW 's pre-Arena PvP actually involved a lot more skill than the FPS games I 'd played prior to that .
The simple reason is actually because in WoW 's PvP , you were able to stay alive for a certain period of time.In a conventional FPS , it 's one hit = dead .
You do n't have time to be skilled or unskilled ; most of the time , death has absolutely nothing to do with you at all .
You 'd still die whether you were a decent player or not.The FPS demographic wo n't agree , of course ; and they have now destroyed WoW 's PvP as well .
The Arena was brought into the game specifically to cater to them , and it destroyed the game not long after.So it 's a moot point either way .
The CounterStrike crowd get listened to and get what they want because they scream the loudest , not because they 're actually right .
Blizzard ( sorry , I mean Activision ) listened to them with regards to the Arena , because they thought that 's where the money was.Also , for any Arena players who feel like responding to this and telling me about what awesome fun the Arena is , and how I 'm wrong about that , etc etc , do n't bother .
The entire thing is exploit based and always has been ; it 's based on composition and healer skill if anything , not offensive player skill .
It 's CounterStrike with bubbles and HoTs if the Priest or Druid you 've got with you is able to get them off in time.If you do n't have a healer in your comp , you 're screwed , and it wo n't matter how good you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "skill" issue has only ever really been brought up by FPS gamers who have a need to feel superior to everyone else.Truthfully, I've always tended to believe that WoW's pre-Arena PvP actually involved a lot more skill than the FPS games I'd played prior to that.
The simple reason is actually because in WoW's PvP, you were able to stay alive for a certain period of time.In a conventional FPS, it's one hit = dead.
You don't have time to be skilled or unskilled; most of the time, death has absolutely nothing to do with you at all.
You'd still die whether you were a decent player or not.The FPS demographic won't agree, of course; and they have now destroyed WoW's PvP as well.
The Arena was brought into the game specifically to cater to them, and it destroyed the game not long after.So it's a moot point either way.
The CounterStrike crowd get listened to and get what they want because they scream the loudest, not because they're actually right.
Blizzard (sorry, I mean Activision) listened to them with regards to the Arena, because they thought that's where the money was.Also, for any Arena players who feel like responding to this and telling me about what awesome fun the Arena is, and how I'm wrong about that, etc etc, don't bother.
The entire thing is exploit based and always has been; it's based on composition and healer skill if anything, not offensive player skill.
It's CounterStrike with bubbles and HoTs if the Priest or Druid you've got with you is able to get them off in time.If you don't have a healer in your comp, you're screwed, and it won't matter how good you are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616809</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>2d fighting game (SF4): Learn each character's strengths and weaknesses, moves, combos, recovery time, and frame data etc., get used to 'SADC' and player mind games. practice makes perfect! <br> <br> <a href="http://dic.nicovideo.jp/v/sm7547248" title="nicovideo.jp" rel="nofollow">an example</a> [nicovideo.jp] of high level sf4 game play</htmltext>
<tokenext>2d fighting game ( SF4 ) : Learn each character 's strengths and weaknesses , moves , combos , recovery time , and frame data etc. , get used to 'SADC ' and player mind games .
practice makes perfect !
an example [ nicovideo.jp ] of high level sf4 game play</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2d fighting game (SF4): Learn each character's strengths and weaknesses, moves, combos, recovery time, and frame data etc., get used to 'SADC' and player mind games.
practice makes perfect!
an example [nicovideo.jp] of high level sf4 game play</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615937</id>
	<title>One Thing...</title>
	<author>kitsunewarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1246971060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing people seem to be forgetting is that level is supposed to represent skill of your character.  Personally I believe balance is required--your character shouldn't be able to get new skills unless he or she masters her old skills.  Some people will argue that low level skills are pointless at higher levels and some people just want to master the higher level content...but I see that as a problem of level based games in general vs. point-buy style games.
<br> <br>
Unfortunately, making a game too challenging to enforce this idealism would drive away a large customer base.  In fact, it would only attract a certain type of elitest/"hardcore" consumer that, given its naturally small base, would likely cause the game to die due to lack of players and income.
<br> <br>
Some people will argue that making an ability harder to use might help this.  Make it harder than a single click and people will have to practice mashing the keypad in a particular rhymthm...of course then one has to wonder what the point of calling these games "-RPGs" is in the first place.  Most tabletop RPGs tend to reward creative players who can combine one of nearly countless amounts of skills, feats, attributes, etc... to get different types of abilities that are neither stronger nor weaker than other abilities.  While this seems nearly impossible to do in an MMORPG (which, having access to the internet, would wind up with everyone getting the optimal abilities), it could be done with a complicated enough elemental/rock-paper-scissors type system.  Of course, then the game becomes "you don't need skill to win, just the luck of having the right elemental caster at the right time".
<br> <br>
But I see that as the core problem with MMOs in general.
<br> <br>
Anonymity + Opportunities to Show Off + Ability to Use Other's Ideas = Everyone Being the Same</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing people seem to be forgetting is that level is supposed to represent skill of your character .
Personally I believe balance is required--your character should n't be able to get new skills unless he or she masters her old skills .
Some people will argue that low level skills are pointless at higher levels and some people just want to master the higher level content...but I see that as a problem of level based games in general vs. point-buy style games .
Unfortunately , making a game too challenging to enforce this idealism would drive away a large customer base .
In fact , it would only attract a certain type of elitest/ " hardcore " consumer that , given its naturally small base , would likely cause the game to die due to lack of players and income .
Some people will argue that making an ability harder to use might help this .
Make it harder than a single click and people will have to practice mashing the keypad in a particular rhymthm...of course then one has to wonder what the point of calling these games " -RPGs " is in the first place .
Most tabletop RPGs tend to reward creative players who can combine one of nearly countless amounts of skills , feats , attributes , etc... to get different types of abilities that are neither stronger nor weaker than other abilities .
While this seems nearly impossible to do in an MMORPG ( which , having access to the internet , would wind up with everyone getting the optimal abilities ) , it could be done with a complicated enough elemental/rock-paper-scissors type system .
Of course , then the game becomes " you do n't need skill to win , just the luck of having the right elemental caster at the right time " .
But I see that as the core problem with MMOs in general .
Anonymity + Opportunities to Show Off + Ability to Use Other 's Ideas = Everyone Being the Same</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing people seem to be forgetting is that level is supposed to represent skill of your character.
Personally I believe balance is required--your character shouldn't be able to get new skills unless he or she masters her old skills.
Some people will argue that low level skills are pointless at higher levels and some people just want to master the higher level content...but I see that as a problem of level based games in general vs. point-buy style games.
Unfortunately, making a game too challenging to enforce this idealism would drive away a large customer base.
In fact, it would only attract a certain type of elitest/"hardcore" consumer that, given its naturally small base, would likely cause the game to die due to lack of players and income.
Some people will argue that making an ability harder to use might help this.
Make it harder than a single click and people will have to practice mashing the keypad in a particular rhymthm...of course then one has to wonder what the point of calling these games "-RPGs" is in the first place.
Most tabletop RPGs tend to reward creative players who can combine one of nearly countless amounts of skills, feats, attributes, etc... to get different types of abilities that are neither stronger nor weaker than other abilities.
While this seems nearly impossible to do in an MMORPG (which, having access to the internet, would wind up with everyone getting the optimal abilities), it could be done with a complicated enough elemental/rock-paper-scissors type system.
Of course, then the game becomes "you don't need skill to win, just the luck of having the right elemental caster at the right time".
But I see that as the core problem with MMOs in general.
Anonymity + Opportunities to Show Off + Ability to Use Other's Ideas = Everyone Being the Same</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619023</id>
	<title>Neither. Progression is a terrible idea.</title>
	<author>MisterMashu</author>
	<datestamp>1247044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a player wants in any game is control.  Control of their player, control of a situation, control of a powerful weapon, what have you.  All progression does is limit players from being able to function at their maximum potential.

I see "skill-based" progression as being the exact same as "leveling up" or any other term you want to stick on doing something for the purpose of making your character be better at it.  When you do something, you as a person in real life should get better at doing it.

"Learning" a skill should consist of a player actually learning how to do it, what ingredients are required for a potion, what materials are required for a legendary armour, or whatever.

When you attack with a sword, you as a player should learn how to more effectively handle the sword.  The game shouldn't have to say, "Hey! You're better at using a sword now!" and you give more damage.

When I play any game that requires leveling up, I drone on about how boring it is to level up, then there isn't much for me to do when I've fully leveled up.  This system is inherently flawed because I'm not really having fun.

It is extremely fun and satisfactory to be good at something.  Being good at something means having the same chances as somebody else, and winning by either a hare or complete domination.  It doesn't mean you've spent 3 months of your life toiling about doing something boring then being able to easily dominate somebody without trying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a player wants in any game is control .
Control of their player , control of a situation , control of a powerful weapon , what have you .
All progression does is limit players from being able to function at their maximum potential .
I see " skill-based " progression as being the exact same as " leveling up " or any other term you want to stick on doing something for the purpose of making your character be better at it .
When you do something , you as a person in real life should get better at doing it .
" Learning " a skill should consist of a player actually learning how to do it , what ingredients are required for a potion , what materials are required for a legendary armour , or whatever .
When you attack with a sword , you as a player should learn how to more effectively handle the sword .
The game should n't have to say , " Hey !
You 're better at using a sword now !
" and you give more damage .
When I play any game that requires leveling up , I drone on about how boring it is to level up , then there is n't much for me to do when I 've fully leveled up .
This system is inherently flawed because I 'm not really having fun .
It is extremely fun and satisfactory to be good at something .
Being good at something means having the same chances as somebody else , and winning by either a hare or complete domination .
It does n't mean you 've spent 3 months of your life toiling about doing something boring then being able to easily dominate somebody without trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a player wants in any game is control.
Control of their player, control of a situation, control of a powerful weapon, what have you.
All progression does is limit players from being able to function at their maximum potential.
I see "skill-based" progression as being the exact same as "leveling up" or any other term you want to stick on doing something for the purpose of making your character be better at it.
When you do something, you as a person in real life should get better at doing it.
"Learning" a skill should consist of a player actually learning how to do it, what ingredients are required for a potion, what materials are required for a legendary armour, or whatever.
When you attack with a sword, you as a player should learn how to more effectively handle the sword.
The game shouldn't have to say, "Hey!
You're better at using a sword now!
" and you give more damage.
When I play any game that requires leveling up, I drone on about how boring it is to level up, then there isn't much for me to do when I've fully leveled up.
This system is inherently flawed because I'm not really having fun.
It is extremely fun and satisfactory to be good at something.
Being good at something means having the same chances as somebody else, and winning by either a hare or complete domination.
It doesn't mean you've spent 3 months of your life toiling about doing something boring then being able to easily dominate somebody without trying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612435</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246998120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>MMORPG: Its knowing which class is overpowered. (Vanilla WoW: Nerf Warlocks)</p></div><p>You didn't play Vanilla WoW before the Warlock class review, did you....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MMORPG : Its knowing which class is overpowered .
( Vanilla WoW : Nerf Warlocks ) You did n't play Vanilla WoW before the Warlock class review , did you... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MMORPG: Its knowing which class is overpowered.
(Vanilla WoW: Nerf Warlocks)You didn't play Vanilla WoW before the Warlock class review, did you....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620155</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>ScaledLizard</author>
	<datestamp>1247060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why gain XP for slaughter at all? XP should be gained for solving a problem. Plain use of force should be only one approach, and it's usually not the best one, either.</p><p>You may call this flamebait, but so are games that reward slaughter. I know this is provocative statement around here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why gain XP for slaughter at all ?
XP should be gained for solving a problem .
Plain use of force should be only one approach , and it 's usually not the best one , either.You may call this flamebait , but so are games that reward slaughter .
I know this is provocative statement around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why gain XP for slaughter at all?
XP should be gained for solving a problem.
Plain use of force should be only one approach, and it's usually not the best one, either.You may call this flamebait, but so are games that reward slaughter.
I know this is provocative statement around here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429</id>
	<title>and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1246990560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>How is this different from any skill?  Skill is the knowledge and execution of when/what/how to do things.  I can bake a great loaf of bread if I follow a recipe exactly, but I'm not a savant who can stray from the recipe and make novel things taste good.  Is following a recipe skill?  Some would say yes, some would say no.  Same with the "skill" of grinding your elf warrior to high scores or levels.</p><p>I was hoping from the title that this would be a discussion of "advancement through earned level rankings, or advancement through earned skill attributes," you know, actual game design theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different from any skill ?
Skill is the knowledge and execution of when/what/how to do things .
I can bake a great loaf of bread if I follow a recipe exactly , but I 'm not a savant who can stray from the recipe and make novel things taste good .
Is following a recipe skill ?
Some would say yes , some would say no .
Same with the " skill " of grinding your elf warrior to high scores or levels.I was hoping from the title that this would be a discussion of " advancement through earned level rankings , or advancement through earned skill attributes , " you know , actual game design theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
How is this different from any skill?
Skill is the knowledge and execution of when/what/how to do things.
I can bake a great loaf of bread if I follow a recipe exactly, but I'm not a savant who can stray from the recipe and make novel things taste good.
Is following a recipe skill?
Some would say yes, some would say no.
Same with the "skill" of grinding your elf warrior to high scores or levels.I was hoping from the title that this would be a discussion of "advancement through earned level rankings, or advancement through earned skill attributes," you know, actual game design theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610881</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246992240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Retarded, please don't make any more suggestions k thnx.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Retarded , please do n't make any more suggestions k thnx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Retarded, please don't make any more suggestions k thnx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1246991460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you are able to do something you have a skill in it. If you can pump gas into your car then you have a skill - pumping gas. Some skills are easier then others (pumping gas vs replacing your breaks).  But everything that is not automatically done for you (e.g. your heart pumping) requires a skill.<br> <br>

Now going a step beyond that there is a difference between a person who is skilled at something and a person who is skilled and innovative.  A skilled player can go online and read/watch tutorials on how to beat the hardest monsters in a game and then execute those (we call that person a cook).  They have a skill - they know the game, they know their characters and the know how to follow instructions. Just like the cook who knows their kitchen (the game setting), knows their tools (there characters), and knows their recipie (the tutorial). Great let them back us a cake.  The skilled innovator is the person who goes into an unknown situation, say a boss that nobody has ever encountered, and figures out a way to beat it (we call that the master chef). They have a skill - they know the game, they know their character, and they know how to solve puzzles.<br> <br>

I would rather be the skilled innovator but both types have skill.<br> <br>

The original article is just a way for someone to get posted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are able to do something you have a skill in it .
If you can pump gas into your car then you have a skill - pumping gas .
Some skills are easier then others ( pumping gas vs replacing your breaks ) .
But everything that is not automatically done for you ( e.g .
your heart pumping ) requires a skill .
Now going a step beyond that there is a difference between a person who is skilled at something and a person who is skilled and innovative .
A skilled player can go online and read/watch tutorials on how to beat the hardest monsters in a game and then execute those ( we call that person a cook ) .
They have a skill - they know the game , they know their characters and the know how to follow instructions .
Just like the cook who knows their kitchen ( the game setting ) , knows their tools ( there characters ) , and knows their recipie ( the tutorial ) .
Great let them back us a cake .
The skilled innovator is the person who goes into an unknown situation , say a boss that nobody has ever encountered , and figures out a way to beat it ( we call that the master chef ) .
They have a skill - they know the game , they know their character , and they know how to solve puzzles .
I would rather be the skilled innovator but both types have skill .
The original article is just a way for someone to get posted on / .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are able to do something you have a skill in it.
If you can pump gas into your car then you have a skill - pumping gas.
Some skills are easier then others (pumping gas vs replacing your breaks).
But everything that is not automatically done for you (e.g.
your heart pumping) requires a skill.
Now going a step beyond that there is a difference between a person who is skilled at something and a person who is skilled and innovative.
A skilled player can go online and read/watch tutorials on how to beat the hardest monsters in a game and then execute those (we call that person a cook).
They have a skill - they know the game, they know their characters and the know how to follow instructions.
Just like the cook who knows their kitchen (the game setting), knows their tools (there characters), and knows their recipie (the tutorial).
Great let them back us a cake.
The skilled innovator is the person who goes into an unknown situation, say a boss that nobody has ever encountered, and figures out a way to beat it (we call that the master chef).
They have a skill - they know the game, they know their character, and they know how to solve puzzles.
I would rather be the skilled innovator but both types have skill.
The original article is just a way for someone to get posted on /.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611623</id>
	<title>Re:WoW works!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey, i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds.<br>12 million can't be wrong....and on top of that there is still 2 expansions left before they defunct the game.<br>Although i am sure they will keep servers rolling, or offer server solutions to those who want to host their own gaming server.<br>I am not talking the hacked kind either...!</p></div><p>By that logic Bush was the best in the world for an 8 year period...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds.12 million ca n't be wrong....and on top of that there is still 2 expansions left before they defunct the game.Although i am sure they will keep servers rolling , or offer server solutions to those who want to host their own gaming server.I am not talking the hacked kind either... ! By that logic Bush was the best in the world for an 8 year period.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds.12 million can't be wrong....and on top of that there is still 2 expansions left before they defunct the game.Although i am sure they will keep servers rolling, or offer server solutions to those who want to host their own gaming server.I am not talking the hacked kind either...!By that logic Bush was the best in the world for an 8 year period...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610675</id>
	<title>knowledge of game mechanics and skill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246991520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lurk through any competitive community and you'll see a trend.  Those who spend countless hours dissecting the game to understand its mechanics tend to be the ones who never really develop any skill in the game.

Much like playing an instrument:  You can spend your lifetime studying theory, scales, and progressions, but if you never pick up the instrument and play it you'll never be worth a damn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lurk through any competitive community and you 'll see a trend .
Those who spend countless hours dissecting the game to understand its mechanics tend to be the ones who never really develop any skill in the game .
Much like playing an instrument : You can spend your lifetime studying theory , scales , and progressions , but if you never pick up the instrument and play it you 'll never be worth a damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lurk through any competitive community and you'll see a trend.
Those who spend countless hours dissecting the game to understand its mechanics tend to be the ones who never really develop any skill in the game.
Much like playing an instrument:  You can spend your lifetime studying theory, scales, and progressions, but if you never pick up the instrument and play it you'll never be worth a damn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610439</id>
	<title>Editor didn't read the article</title>
	<author>Sowelu</author>
	<datestamp>1246990620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article itself:
<br> <br>
"To ensure that we're being absolutely crystal clear, this article isn't focused on the discussion concerning the differences between the pure RPG leveling system versus "player skill-based" games. That's a completely different conversation altogether, and - unfortunately - some of our paneled public and developers thought that was where the discussion was leading, and thus some answers from particular teams won't be printable...at least in this article."</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article itself : " To ensure that we 're being absolutely crystal clear , this article is n't focused on the discussion concerning the differences between the pure RPG leveling system versus " player skill-based " games .
That 's a completely different conversation altogether , and - unfortunately - some of our paneled public and developers thought that was where the discussion was leading , and thus some answers from particular teams wo n't be printable...at least in this article .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article itself:
 
"To ensure that we're being absolutely crystal clear, this article isn't focused on the discussion concerning the differences between the pure RPG leveling system versus "player skill-based" games.
That's a completely different conversation altogether, and - unfortunately - some of our paneled public and developers thought that was where the discussion was leading, and thus some answers from particular teams won't be printable...at least in this article.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616049</id>
	<title>Re:WoW works!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246972380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey, i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds.
12 million can't be wrong....</p></div><p>Really? 12 million ya say? What about the 12 million people who used to believe the world was flat? They can't be wrong either, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds .
12 million ca n't be wrong....Really ?
12 million ya say ?
What about the 12 million people who used to believe the world was flat ?
They ca n't be wrong either , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, i think we can all agree that WoW seems to have the best of all the worlds.
12 million can't be wrong....Really?
12 million ya say?
What about the 12 million people who used to believe the world was flat?
They can't be wrong either, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612629</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>Archimonde</author>
	<datestamp>1246998780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dont' get me wrong but warlock was the weakest class for a very long time in "vanilla" wow. They only buffed it much later. You can watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=roguecraft&amp;search\_type=&amp;aq=f" title="youtube.com">roguecraft</a> [youtube.com] series to refresh your memory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont ' get me wrong but warlock was the weakest class for a very long time in " vanilla " wow .
They only buffed it much later .
You can watch roguecraft [ youtube.com ] series to refresh your memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont' get me wrong but warlock was the weakest class for a very long time in "vanilla" wow.
They only buffed it much later.
You can watch roguecraft [youtube.com] series to refresh your memory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618231</id>
	<title>Re:Both are bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246992360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher. You didn't learn shit.</p></div></blockquote><p>As someone who plays on a WoW 3v3 team rated ~2350 (approx top 1\%) I can tell you flat out that you do get better. You can tell who is incompetent and who is competent in raids, arenas, or BGs pretty much instantly.</p><p>Does the mage waste half his mana trying to spellsteal my buffs (only to have them dispelled instantly), or does he start right off by doing damage and waiting to nail me with counterspell in the middle of penance? Does the warrior keep MS on all of the time? Does the priest try to mana burn me while his partner is at 8k instead of healing? Does the druid let me dispel innervate? Does the warlock fear me too many times and hit DR?</p><p>The reality is that the majority of WoW players aren't very good. The fact that we beat 95\% of 3v3 teams basically 100\% of the time has very little to do with our gear. It has a lot to do with the fact that my 3v3 team has played 2000+ games in the last 6 months. It has a lot to do with the fact that, cumulatively, we have over 10,000 hours of playtime.</p><p>FYI, we play Druid/Rogue/Priest, not some FOTM comp.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game , which is enjoyable , but in fact your character is just tougher .
You did n't learn shit.As someone who plays on a WoW 3v3 team rated ~ 2350 ( approx top 1 \ % ) I can tell you flat out that you do get better .
You can tell who is incompetent and who is competent in raids , arenas , or BGs pretty much instantly.Does the mage waste half his mana trying to spellsteal my buffs ( only to have them dispelled instantly ) , or does he start right off by doing damage and waiting to nail me with counterspell in the middle of penance ?
Does the warrior keep MS on all of the time ?
Does the priest try to mana burn me while his partner is at 8k instead of healing ?
Does the druid let me dispel innervate ?
Does the warlock fear me too many times and hit DR ? The reality is that the majority of WoW players are n't very good .
The fact that we beat 95 \ % of 3v3 teams basically 100 \ % of the time has very little to do with our gear .
It has a lot to do with the fact that my 3v3 team has played 2000 + games in the last 6 months .
It has a lot to do with the fact that , cumulatively , we have over 10,000 hours of playtime.FYI , we play Druid/Rogue/Priest , not some FOTM comp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher.
You didn't learn shit.As someone who plays on a WoW 3v3 team rated ~2350 (approx top 1\%) I can tell you flat out that you do get better.
You can tell who is incompetent and who is competent in raids, arenas, or BGs pretty much instantly.Does the mage waste half his mana trying to spellsteal my buffs (only to have them dispelled instantly), or does he start right off by doing damage and waiting to nail me with counterspell in the middle of penance?
Does the warrior keep MS on all of the time?
Does the priest try to mana burn me while his partner is at 8k instead of healing?
Does the druid let me dispel innervate?
Does the warlock fear me too many times and hit DR?The reality is that the majority of WoW players aren't very good.
The fact that we beat 95\% of 3v3 teams basically 100\% of the time has very little to do with our gear.
It has a lot to do with the fact that my 3v3 team has played 2000+ games in the last 6 months.
It has a lot to do with the fact that, cumulatively, we have over 10,000 hours of playtime.FYI, we play Druid/Rogue/Priest, not some FOTM comp.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613065</id>
	<title>Re:MMOs with Leveling are inherently broken</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246957560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This might work well. New players would just shove their skill points into what looks like it's good and end up with a hodgepodge of abilities that don't work well, but as they gain experience (human experience, not points) they would start to understand how abilities interact and how the synergies work and they would further and further refine their characters until they get something that perfectly meshes with their playstyle. Or they would look up speccing guides online and grab what the min-maxers say is 0.13\% better than anything else and fail utterly as they don't know how their skills work since they're essentially playing someone else's character.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might work well .
New players would just shove their skill points into what looks like it 's good and end up with a hodgepodge of abilities that do n't work well , but as they gain experience ( human experience , not points ) they would start to understand how abilities interact and how the synergies work and they would further and further refine their characters until they get something that perfectly meshes with their playstyle .
Or they would look up speccing guides online and grab what the min-maxers say is 0.13 \ % better than anything else and fail utterly as they do n't know how their skills work since they 're essentially playing someone else 's character .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might work well.
New players would just shove their skill points into what looks like it's good and end up with a hodgepodge of abilities that don't work well, but as they gain experience (human experience, not points) they would start to understand how abilities interact and how the synergies work and they would further and further refine their characters until they get something that perfectly meshes with their playstyle.
Or they would look up speccing guides online and grab what the min-maxers say is 0.13\% better than anything else and fail utterly as they don't know how their skills work since they're essentially playing someone else's character.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616313</id>
	<title>dev perspective: MMOs not made to challenge player</title>
	<author>lanner</author>
	<datestamp>1246974360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subbie didn't read article, but I have something to say about the subject anyway.</p><p>I worked at a couple of has-been MMO shops that either could not publish or published poop-in-a-box that could not keep them in business.</p><p>Either way, their game design is the same as the big popular/profitable MMOs.  MMOs are NOT written made to challenge the player in anything more than a very trivial way.</p><p>MMOs have certain aspects that require some critical thinking and basic challenge, but that goes back to what "success" is in the game.  Often, it's open-ended.  The story for most MMOs is so weak you hardly know what the point the stupid game is anyway, but it doesn't matter, because that's not why you're there...</p><p>MMOs are just a big, fancy, complicated chat client.  It's the social experience that counts, and not much else.  When one game shop's product drifted too far from focusing on the social aspect of the game, I knew it was a looser product because people would not play it.</p><p>Nobody needs hand-eye coordination to play most MMOs.  They make it complicated to seem like you do, but timing matters little due to uncontrollable network latency for the players.  Thus, levels are needed to determine how much time you are willing to invest to have a higher social status.</p><p>As for mental challenge,.... well, you can't be much dumber than the customer base that I know of.</p><p>The point is to throw a bunch of people in a room, make THEM do all the work of entertaining each other, and you get paid the subscription costs to sit in the room and play tea party with each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subbie did n't read article , but I have something to say about the subject anyway.I worked at a couple of has-been MMO shops that either could not publish or published poop-in-a-box that could not keep them in business.Either way , their game design is the same as the big popular/profitable MMOs .
MMOs are NOT written made to challenge the player in anything more than a very trivial way.MMOs have certain aspects that require some critical thinking and basic challenge , but that goes back to what " success " is in the game .
Often , it 's open-ended .
The story for most MMOs is so weak you hardly know what the point the stupid game is anyway , but it does n't matter , because that 's not why you 're there...MMOs are just a big , fancy , complicated chat client .
It 's the social experience that counts , and not much else .
When one game shop 's product drifted too far from focusing on the social aspect of the game , I knew it was a looser product because people would not play it.Nobody needs hand-eye coordination to play most MMOs .
They make it complicated to seem like you do , but timing matters little due to uncontrollable network latency for the players .
Thus , levels are needed to determine how much time you are willing to invest to have a higher social status.As for mental challenge,.... well , you ca n't be much dumber than the customer base that I know of.The point is to throw a bunch of people in a room , make THEM do all the work of entertaining each other , and you get paid the subscription costs to sit in the room and play tea party with each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subbie didn't read article, but I have something to say about the subject anyway.I worked at a couple of has-been MMO shops that either could not publish or published poop-in-a-box that could not keep them in business.Either way, their game design is the same as the big popular/profitable MMOs.
MMOs are NOT written made to challenge the player in anything more than a very trivial way.MMOs have certain aspects that require some critical thinking and basic challenge, but that goes back to what "success" is in the game.
Often, it's open-ended.
The story for most MMOs is so weak you hardly know what the point the stupid game is anyway, but it doesn't matter, because that's not why you're there...MMOs are just a big, fancy, complicated chat client.
It's the social experience that counts, and not much else.
When one game shop's product drifted too far from focusing on the social aspect of the game, I knew it was a looser product because people would not play it.Nobody needs hand-eye coordination to play most MMOs.
They make it complicated to seem like you do, but timing matters little due to uncontrollable network latency for the players.
Thus, levels are needed to determine how much time you are willing to invest to have a higher social status.As for mental challenge,.... well, you can't be much dumber than the customer base that I know of.The point is to throw a bunch of people in a room, make THEM do all the work of entertaining each other, and you get paid the subscription costs to sit in the room and play tea party with each other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610779</id>
	<title>Re:Um, that's why they are games, not sports</title>
	<author>FlopEJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246991880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I consider sports to be games as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I consider sports to be games as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I consider sports to be games as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077</id>
	<title>Summary is kinda misleading, actually</title>
	<author>Moraelin</author>
	<datestamp>1246996740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think the problem is that the summary makes a hash of it. The "advancement through skill" from the quoted part, is not the same meaning of "skill" that the following submitter rant uses.</p><p>The "skill" in the  "skill-based vs level-based MMO" debate, is not about the [b]player's[/b] skills, but about the [b]character's[/b] skills. \_Major\_ difference.</p><p>A "skill-based MMO" (or MUD) does \_not\_ mean you have to learn to circle-strafe or be a cyber-athlete or anything. They can be just as mindless affairs as WoW. (And I'm actually not saying that as a bad thing: I actually like WoW.) They just mean it has no levels, but they have a bunch of skill numbers and you spend your xp directly on the skills and stats.</p><p>Heck, you could even make a turn-based skill-based games if you wanted to, and in fact some have actually been made.</p><p>A good example of a skill-based system is Vampire: Bloodlines. It doesn't have levels at all. You get some xp and you spend it directly on raising your strenght, or your dexterity, or your melee skill, or your lockpicking skill. Having more experience doesn't automatically make you tougher at some point. You could buy only social abilities for a long while for example, and be an elder vampire that can't fight worth Jack, but could probably convince the Pope and Arafat to get married to each other. Or instead you could be the toughest kung-fu master but unable to talk even your best friend into seeing things your way. Or learn a lot of spells right from the start. Or anything in between.</p><p>A good example of a level-based game are most old D&amp;D games. You inherently have a to-hit modifier or access to spells based on your level. Inherently being higher level makes you better.</p><p>And Fallout 3 is actually a hybrid rather than just level-based. At its heart, what matters are your character skills, not your level. The level just gives you points to put in your skills.</p><p>Or if you want an example based on WoW, imagine a game that plays exactly like WoW, but has no levels. Instead of your sword skill automatically raising its cap by 5 points each time you level up, you don't level up, but spend xp to buy more sword skill. Or instead of getting a new spell every 2 levels, you have no levels, but buy spells with xp. You don't get +1 this stat, and +2 that stat, etc, when you level up, you buy stat increases with xp.</p><p>That would also mean that all restrictions on equipment have to be skill based instead of level based. In a skill-based game you don't have some sword that requires minimum level 39, you have a sword that requires, say, minimum 195 sword skill. If you want to use it, you dump your xp into sword skill. If you want to be a mage, you dump your xp into spell skills instead and don't get to use that sword too soon.</p><p>That's really what a skill-based MMO would look like.</p><p>But other than that, the game would still play exactly like WoW. You wouldn't need any more player skill to go do the Lakeshire quests in that setup, than you need in the real level-based WoW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think the problem is that the summary makes a hash of it .
The " advancement through skill " from the quoted part , is not the same meaning of " skill " that the following submitter rant uses.The " skill " in the " skill-based vs level-based MMO " debate , is not about the [ b ] player 's [ /b ] skills , but about the [ b ] character 's [ /b ] skills .
\ _Major \ _ difference.A " skill-based MMO " ( or MUD ) does \ _not \ _ mean you have to learn to circle-strafe or be a cyber-athlete or anything .
They can be just as mindless affairs as WoW .
( And I 'm actually not saying that as a bad thing : I actually like WoW .
) They just mean it has no levels , but they have a bunch of skill numbers and you spend your xp directly on the skills and stats.Heck , you could even make a turn-based skill-based games if you wanted to , and in fact some have actually been made.A good example of a skill-based system is Vampire : Bloodlines .
It does n't have levels at all .
You get some xp and you spend it directly on raising your strenght , or your dexterity , or your melee skill , or your lockpicking skill .
Having more experience does n't automatically make you tougher at some point .
You could buy only social abilities for a long while for example , and be an elder vampire that ca n't fight worth Jack , but could probably convince the Pope and Arafat to get married to each other .
Or instead you could be the toughest kung-fu master but unable to talk even your best friend into seeing things your way .
Or learn a lot of spells right from the start .
Or anything in between.A good example of a level-based game are most old D&amp;D games .
You inherently have a to-hit modifier or access to spells based on your level .
Inherently being higher level makes you better.And Fallout 3 is actually a hybrid rather than just level-based .
At its heart , what matters are your character skills , not your level .
The level just gives you points to put in your skills.Or if you want an example based on WoW , imagine a game that plays exactly like WoW , but has no levels .
Instead of your sword skill automatically raising its cap by 5 points each time you level up , you do n't level up , but spend xp to buy more sword skill .
Or instead of getting a new spell every 2 levels , you have no levels , but buy spells with xp .
You do n't get + 1 this stat , and + 2 that stat , etc , when you level up , you buy stat increases with xp.That would also mean that all restrictions on equipment have to be skill based instead of level based .
In a skill-based game you do n't have some sword that requires minimum level 39 , you have a sword that requires , say , minimum 195 sword skill .
If you want to use it , you dump your xp into sword skill .
If you want to be a mage , you dump your xp into spell skills instead and do n't get to use that sword too soon.That 's really what a skill-based MMO would look like.But other than that , the game would still play exactly like WoW .
You would n't need any more player skill to go do the Lakeshire quests in that setup , than you need in the real level-based WoW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think the problem is that the summary makes a hash of it.
The "advancement through skill" from the quoted part, is not the same meaning of "skill" that the following submitter rant uses.The "skill" in the  "skill-based vs level-based MMO" debate, is not about the [b]player's[/b] skills, but about the [b]character's[/b] skills.
\_Major\_ difference.A "skill-based MMO" (or MUD) does \_not\_ mean you have to learn to circle-strafe or be a cyber-athlete or anything.
They can be just as mindless affairs as WoW.
(And I'm actually not saying that as a bad thing: I actually like WoW.
) They just mean it has no levels, but they have a bunch of skill numbers and you spend your xp directly on the skills and stats.Heck, you could even make a turn-based skill-based games if you wanted to, and in fact some have actually been made.A good example of a skill-based system is Vampire: Bloodlines.
It doesn't have levels at all.
You get some xp and you spend it directly on raising your strenght, or your dexterity, or your melee skill, or your lockpicking skill.
Having more experience doesn't automatically make you tougher at some point.
You could buy only social abilities for a long while for example, and be an elder vampire that can't fight worth Jack, but could probably convince the Pope and Arafat to get married to each other.
Or instead you could be the toughest kung-fu master but unable to talk even your best friend into seeing things your way.
Or learn a lot of spells right from the start.
Or anything in between.A good example of a level-based game are most old D&amp;D games.
You inherently have a to-hit modifier or access to spells based on your level.
Inherently being higher level makes you better.And Fallout 3 is actually a hybrid rather than just level-based.
At its heart, what matters are your character skills, not your level.
The level just gives you points to put in your skills.Or if you want an example based on WoW, imagine a game that plays exactly like WoW, but has no levels.
Instead of your sword skill automatically raising its cap by 5 points each time you level up, you don't level up, but spend xp to buy more sword skill.
Or instead of getting a new spell every 2 levels, you have no levels, but buy spells with xp.
You don't get +1 this stat, and +2 that stat, etc, when you level up, you buy stat increases with xp.That would also mean that all restrictions on equipment have to be skill based instead of level based.
In a skill-based game you don't have some sword that requires minimum level 39, you have a sword that requires, say, minimum 195 sword skill.
If you want to use it, you dump your xp into sword skill.
If you want to be a mage, you dump your xp into spell skills instead and don't get to use that sword too soon.That's really what a skill-based MMO would look like.But other than that, the game would still play exactly like WoW.
You wouldn't need any more player skill to go do the Lakeshire quests in that setup, than you need in the real level-based WoW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620955</id>
	<title>Re:I still favor Asheron's Call.</title>
	<author>Rhys</author>
	<datestamp>1247063460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of AC's problem with skills can be traced back to the way the developers originally priced them. Pricing was determined by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... popularity of the skill in beta! (or at least so I was told by one of the beta testers) That means you get awkward things like trying to balance the 4-pt dagger skill vs 16-pt sword vs 28-pt war magic.</p><p>For a long time magic was the be-all-end-all. Mages didn't need to worry about melee defense or burden issues. They just buffed themselves to the stratosphere and walked around like gods. Everyone else whined and then the mage nerfs and loot inflation started. Now it seems melee defense is the be-all-end-all as the quantity of mobs who ignore magical protections has been rising rapidly to try to keep the challenge in the game.</p><p>Still, I've never seem more diverse "classes" in a game than AC. And for added benefit, nobody has to sit back and be the (boring!) healer. Everyone has the capability to heal in combat. There's no such thing as the tank because aggro doesn't work like that. There are positional tactics: players and monsters block travel, though players can co-occupy space. There is a lot more problem solving in the quests in the game too than WoW or similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of AC 's problem with skills can be traced back to the way the developers originally priced them .
Pricing was determined by ... popularity of the skill in beta !
( or at least so I was told by one of the beta testers ) That means you get awkward things like trying to balance the 4-pt dagger skill vs 16-pt sword vs 28-pt war magic.For a long time magic was the be-all-end-all .
Mages did n't need to worry about melee defense or burden issues .
They just buffed themselves to the stratosphere and walked around like gods .
Everyone else whined and then the mage nerfs and loot inflation started .
Now it seems melee defense is the be-all-end-all as the quantity of mobs who ignore magical protections has been rising rapidly to try to keep the challenge in the game.Still , I 've never seem more diverse " classes " in a game than AC .
And for added benefit , nobody has to sit back and be the ( boring !
) healer .
Everyone has the capability to heal in combat .
There 's no such thing as the tank because aggro does n't work like that .
There are positional tactics : players and monsters block travel , though players can co-occupy space .
There is a lot more problem solving in the quests in the game too than WoW or similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of AC's problem with skills can be traced back to the way the developers originally priced them.
Pricing was determined by ... popularity of the skill in beta!
(or at least so I was told by one of the beta testers) That means you get awkward things like trying to balance the 4-pt dagger skill vs 16-pt sword vs 28-pt war magic.For a long time magic was the be-all-end-all.
Mages didn't need to worry about melee defense or burden issues.
They just buffed themselves to the stratosphere and walked around like gods.
Everyone else whined and then the mage nerfs and loot inflation started.
Now it seems melee defense is the be-all-end-all as the quantity of mobs who ignore magical protections has been rising rapidly to try to keep the challenge in the game.Still, I've never seem more diverse "classes" in a game than AC.
And for added benefit, nobody has to sit back and be the (boring!
) healer.
Everyone has the capability to heal in combat.
There's no such thing as the tank because aggro doesn't work like that.
There are positional tactics: players and monsters block travel, though players can co-occupy space.
There is a lot more problem solving in the quests in the game too than WoW or similar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616871</id>
	<title>Time Invested</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1246978980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of time invested in a MMO is all that matters (assuming that time is actually spent doing things which benefit your character). You pay for game time so the company rewards you for buying more time than others. That's why I quit WoW and why I'm afraid of Diablo 3 (damn you D1 $ 2 for all those hours you stole from me!). I don't feel so bad about being addicted to Starcraft because that's all strategy, reflexes, and control. Realtime chess<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) But yeah, MMO's are pretty much a contest of who's got the most time to blow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of time invested in a MMO is all that matters ( assuming that time is actually spent doing things which benefit your character ) .
You pay for game time so the company rewards you for buying more time than others .
That 's why I quit WoW and why I 'm afraid of Diablo 3 ( damn you D1 $ 2 for all those hours you stole from me ! ) .
I do n't feel so bad about being addicted to Starcraft because that 's all strategy , reflexes , and control .
Realtime chess : ) But yeah , MMO 's are pretty much a contest of who 's got the most time to blow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of time invested in a MMO is all that matters (assuming that time is actually spent doing things which benefit your character).
You pay for game time so the company rewards you for buying more time than others.
That's why I quit WoW and why I'm afraid of Diablo 3 (damn you D1 $ 2 for all those hours you stole from me!).
I don't feel so bad about being addicted to Starcraft because that's all strategy, reflexes, and control.
Realtime chess :) But yeah, MMO's are pretty much a contest of who's got the most time to blow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611929</id>
	<title>Re:Guild Wars</title>
	<author>Lord Juan</author>
	<datestamp>1246996020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one thing I love about Guild Wars it's not the fact that there is no grinding, because, there is grinding, a lot of grinding, but the fact that the grinding does not affect PvP in any way, neither other add-ons you may buy. As people previously mention, in a pair of weeks you are PvPing, even sooner if you create a PvP character.</p><p>I can stop playing Guild Wars for a month, get back online, and join some PvP matches with friends who spend that month playing, and I don't feel like an outcast. Sure, if they were into PvE they may have a new shiny armor/weapon/title, if they were into PvP they may have a shiny new title, but I am by no means underpowered and unable to go have fun with them.</p><p>Guild Wars got it right, the fact WoW have more players only means there is a lot of people who loves grinding, but when it comes to competitive playing, Guild Wars so far is the only game that got it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one thing I love about Guild Wars it 's not the fact that there is no grinding , because , there is grinding , a lot of grinding , but the fact that the grinding does not affect PvP in any way , neither other add-ons you may buy .
As people previously mention , in a pair of weeks you are PvPing , even sooner if you create a PvP character.I can stop playing Guild Wars for a month , get back online , and join some PvP matches with friends who spend that month playing , and I do n't feel like an outcast .
Sure , if they were into PvE they may have a new shiny armor/weapon/title , if they were into PvP they may have a shiny new title , but I am by no means underpowered and unable to go have fun with them.Guild Wars got it right , the fact WoW have more players only means there is a lot of people who loves grinding , but when it comes to competitive playing , Guild Wars so far is the only game that got it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one thing I love about Guild Wars it's not the fact that there is no grinding, because, there is grinding, a lot of grinding, but the fact that the grinding does not affect PvP in any way, neither other add-ons you may buy.
As people previously mention, in a pair of weeks you are PvPing, even sooner if you create a PvP character.I can stop playing Guild Wars for a month, get back online, and join some PvP matches with friends who spend that month playing, and I don't feel like an outcast.
Sure, if they were into PvE they may have a new shiny armor/weapon/title, if they were into PvP they may have a shiny new title, but I am by no means underpowered and unable to go have fun with them.Guild Wars got it right, the fact WoW have more players only means there is a lot of people who loves grinding, but when it comes to competitive playing, Guild Wars so far is the only game that got it right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610847</id>
	<title>Re:WoW works!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246992120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That this post has not yet been flamed astounds me.</p><p>I'd have to say I agree, though - they're doing something right, it would seem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That this post has not yet been flamed astounds me.I 'd have to say I agree , though - they 're doing something right , it would seem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That this post has not yet been flamed astounds me.I'd have to say I agree, though - they're doing something right, it would seem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612005</id>
	<title>How do you define "skill"?</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1246996380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's the caginess of veterans who know the best sniping spots and combinations of casts that'll set up an opponent for the fatality.  There's also the developed muscle-memory that helps you cycle through weapons in a close-in fight while dodging bullets.  Caginess is far more important to the mechanics of WoW, while reflexes are more important in Battlefield.  But, you can't treat either as mutually exclusive.  I could be a complete noob sitting in the best sniping spot in the game, but not have the coordination to get the kill shot from range.  Or, I could have the fastest mouse in the west yet always go for the knife kill when a cagey vet knows that the pistol is the right call.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's the caginess of veterans who know the best sniping spots and combinations of casts that 'll set up an opponent for the fatality .
There 's also the developed muscle-memory that helps you cycle through weapons in a close-in fight while dodging bullets .
Caginess is far more important to the mechanics of WoW , while reflexes are more important in Battlefield .
But , you ca n't treat either as mutually exclusive .
I could be a complete noob sitting in the best sniping spot in the game , but not have the coordination to get the kill shot from range .
Or , I could have the fastest mouse in the west yet always go for the knife kill when a cagey vet knows that the pistol is the right call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's the caginess of veterans who know the best sniping spots and combinations of casts that'll set up an opponent for the fatality.
There's also the developed muscle-memory that helps you cycle through weapons in a close-in fight while dodging bullets.
Caginess is far more important to the mechanics of WoW, while reflexes are more important in Battlefield.
But, you can't treat either as mutually exclusive.
I could be a complete noob sitting in the best sniping spot in the game, but not have the coordination to get the kill shot from range.
Or, I could have the fastest mouse in the west yet always go for the knife kill when a cagey vet knows that the pistol is the right call.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613853</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is kinda misleading, actually</title>
	<author>mr\_mischief</author>
	<datestamp>1246960680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These two systems (skills vs. levels) actually come from the pen-and-paper RPG games of the last thirty years. That they are big news in the computerized games is just evidence that you can never please everyone with a single choice. Now, when the computer game people discover dice pools and talent dice that some pen and paper games have, the issue will get even more muddied in computer-driven games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These two systems ( skills vs. levels ) actually come from the pen-and-paper RPG games of the last thirty years .
That they are big news in the computerized games is just evidence that you can never please everyone with a single choice .
Now , when the computer game people discover dice pools and talent dice that some pen and paper games have , the issue will get even more muddied in computer-driven games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These two systems (skills vs. levels) actually come from the pen-and-paper RPG games of the last thirty years.
That they are big news in the computerized games is just evidence that you can never please everyone with a single choice.
Now, when the computer game people discover dice pools and talent dice that some pen and paper games have, the issue will get even more muddied in computer-driven games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613719</id>
	<title>SKill based is better</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246960140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but it's much harder to implement and balance and developers always have to get lazy and take the easy route: Capping skills based on a level.</p><p>Skill based is better because they allow for a more diverse player set.</p><p>For example:<br>Lets say the skill range is 1-1000, and you have 200 different skills.</p><p>So I can have my sword master spell thrower.  By the very nature of skills, the character would progress towards being a master swordsman/spell slinger slower then some one just focusing on swords.</p><p>Of course, if you only ahve 9 skills, then it doesn't really matter. I would prefer a skill for every type of item. For example: you wouldn't have a sword skill, you would ahve a long sword skill, short sword skill, dagger skill, and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but it 's much harder to implement and balance and developers always have to get lazy and take the easy route : Capping skills based on a level.Skill based is better because they allow for a more diverse player set.For example : Lets say the skill range is 1-1000 , and you have 200 different skills.So I can have my sword master spell thrower .
By the very nature of skills , the character would progress towards being a master swordsman/spell slinger slower then some one just focusing on swords.Of course , if you only ahve 9 skills , then it does n't really matter .
I would prefer a skill for every type of item .
For example : you would n't have a sword skill , you would ahve a long sword skill , short sword skill , dagger skill , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it's much harder to implement and balance and developers always have to get lazy and take the easy route: Capping skills based on a level.Skill based is better because they allow for a more diverse player set.For example:Lets say the skill range is 1-1000, and you have 200 different skills.So I can have my sword master spell thrower.
By the very nature of skills, the character would progress towards being a master swordsman/spell slinger slower then some one just focusing on swords.Of course, if you only ahve 9 skills, then it doesn't really matter.
I would prefer a skill for every type of item.
For example: you wouldn't have a sword skill, you would ahve a long sword skill, short sword skill, dagger skill, and so on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618165</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1246991460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FPS: Knowing where the power weapons are on the map. (Halo 3: Shotgun whore wins)</p></div><p>Oh, I'd love to see a shotgun whore take me on when I'm armed with a sniper and a few grenades.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FPS : Knowing where the power weapons are on the map .
( Halo 3 : Shotgun whore wins ) Oh , I 'd love to see a shotgun whore take me on when I 'm armed with a sniper and a few grenades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FPS: Knowing where the power weapons are on the map.
(Halo 3: Shotgun whore wins)Oh, I'd love to see a shotgun whore take me on when I'm armed with a sniper and a few grenades.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614565</id>
	<title>The concept of levels is daft.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246963440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been playing fantasy role playing games for years.  Both on-line and the more traditional face to face type.</p><p>I started with D&amp;D, then AD&amp;D, then MERP, then finally Rolemaster.  They all have their strengths &amp; weaknesses.  After a *lot* of playing, I and a few friends eventually got tired of having to look stuff in the 30 different volumes and the artificial concept of levels.</p><p>We eventually decided to take the best of the stuff that we liked, and ditch the rest.  What we ended up with was a game where skills end experience progressed as skills were used.  The entire concept of levels were abandoned and things just seems to run smoother now.</p><p>The other thing the we cut back on were the concept of professions (or classes), there are just a few very basic classes and everything else is a sub-class.</p><p>The difficulty of actually learning a 'skill' is based on a characters physical stats.  Stats are loosely tied to a player class.  Best stats are given in the areas that are advantageous to a players character class.  So the result is that the difficulty of learning a skill is directly related to the players stats &amp; class.</p><p>Clear as mud?</p><p>The game balance seems to be pretty good.</p><p>Eventually, we plan on perhaps publishing the system either as shareware or whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been playing fantasy role playing games for years .
Both on-line and the more traditional face to face type.I started with D&amp;D , then AD&amp;D , then MERP , then finally Rolemaster .
They all have their strengths &amp; weaknesses .
After a * lot * of playing , I and a few friends eventually got tired of having to look stuff in the 30 different volumes and the artificial concept of levels.We eventually decided to take the best of the stuff that we liked , and ditch the rest .
What we ended up with was a game where skills end experience progressed as skills were used .
The entire concept of levels were abandoned and things just seems to run smoother now.The other thing the we cut back on were the concept of professions ( or classes ) , there are just a few very basic classes and everything else is a sub-class.The difficulty of actually learning a 'skill ' is based on a characters physical stats .
Stats are loosely tied to a player class .
Best stats are given in the areas that are advantageous to a players character class .
So the result is that the difficulty of learning a skill is directly related to the players stats &amp; class.Clear as mud ? The game balance seems to be pretty good.Eventually , we plan on perhaps publishing the system either as shareware or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been playing fantasy role playing games for years.
Both on-line and the more traditional face to face type.I started with D&amp;D, then AD&amp;D, then MERP, then finally Rolemaster.
They all have their strengths &amp; weaknesses.
After a *lot* of playing, I and a few friends eventually got tired of having to look stuff in the 30 different volumes and the artificial concept of levels.We eventually decided to take the best of the stuff that we liked, and ditch the rest.
What we ended up with was a game where skills end experience progressed as skills were used.
The entire concept of levels were abandoned and things just seems to run smoother now.The other thing the we cut back on were the concept of professions (or classes), there are just a few very basic classes and everything else is a sub-class.The difficulty of actually learning a 'skill' is based on a characters physical stats.
Stats are loosely tied to a player class.
Best stats are given in the areas that are advantageous to a players character class.
So the result is that the difficulty of learning a skill is directly related to the players stats &amp; class.Clear as mud?The game balance seems to be pretty good.Eventually, we plan on perhaps publishing the system either as shareware or whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611259</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>clegrand</author>
	<datestamp>1246993680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One simple change could be to make progression depend on skill, not trivial success and grinding.</p><p>.....</p><p>Absolutely non-trivial to implement and balance, so it's probably not the end of the idea. But it might be a start.</p></div><p>The Trouble With Trivials<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....ummm.. which end are we starting at?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One simple change could be to make progression depend on skill , not trivial success and grinding......Absolutely non-trivial to implement and balance , so it 's probably not the end of the idea .
But it might be a start.The Trouble With Trivials ....ummm.. which end are we starting at ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One simple change could be to make progression depend on skill, not trivial success and grinding......Absolutely non-trivial to implement and balance, so it's probably not the end of the idea.
But it might be a start.The Trouble With Trivials ....ummm.. which end are we starting at?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611475</id>
	<title>Re:The Breakdown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246994460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disagreed on FPS. I am a hardcore CSS player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disagreed on FPS .
I am a hardcore CSS player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disagreed on FPS.
I am a hardcore CSS player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612739</id>
	<title>Except that GW has less MMO PvP than CS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246999260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the maximum number of players that can participate in same battle at once?</p><p>Isn't it even less than what Counterstrike has, for example?</p><p>Is GW a MMO game at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the maximum number of players that can participate in same battle at once ? Is n't it even less than what Counterstrike has , for example ? Is GW a MMO game at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the maximum number of players that can participate in same battle at once?Isn't it even less than what Counterstrike has, for example?Is GW a MMO game at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28621519</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be acrobatics...athletics goes up because you are running while you are bunny hopping through the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be acrobatics...athletics goes up because you are running while you are bunny hopping through the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be acrobatics...athletics goes up because you are running while you are bunny hopping through the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613665</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>redkazuo</author>
	<datestamp>1246959900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Ironically your complaint that your son didn't try to figure it out himself, when you didn't try to figure out smash brothers system is itself a bit humorous.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)"<br>
<br>
Actually, I think it's quite consistent with the way he said he plays. He just tries to find out how to play inside the game. Add to that a bunch of 10 year olds screaming in your ear how they're better than the old timer, and I think I can understand his position perfectly. In fact, getting help online would be against everything he said.<br>
<br>
Anyway, you can't play the game without knowing the damage \% isn't directly related to your performance. What counts is to make the opponent fly outside the screen through any of the four sides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ironically your complaint that your son did n't try to figure it out himself , when you did n't try to figure out smash brothers system is itself a bit humorous .
: ) " Actually , I think it 's quite consistent with the way he said he plays .
He just tries to find out how to play inside the game .
Add to that a bunch of 10 year olds screaming in your ear how they 're better than the old timer , and I think I can understand his position perfectly .
In fact , getting help online would be against everything he said .
Anyway , you ca n't play the game without knowing the damage \ % is n't directly related to your performance .
What counts is to make the opponent fly outside the screen through any of the four sides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ironically your complaint that your son didn't try to figure it out himself, when you didn't try to figure out smash brothers system is itself a bit humorous.
:)"

Actually, I think it's quite consistent with the way he said he plays.
He just tries to find out how to play inside the game.
Add to that a bunch of 10 year olds screaming in your ear how they're better than the old timer, and I think I can understand his position perfectly.
In fact, getting help online would be against everything he said.
Anyway, you can't play the game without knowing the damage \% isn't directly related to your performance.
What counts is to make the opponent fly outside the screen through any of the four sides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610531</id>
	<title>comments about the additional editor added summary</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1246990980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a quip about it.

The editor is thinking about 'Skill as in I twitch faster or know the map', whereby rather I believe they are referring to a Skill Point mechanic instead of a Leveling Up mechanic... that is, I have a "46.5\% skill in Swordmanship" instead of "I'm a level 20 Swordsman".

Usually a Level based mechanic has some aspects of a Skill Based system as well (but usually it's relegated to Crafting in online games like WoW or DAoC); but to me the main difference was rather looked at as a "Class Based System" vs a "Skill Based System", which has been a debate in gaming long before computers came to the genre with things like "DnD" being a CBS and "Star Frontiers" being a Skill based system.

Personally, I generally perfer a Skill based system for a variety of small reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a quip about it .
The editor is thinking about 'Skill as in I twitch faster or know the map ' , whereby rather I believe they are referring to a Skill Point mechanic instead of a Leveling Up mechanic... that is , I have a " 46.5 \ % skill in Swordmanship " instead of " I 'm a level 20 Swordsman " .
Usually a Level based mechanic has some aspects of a Skill Based system as well ( but usually it 's relegated to Crafting in online games like WoW or DAoC ) ; but to me the main difference was rather looked at as a " Class Based System " vs a " Skill Based System " , which has been a debate in gaming long before computers came to the genre with things like " DnD " being a CBS and " Star Frontiers " being a Skill based system .
Personally , I generally perfer a Skill based system for a variety of small reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a quip about it.
The editor is thinking about 'Skill as in I twitch faster or know the map', whereby rather I believe they are referring to a Skill Point mechanic instead of a Leveling Up mechanic... that is, I have a "46.5\% skill in Swordmanship" instead of "I'm a level 20 Swordsman".
Usually a Level based mechanic has some aspects of a Skill Based system as well (but usually it's relegated to Crafting in online games like WoW or DAoC); but to me the main difference was rather looked at as a "Class Based System" vs a "Skill Based System", which has been a debate in gaming long before computers came to the genre with things like "DnD" being a CBS and "Star Frontiers" being a Skill based system.
Personally, I generally perfer a Skill based system for a variety of small reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613267</id>
	<title>Article/Summary Poster Didn't Read TFA?</title>
	<author>CyberNigma</author>
	<datestamp>1246958400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Contrary to what the original poster posted in the summary, the article is not relating level-based MMOs to games that require player skill (the FPS/RTS reference in the summary).  The article is referring to games like Ultima Online that use a character skill-based system.  For example, Ultima Online uses skill-points and Guild Wars uses a low level cap(tutorial i a sense) to emphasize the skills you pick up.  I believe EVE is also skill-based in the sense that you build up your characters in-game skills as you play.  That is not something really related to most FPS/RTS games since they arguably rely on out-of-game player-based skills, not in-game character-based skills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrary to what the original poster posted in the summary , the article is not relating level-based MMOs to games that require player skill ( the FPS/RTS reference in the summary ) .
The article is referring to games like Ultima Online that use a character skill-based system .
For example , Ultima Online uses skill-points and Guild Wars uses a low level cap ( tutorial i a sense ) to emphasize the skills you pick up .
I believe EVE is also skill-based in the sense that you build up your characters in-game skills as you play .
That is not something really related to most FPS/RTS games since they arguably rely on out-of-game player-based skills , not in-game character-based skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrary to what the original poster posted in the summary, the article is not relating level-based MMOs to games that require player skill (the FPS/RTS reference in the summary).
The article is referring to games like Ultima Online that use a character skill-based system.
For example, Ultima Online uses skill-points and Guild Wars uses a low level cap(tutorial i a sense) to emphasize the skills you pick up.
I believe EVE is also skill-based in the sense that you build up your characters in-game skills as you play.
That is not something really related to most FPS/RTS games since they arguably rely on out-of-game player-based skills, not in-game character-based skills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619393</id>
	<title>Re:MMOs with Leveling are inherently broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247050380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Warhammer Online resolves this simply by making it easy to grind to level 40 so everyone really just play the games at that point.</p></div><p>That's like saying a bandage on the stump resolves a severed limb. Sure, missing an arm's a bit inconvenient, but it's easy to put a bandage on it and get back to work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Warhammer Online resolves this simply by making it easy to grind to level 40 so everyone really just play the games at that point.That 's like saying a bandage on the stump resolves a severed limb .
Sure , missing an arm 's a bit inconvenient , but it 's easy to put a bandage on it and get back to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warhammer Online resolves this simply by making it easy to grind to level 40 so everyone really just play the games at that point.That's like saying a bandage on the stump resolves a severed limb.
Sure, missing an arm's a bit inconvenient, but it's easy to put a bandage on it and get back to work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610967</id>
	<title>Re:WoW works!</title>
	<author>zarzu</author>
	<datestamp>1246992540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes 12 million can be wrong, in fact several billions can be wrong. that said, mmorpgs have been stagnating after wow released and most developers are simply trying to get something very similar to wow, in the hope that people will get tired of the wow world and then hop onto another mmorpg that is essentially the same in a different wrap. the few games that have really deviated from wow were all failures (tabula rasa, darkfall). that said, wow wasn't much different from the first generation mmorpgs and simply picked the best elements of each of them and mixed it up, they didn't reinvent the wheel, but arguable made the last "big" successfull step. the actual reason why wow is as popular as it is, has mostly to do with blizzards name in the gaming industry, the popularity of previous warcraft titles and the suction generated by many people playing, sucking in more etc.</p><p>also: there are f2p mmorpgs with far higher populations than wow (as far as those are correct) like maplestory and stuff like that, they still suck though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes 12 million can be wrong , in fact several billions can be wrong .
that said , mmorpgs have been stagnating after wow released and most developers are simply trying to get something very similar to wow , in the hope that people will get tired of the wow world and then hop onto another mmorpg that is essentially the same in a different wrap .
the few games that have really deviated from wow were all failures ( tabula rasa , darkfall ) .
that said , wow was n't much different from the first generation mmorpgs and simply picked the best elements of each of them and mixed it up , they did n't reinvent the wheel , but arguable made the last " big " successfull step .
the actual reason why wow is as popular as it is , has mostly to do with blizzards name in the gaming industry , the popularity of previous warcraft titles and the suction generated by many people playing , sucking in more etc.also : there are f2p mmorpgs with far higher populations than wow ( as far as those are correct ) like maplestory and stuff like that , they still suck though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes 12 million can be wrong, in fact several billions can be wrong.
that said, mmorpgs have been stagnating after wow released and most developers are simply trying to get something very similar to wow, in the hope that people will get tired of the wow world and then hop onto another mmorpg that is essentially the same in a different wrap.
the few games that have really deviated from wow were all failures (tabula rasa, darkfall).
that said, wow wasn't much different from the first generation mmorpgs and simply picked the best elements of each of them and mixed it up, they didn't reinvent the wheel, but arguable made the last "big" successfull step.
the actual reason why wow is as popular as it is, has mostly to do with blizzards name in the gaming industry, the popularity of previous warcraft titles and the suction generated by many people playing, sucking in more etc.also: there are f2p mmorpgs with far higher populations than wow (as far as those are correct) like maplestory and stuff like that, they still suck though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28647717</id>
	<title>About players skill</title>
	<author>son1dow</author>
	<datestamp>1247228400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it's kinda offtopic, but many of people here already got character\player skills mixed so I'm going to throw my two cents anyway.</p><p>MMOs do not take skill. It's a fact. Not that they don't take any skill whatsoever, but they cap the player's skill in so many ways that it's really hard to excel. And it's only natural - today, most popular games are the casual ones (a.k.a. braindead ones. Even FPS'es get stuff like grenade detectors - it's just sad).</p><p>Now, there's different games. Take a good 1v1 FPS Deathmatch game for example (Quake Live?). Take a good strategy game (there's only one RIGHT answer for this - Starcraft). There's allso teamplay FPS'es, but they tend to be all about aiming, map knowledge and teamplay - both starcraft and quake require much more. If you think theese are skill-less I dare you play a match of Quake Live against me - and I'm not nearly as good as the worst of the players attending torunaments. And it's not only aiming\micro\macro\etc - there's just so many ways to outsmart your opponent, I was just amazed when I discovered how high level Quake 3 matches are played for example.</p><p>The problem is, that apart from few successful titles (starcraft and hopefully, Quake Live as it's the hope for all deathmatch players), they're not really worth the effor balancing\etc - people like simple games and this is how the world rolls. Some would say "Get over it", but I hope that Starcraft 2 and Quake Live will gain some mainsteam success - people should at least know what competitive gaming is about. I'm not saying that everybody should be playing, but those 13-year olds playing every new braindead FPS should either try their chances on a game that takes skill or just shut the fuck up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's kinda offtopic , but many of people here already got character \ player skills mixed so I 'm going to throw my two cents anyway.MMOs do not take skill .
It 's a fact .
Not that they do n't take any skill whatsoever , but they cap the player 's skill in so many ways that it 's really hard to excel .
And it 's only natural - today , most popular games are the casual ones ( a.k.a .
braindead ones .
Even FPS'es get stuff like grenade detectors - it 's just sad ) .Now , there 's different games .
Take a good 1v1 FPS Deathmatch game for example ( Quake Live ? ) .
Take a good strategy game ( there 's only one RIGHT answer for this - Starcraft ) .
There 's allso teamplay FPS'es , but they tend to be all about aiming , map knowledge and teamplay - both starcraft and quake require much more .
If you think theese are skill-less I dare you play a match of Quake Live against me - and I 'm not nearly as good as the worst of the players attending torunaments .
And it 's not only aiming \ micro \ macro \ etc - there 's just so many ways to outsmart your opponent , I was just amazed when I discovered how high level Quake 3 matches are played for example.The problem is , that apart from few successful titles ( starcraft and hopefully , Quake Live as it 's the hope for all deathmatch players ) , they 're not really worth the effor balancing \ etc - people like simple games and this is how the world rolls .
Some would say " Get over it " , but I hope that Starcraft 2 and Quake Live will gain some mainsteam success - people should at least know what competitive gaming is about .
I 'm not saying that everybody should be playing , but those 13-year olds playing every new braindead FPS should either try their chances on a game that takes skill or just shut the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's kinda offtopic, but many of people here already got character\player skills mixed so I'm going to throw my two cents anyway.MMOs do not take skill.
It's a fact.
Not that they don't take any skill whatsoever, but they cap the player's skill in so many ways that it's really hard to excel.
And it's only natural - today, most popular games are the casual ones (a.k.a.
braindead ones.
Even FPS'es get stuff like grenade detectors - it's just sad).Now, there's different games.
Take a good 1v1 FPS Deathmatch game for example (Quake Live?).
Take a good strategy game (there's only one RIGHT answer for this - Starcraft).
There's allso teamplay FPS'es, but they tend to be all about aiming, map knowledge and teamplay - both starcraft and quake require much more.
If you think theese are skill-less I dare you play a match of Quake Live against me - and I'm not nearly as good as the worst of the players attending torunaments.
And it's not only aiming\micro\macro\etc - there's just so many ways to outsmart your opponent, I was just amazed when I discovered how high level Quake 3 matches are played for example.The problem is, that apart from few successful titles (starcraft and hopefully, Quake Live as it's the hope for all deathmatch players), they're not really worth the effor balancing\etc - people like simple games and this is how the world rolls.
Some would say "Get over it", but I hope that Starcraft 2 and Quake Live will gain some mainsteam success - people should at least know what competitive gaming is about.
I'm not saying that everybody should be playing, but those 13-year olds playing every new braindead FPS should either try their chances on a game that takes skill or just shut the fuck up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611857</id>
	<title>Comparison with Pen and Paper</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1246995780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In D&amp;D, your character's progression was level-based.  Your character performed the actions, while you did the thinking, the plotting, the decision-making, the talking.  But sometimes even your decisions depended on a dice-roll, depending on how you explained yourself:</p><p>"I try to convince the blacksmith to sell me the sword."  "That's a charisma roll," says the DM.<br>"Hmm, this sword has a notch near the hilt...how about I take it off your hands for 2 silver?"  "Thou art frugal!" and here's your sword.</p><p>With MMORPGs, the concept is the same -- but you're even more limited to dice rolls.  You can harangue the blacksmith all you like, he's still going to charge you 10 silver.  Crack all the jokes you want, the NPC baker won't sleep with you and won't drop the price on her cherry pie.</p><p>With a skill-based system, the results are the same though people will argue they aren't.  Skill-based is essentially a custom template rather than a pre-defined one.  But the results are the same, even if the method of arriving is varied.  Both disallow the n00b halfling from backstabbing the sitting ancient warrior for 1000 points of damage.  But that makes sense -- an ancient warrior is always aware, and wouldn't let someone sneak up behind him.  Irritating for the halfling as this creates that gap between friends who don't keep up.</p><p>I used to have all these great* ideas for MMORPGs but I realize they all require that players put in a lot of time.  I choose not to anymore, so it's tough to get behind those ideas.  Getting rid of hit points in place of genuine damage, relating the environment, levels matter less, etc etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In D&amp;D , your character 's progression was level-based .
Your character performed the actions , while you did the thinking , the plotting , the decision-making , the talking .
But sometimes even your decisions depended on a dice-roll , depending on how you explained yourself : " I try to convince the blacksmith to sell me the sword .
" " That 's a charisma roll , " says the DM .
" Hmm , this sword has a notch near the hilt...how about I take it off your hands for 2 silver ?
" " Thou art frugal !
" and here 's your sword.With MMORPGs , the concept is the same -- but you 're even more limited to dice rolls .
You can harangue the blacksmith all you like , he 's still going to charge you 10 silver .
Crack all the jokes you want , the NPC baker wo n't sleep with you and wo n't drop the price on her cherry pie.With a skill-based system , the results are the same though people will argue they are n't .
Skill-based is essentially a custom template rather than a pre-defined one .
But the results are the same , even if the method of arriving is varied .
Both disallow the n00b halfling from backstabbing the sitting ancient warrior for 1000 points of damage .
But that makes sense -- an ancient warrior is always aware , and would n't let someone sneak up behind him .
Irritating for the halfling as this creates that gap between friends who do n't keep up.I used to have all these great * ideas for MMORPGs but I realize they all require that players put in a lot of time .
I choose not to anymore , so it 's tough to get behind those ideas .
Getting rid of hit points in place of genuine damage , relating the environment , levels matter less , etc etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In D&amp;D, your character's progression was level-based.
Your character performed the actions, while you did the thinking, the plotting, the decision-making, the talking.
But sometimes even your decisions depended on a dice-roll, depending on how you explained yourself:"I try to convince the blacksmith to sell me the sword.
"  "That's a charisma roll," says the DM.
"Hmm, this sword has a notch near the hilt...how about I take it off your hands for 2 silver?
"  "Thou art frugal!
" and here's your sword.With MMORPGs, the concept is the same -- but you're even more limited to dice rolls.
You can harangue the blacksmith all you like, he's still going to charge you 10 silver.
Crack all the jokes you want, the NPC baker won't sleep with you and won't drop the price on her cherry pie.With a skill-based system, the results are the same though people will argue they aren't.
Skill-based is essentially a custom template rather than a pre-defined one.
But the results are the same, even if the method of arriving is varied.
Both disallow the n00b halfling from backstabbing the sitting ancient warrior for 1000 points of damage.
But that makes sense -- an ancient warrior is always aware, and wouldn't let someone sneak up behind him.
Irritating for the halfling as this creates that gap between friends who don't keep up.I used to have all these great* ideas for MMORPGs but I realize they all require that players put in a lot of time.
I choose not to anymore, so it's tough to get behind those ideas.
Getting rid of hit points in place of genuine damage, relating the environment, levels matter less, etc etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610877</id>
	<title>Re:Both are bad.</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1246992240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Success should be from solving a problem in novel ways, not grinding.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wish someone had told the lads at Mythic this.  Every time someone came up with a clever solution to a really hard quest, Mythic would change the quest so that solution no longer worked...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Success should be from solving a problem in novel ways , not grinding.Wish someone had told the lads at Mythic this .
Every time someone came up with a clever solution to a really hard quest , Mythic would change the quest so that solution no longer worked.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Success should be from solving a problem in novel ways, not grinding.Wish someone had told the lads at Mythic this.
Every time someone came up with a clever solution to a really hard quest, Mythic would change the quest so that solution no longer worked...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615569</id>
	<title>Re:Um, that's why they are games, not sports</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1246968780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see the difference between a computer game and a soccer kickabout in the park in terms of talent required.  There are very few pastimes that <i>require</i> skill.  A hobby, whether it's a sport or gaming, is just a way to have fun, whereas if I want to be skilled at soccer I would need to train regularly and that would make it less fun and more like a job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see the difference between a computer game and a soccer kickabout in the park in terms of talent required .
There are very few pastimes that require skill .
A hobby , whether it 's a sport or gaming , is just a way to have fun , whereas if I want to be skilled at soccer I would need to train regularly and that would make it less fun and more like a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see the difference between a computer game and a soccer kickabout in the park in terms of talent required.
There are very few pastimes that require skill.
A hobby, whether it's a sport or gaming, is just a way to have fun, whereas if I want to be skilled at soccer I would need to train regularly and that would make it less fun and more like a job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613093</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Feyshtey</author>
	<datestamp>1246957680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Edit his hosts file and redirect his favorite cheat sites to bogus IPs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<br> <br>
My boys know that if I caught them using cheat sites or hacks or something I'd lock the computer down completely for a while. I'm a firm believer in earning advancement, and the greater appreciation it gives in success. I have no evidence, but to me cheat sites (and any get-it-now shortcuts for kids) are the beginnings of a pattern of behavior that will lead to compromises in principles for the sake of instant gratification. And that is a recipe for disaster in later life. I would feel uncomfortable with allowing that type of behavior, personaly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Edit his hosts file and redirect his favorite cheat sites to bogus IPs : ) My boys know that if I caught them using cheat sites or hacks or something I 'd lock the computer down completely for a while .
I 'm a firm believer in earning advancement , and the greater appreciation it gives in success .
I have no evidence , but to me cheat sites ( and any get-it-now shortcuts for kids ) are the beginnings of a pattern of behavior that will lead to compromises in principles for the sake of instant gratification .
And that is a recipe for disaster in later life .
I would feel uncomfortable with allowing that type of behavior , personaly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Edit his hosts file and redirect his favorite cheat sites to bogus IPs :)
 
My boys know that if I caught them using cheat sites or hacks or something I'd lock the computer down completely for a while.
I'm a firm believer in earning advancement, and the greater appreciation it gives in success.
I have no evidence, but to me cheat sites (and any get-it-now shortcuts for kids) are the beginnings of a pattern of behavior that will lead to compromises in principles for the sake of instant gratification.
And that is a recipe for disaster in later life.
I would feel uncomfortable with allowing that type of behavior, personaly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610873</id>
	<title>I still favor Asheron's Call.</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1246992240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You had levels which gave you experience points which you used to buy up skills with.  The levels gave you points in which to buy skills.  At first the points to buy skills come quickly but quickly tapered off to 1 skill point per 5 levels, the highest priced skill was 16.  Since not all skills shared the same attributes you could not be totally reckless with your points.  Also, buying up the skill also slowed as each point cost more and more experience.</p><p>What did it lead to that was negative.  Well since both stats and skills cost experience to raise people would have absurd starting stats.  You initially were given 270 points to spend across six stats (or was it seven?) which meant that 10/100/10/10/100/100 combos appeared.  (think strength endurance quickness coordination intel and self:wisdom) .   It was easy to over come the low stats with just a few levels worth of experience to bring them up to comfort levels.  The reasoning behind this was that there was a cap to what you could spend experience wise in any stat - once it was hit no more could be bought so you started it as high as possible.  Stats contributed to the base rating of each skill you bought - which again had a cap on how much they could go up.</p><p>Overall it was a great classless system.  It however was placed in a world of great lore but the mobs were different enough to keep people from readily connecting to it.  Tradeskills worked just like any other skill so it was not uncommon to have trade only characters who got experience by pass up through allegiances.  Initially allegiances acted like the worst MLM, the guy at the top got a portion of everyone below, at different ranks in the chain you got percentages of everyone below you.  They tweaked it later to prevent the huge trees people built out of allegiances to exploit experience pass up.</p><p>By giving people distinct classes and levels it does provide an ease of entry for new players.  They know their role and how to progress.  It does make for a simpler game - which hopefully has complexities elsewhere to make up for it .   Think WOW.  While many begrudge the ease of play they ignore the complexity of raiding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You had levels which gave you experience points which you used to buy up skills with .
The levels gave you points in which to buy skills .
At first the points to buy skills come quickly but quickly tapered off to 1 skill point per 5 levels , the highest priced skill was 16 .
Since not all skills shared the same attributes you could not be totally reckless with your points .
Also , buying up the skill also slowed as each point cost more and more experience.What did it lead to that was negative .
Well since both stats and skills cost experience to raise people would have absurd starting stats .
You initially were given 270 points to spend across six stats ( or was it seven ?
) which meant that 10/100/10/10/100/100 combos appeared .
( think strength endurance quickness coordination intel and self : wisdom ) .
It was easy to over come the low stats with just a few levels worth of experience to bring them up to comfort levels .
The reasoning behind this was that there was a cap to what you could spend experience wise in any stat - once it was hit no more could be bought so you started it as high as possible .
Stats contributed to the base rating of each skill you bought - which again had a cap on how much they could go up.Overall it was a great classless system .
It however was placed in a world of great lore but the mobs were different enough to keep people from readily connecting to it .
Tradeskills worked just like any other skill so it was not uncommon to have trade only characters who got experience by pass up through allegiances .
Initially allegiances acted like the worst MLM , the guy at the top got a portion of everyone below , at different ranks in the chain you got percentages of everyone below you .
They tweaked it later to prevent the huge trees people built out of allegiances to exploit experience pass up.By giving people distinct classes and levels it does provide an ease of entry for new players .
They know their role and how to progress .
It does make for a simpler game - which hopefully has complexities elsewhere to make up for it .
Think WOW .
While many begrudge the ease of play they ignore the complexity of raiding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had levels which gave you experience points which you used to buy up skills with.
The levels gave you points in which to buy skills.
At first the points to buy skills come quickly but quickly tapered off to 1 skill point per 5 levels, the highest priced skill was 16.
Since not all skills shared the same attributes you could not be totally reckless with your points.
Also, buying up the skill also slowed as each point cost more and more experience.What did it lead to that was negative.
Well since both stats and skills cost experience to raise people would have absurd starting stats.
You initially were given 270 points to spend across six stats (or was it seven?
) which meant that 10/100/10/10/100/100 combos appeared.
(think strength endurance quickness coordination intel and self:wisdom) .
It was easy to over come the low stats with just a few levels worth of experience to bring them up to comfort levels.
The reasoning behind this was that there was a cap to what you could spend experience wise in any stat - once it was hit no more could be bought so you started it as high as possible.
Stats contributed to the base rating of each skill you bought - which again had a cap on how much they could go up.Overall it was a great classless system.
It however was placed in a world of great lore but the mobs were different enough to keep people from readily connecting to it.
Tradeskills worked just like any other skill so it was not uncommon to have trade only characters who got experience by pass up through allegiances.
Initially allegiances acted like the worst MLM, the guy at the top got a portion of everyone below, at different ranks in the chain you got percentages of everyone below you.
They tweaked it later to prevent the huge trees people built out of allegiances to exploit experience pass up.By giving people distinct classes and levels it does provide an ease of entry for new players.
They know their role and how to progress.
It does make for a simpler game - which hopefully has complexities elsewhere to make up for it .
Think WOW.
While many begrudge the ease of play they ignore the complexity of raiding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612813</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Quantus347</author>
	<datestamp>1246999500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, skill in this instance is something you must practice.  The basic line is drawn where you can gain skill by reading a FAQ.  In a level or build based game you can become dominant by simply copying a build or equiping the correct items.  In a skill based game (fighting, FTP) you have to have actual dexterous skill.  Knowing the map in a FPS is a big thing at higher skill levels, but you still need to have good aim and mobility etc.  And in fighting games, you can get all the moves off a FAQ or often the game itself, but you need to build the personal skill to actually pull them off.  RTS's IMO are less about personal skill than they are personal strategy.  Responsiveness plays a factor, but no more so than in WoW raiding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , skill in this instance is something you must practice .
The basic line is drawn where you can gain skill by reading a FAQ .
In a level or build based game you can become dominant by simply copying a build or equiping the correct items .
In a skill based game ( fighting , FTP ) you have to have actual dexterous skill .
Knowing the map in a FPS is a big thing at higher skill levels , but you still need to have good aim and mobility etc .
And in fighting games , you can get all the moves off a FAQ or often the game itself , but you need to build the personal skill to actually pull them off .
RTS 's IMO are less about personal skill than they are personal strategy .
Responsiveness plays a factor , but no more so than in WoW raiding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, skill in this instance is something you must practice.
The basic line is drawn where you can gain skill by reading a FAQ.
In a level or build based game you can become dominant by simply copying a build or equiping the correct items.
In a skill based game (fighting, FTP) you have to have actual dexterous skill.
Knowing the map in a FPS is a big thing at higher skill levels, but you still need to have good aim and mobility etc.
And in fighting games, you can get all the moves off a FAQ or often the game itself, but you need to build the personal skill to actually pull them off.
RTS's IMO are less about personal skill than they are personal strategy.
Responsiveness plays a factor, but no more so than in WoW raiding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613459</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>Feyshtey</author>
	<datestamp>1246959120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People that are intimately knowledgable of WoW's mechanics often can't play worth a crap. Particularly in PVP. The same can be said of BF2142, or SC, or C&amp;C, or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you name it. They may be completely aware of which skill is most appropriate to use in the situation they currently find themselves in. But their ability to execute it quickly and efficiently while keeping their adrenaline in check is a totally different story.
<br> <br>
Knowledge does not equate to skill. Ability to practically apply exceptional knowledge will not remotely gaurantee an exceptional result.

<br> <br>
I know the NHL rulebook front to back. I know how to explain position, cycles, focus, strategy, etc. I know what a player should or should not do in any number of situations. I know the high-percentage shot or play from pretty much anywhere on the ice. I can discuss plays and performance with the best of em (and have). But if you tie skates on me and shoved me onto the ice with pro's, I'd be lucky to come out with broken bones numbering in only the single-digits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People that are intimately knowledgable of WoW 's mechanics often ca n't play worth a crap .
Particularly in PVP .
The same can be said of BF2142 , or SC , or C&amp;C , or ... you name it .
They may be completely aware of which skill is most appropriate to use in the situation they currently find themselves in .
But their ability to execute it quickly and efficiently while keeping their adrenaline in check is a totally different story .
Knowledge does not equate to skill .
Ability to practically apply exceptional knowledge will not remotely gaurantee an exceptional result .
I know the NHL rulebook front to back .
I know how to explain position , cycles , focus , strategy , etc .
I know what a player should or should not do in any number of situations .
I know the high-percentage shot or play from pretty much anywhere on the ice .
I can discuss plays and performance with the best of em ( and have ) .
But if you tie skates on me and shoved me onto the ice with pro 's , I 'd be lucky to come out with broken bones numbering in only the single-digits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People that are intimately knowledgable of WoW's mechanics often can't play worth a crap.
Particularly in PVP.
The same can be said of BF2142, or SC, or C&amp;C, or ... you name it.
They may be completely aware of which skill is most appropriate to use in the situation they currently find themselves in.
But their ability to execute it quickly and efficiently while keeping their adrenaline in check is a totally different story.
Knowledge does not equate to skill.
Ability to practically apply exceptional knowledge will not remotely gaurantee an exceptional result.
I know the NHL rulebook front to back.
I know how to explain position, cycles, focus, strategy, etc.
I know what a player should or should not do in any number of situations.
I know the high-percentage shot or play from pretty much anywhere on the ice.
I can discuss plays and performance with the best of em (and have).
But if you tie skates on me and shoved me onto the ice with pro's, I'd be lucky to come out with broken bones numbering in only the single-digits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612159</id>
	<title>Meh, depends on what you call "skill".</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1246997100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If by "skill" they mean twitch-based skill, then any game that's too skill-based is going to drive me away.</p><p>Yeah, I can play those games, and I can do decently at some of them even on high difficulty settings sometimes (XB360 achievements sometimes prompt me to do this), but the effort-to-fun ratio just isn't there for me, and such games don't keep my interest for long.</p><p>But if "skill" means min-maxing, unraveling hidden game mechanics, optimizing progression paths, et cetera, then that's <em>incredibly</em> fun for me.</p><p>Basically, think of skill in three areas: strategic, tactical, and execution.  I'm a big fan of things that require skill in <em>strategy</em> ("cut off the supply lines before attacking the base", "if a faction controls a resource you need, either build a good relationship with them or destroy them utterly"), and also of things that require skill in <em>tactics</em> ("fight ice-based foes with fire", "attack from stealth where possible", "don't get within arm's reach of the ogre").  But I do not want to be bothered with games that require too much skill in <em>excecution</em> (ie. reflexes, physical coordination, reaction time).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If by " skill " they mean twitch-based skill , then any game that 's too skill-based is going to drive me away.Yeah , I can play those games , and I can do decently at some of them even on high difficulty settings sometimes ( XB360 achievements sometimes prompt me to do this ) , but the effort-to-fun ratio just is n't there for me , and such games do n't keep my interest for long.But if " skill " means min-maxing , unraveling hidden game mechanics , optimizing progression paths , et cetera , then that 's incredibly fun for me.Basically , think of skill in three areas : strategic , tactical , and execution .
I 'm a big fan of things that require skill in strategy ( " cut off the supply lines before attacking the base " , " if a faction controls a resource you need , either build a good relationship with them or destroy them utterly " ) , and also of things that require skill in tactics ( " fight ice-based foes with fire " , " attack from stealth where possible " , " do n't get within arm 's reach of the ogre " ) .
But I do not want to be bothered with games that require too much skill in excecution ( ie .
reflexes , physical coordination , reaction time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by "skill" they mean twitch-based skill, then any game that's too skill-based is going to drive me away.Yeah, I can play those games, and I can do decently at some of them even on high difficulty settings sometimes (XB360 achievements sometimes prompt me to do this), but the effort-to-fun ratio just isn't there for me, and such games don't keep my interest for long.But if "skill" means min-maxing, unraveling hidden game mechanics, optimizing progression paths, et cetera, then that's incredibly fun for me.Basically, think of skill in three areas: strategic, tactical, and execution.
I'm a big fan of things that require skill in strategy ("cut off the supply lines before attacking the base", "if a faction controls a resource you need, either build a good relationship with them or destroy them utterly"), and also of things that require skill in tactics ("fight ice-based foes with fire", "attack from stealth where possible", "don't get within arm's reach of the ogre").
But I do not want to be bothered with games that require too much skill in excecution (ie.
reflexes, physical coordination, reaction time).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28625701</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247080080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe i can bring some light to the super smash brothers percentage thing. as you have noticed, everytime a character gets a hit, the number goes up. and it seems nothing else happens. i you look closer though you will notice that the higher the number is, the harder is the knockback your character receives from a hit. the higher the number, the higher the chance your character will be knocked of the stage and fall down which get you -1 point. knocking someone else off the stage gets you +1 point. so its actually somewhat possible to sit on the stage with 300\% damage if you can somehow balance your character after a hit (the double jump + cliffhanger comes in handy there).  hope you understand the fighting system of super smash brothers now and btw i severely suck at this game. if me and my friends hang out at our console-freak-friends place - we are all between 24-27 years old, i will set aside the controller as soon as super smash brothers runs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe i can bring some light to the super smash brothers percentage thing .
as you have noticed , everytime a character gets a hit , the number goes up .
and it seems nothing else happens .
i you look closer though you will notice that the higher the number is , the harder is the knockback your character receives from a hit .
the higher the number , the higher the chance your character will be knocked of the stage and fall down which get you -1 point .
knocking someone else off the stage gets you + 1 point .
so its actually somewhat possible to sit on the stage with 300 \ % damage if you can somehow balance your character after a hit ( the double jump + cliffhanger comes in handy there ) .
hope you understand the fighting system of super smash brothers now and btw i severely suck at this game .
if me and my friends hang out at our console-freak-friends place - we are all between 24-27 years old , i will set aside the controller as soon as super smash brothers runs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe i can bring some light to the super smash brothers percentage thing.
as you have noticed, everytime a character gets a hit, the number goes up.
and it seems nothing else happens.
i you look closer though you will notice that the higher the number is, the harder is the knockback your character receives from a hit.
the higher the number, the higher the chance your character will be knocked of the stage and fall down which get you -1 point.
knocking someone else off the stage gets you +1 point.
so its actually somewhat possible to sit on the stage with 300\% damage if you can somehow balance your character after a hit (the double jump + cliffhanger comes in handy there).
hope you understand the fighting system of super smash brothers now and btw i severely suck at this game.
if me and my friends hang out at our console-freak-friends place - we are all between 24-27 years old, i will set aside the controller as soon as super smash brothers runs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612293</id>
	<title>Re:Guild Wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the same reason GW is a horrible game for casual players. Heroes (NPCs you can take to missions) are much better than most human players and if you want to actually play with human players, MMO style, it can take hours to find a group that doesn't consist of retards if you don't have a good guild / friends list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same reason GW is a horrible game for casual players .
Heroes ( NPCs you can take to missions ) are much better than most human players and if you want to actually play with human players , MMO style , it can take hours to find a group that does n't consist of retards if you do n't have a good guild / friends list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same reason GW is a horrible game for casual players.
Heroes (NPCs you can take to missions) are much better than most human players and if you want to actually play with human players, MMO style, it can take hours to find a group that doesn't consist of retards if you don't have a good guild / friends list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619533</id>
	<title>Innovation vs Algorithm not MMPOG vs RTS/FPS</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1247053320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all about innovation rather than algorithm.  PvP vs PvE not MMPOG vs RTS or FPS</p><p>PvE MMPOG, RTS, and FPS are all the same.  You are presented with an algorithm that you need to learn.  Once you've learned it you adapt your behavior in a way that the algorithm can't handle.  Then you win.</p><p>PvP MMPOG, RTS, and FPS are all the same.  You are presented with an innovating opponent.  One able to both present new and unique challenges and to adapt.  You cannot come up with an algorithm to beat it.</p><p>A computer program is programmed to be challenging.</p><p>A human wants to beat you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about innovation rather than algorithm .
PvP vs PvE not MMPOG vs RTS or FPSPvE MMPOG , RTS , and FPS are all the same .
You are presented with an algorithm that you need to learn .
Once you 've learned it you adapt your behavior in a way that the algorithm ca n't handle .
Then you win.PvP MMPOG , RTS , and FPS are all the same .
You are presented with an innovating opponent .
One able to both present new and unique challenges and to adapt .
You can not come up with an algorithm to beat it.A computer program is programmed to be challenging.A human wants to beat you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about innovation rather than algorithm.
PvP vs PvE not MMPOG vs RTS or FPSPvE MMPOG, RTS, and FPS are all the same.
You are presented with an algorithm that you need to learn.
Once you've learned it you adapt your behavior in a way that the algorithm can't handle.
Then you win.PvP MMPOG, RTS, and FPS are all the same.
You are presented with an innovating opponent.
One able to both present new and unique challenges and to adapt.
You cannot come up with an algorithm to beat it.A computer program is programmed to be challenging.A human wants to beat you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28623843</id>
	<title>Re:usage based</title>
	<author>Trojan35</author>
	<datestamp>1247073660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh. Yours sounds like a mind-numbing grind. "Ok you go get wacked by the monster, then I'll heal you so I get more XP. But Don't KILL the monster because then we'll have to find another one".</p><p>I'd rather get rewarded for successes, not forced to manipulate the game or get relegated to your "slow exp gain".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
Yours sounds like a mind-numbing grind .
" Ok you go get wacked by the monster , then I 'll heal you so I get more XP .
But Do n't KILL the monster because then we 'll have to find another one " .I 'd rather get rewarded for successes , not forced to manipulate the game or get relegated to your " slow exp gain " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
Yours sounds like a mind-numbing grind.
"Ok you go get wacked by the monster, then I'll heal you so I get more XP.
But Don't KILL the monster because then we'll have to find another one".I'd rather get rewarded for successes, not forced to manipulate the game or get relegated to your "slow exp gain".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614955</id>
	<title>Re:Faced the same issue on the tabletop</title>
	<author>Swordsmanus</author>
	<datestamp>1246965120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's kind of ironic that you mention 3.0 as the impetus for getting fed up with class/level systems, given that version 3.X in D&amp;D bucks the trend of all other versions of D&amp;D. For that matter it bucks the trend of all the class systems of RPGs that I know of except those specifically based off of D&amp;D 3.X. In D&amp;D 3.X you aren't stuck with the first class you pick. You aren't a Fighter from level 1 to 20 unless you want to be. At each new level you choose what class to add to your character, whether it's your existing class or a new one. You can mix up as many classes and prestige classes as you want as you level up to make a character that suits your needs. Each class level in D&amp;D is more a small package of abilities you choose, and at each level you also get to spend skill points as you will - another thing unique to D&amp;D 3.X and games derived directly from it. It's the least rigid, most versatile class system that I know of. It allows you to represent all kinds of character concepts and existing fantasy/game characters accurately if you have enough levels and source books to work with. I can't say the same for other class-based RPGs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's kind of ironic that you mention 3.0 as the impetus for getting fed up with class/level systems , given that version 3.X in D&amp;D bucks the trend of all other versions of D&amp;D .
For that matter it bucks the trend of all the class systems of RPGs that I know of except those specifically based off of D&amp;D 3.X .
In D&amp;D 3.X you are n't stuck with the first class you pick .
You are n't a Fighter from level 1 to 20 unless you want to be .
At each new level you choose what class to add to your character , whether it 's your existing class or a new one .
You can mix up as many classes and prestige classes as you want as you level up to make a character that suits your needs .
Each class level in D&amp;D is more a small package of abilities you choose , and at each level you also get to spend skill points as you will - another thing unique to D&amp;D 3.X and games derived directly from it .
It 's the least rigid , most versatile class system that I know of .
It allows you to represent all kinds of character concepts and existing fantasy/game characters accurately if you have enough levels and source books to work with .
I ca n't say the same for other class-based RPGs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's kind of ironic that you mention 3.0 as the impetus for getting fed up with class/level systems, given that version 3.X in D&amp;D bucks the trend of all other versions of D&amp;D.
For that matter it bucks the trend of all the class systems of RPGs that I know of except those specifically based off of D&amp;D 3.X.
In D&amp;D 3.X you aren't stuck with the first class you pick.
You aren't a Fighter from level 1 to 20 unless you want to be.
At each new level you choose what class to add to your character, whether it's your existing class or a new one.
You can mix up as many classes and prestige classes as you want as you level up to make a character that suits your needs.
Each class level in D&amp;D is more a small package of abilities you choose, and at each level you also get to spend skill points as you will - another thing unique to D&amp;D 3.X and games derived directly from it.
It's the least rigid, most versatile class system that I know of.
It allows you to represent all kinds of character concepts and existing fantasy/game characters accurately if you have enough levels and source books to work with.
I can't say the same for other class-based RPGs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612221</id>
	<title>Re:Skills - yes please</title>
	<author>n30na</author>
	<datestamp>1246997340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you, by chance, play eve online? =P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you , by chance , play eve online ?
= P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you, by chance, play eve online?
=P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611973</id>
	<title>Re:skill?</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1246996140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Knowledge is only half the battle, and separates the noobs from the seasoned players. At the pro level, you can assume that everyone already knows all there is to know about the mechanics, and it boils down to dexterity, wits, and cleverness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowledge is only half the battle , and separates the noobs from the seasoned players .
At the pro level , you can assume that everyone already knows all there is to know about the mechanics , and it boils down to dexterity , wits , and cleverness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowledge is only half the battle, and separates the noobs from the seasoned players.
At the pro level, you can assume that everyone already knows all there is to know about the mechanics, and it boils down to dexterity, wits, and cleverness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613869</id>
	<title>Character abilities should equal level.</title>
	<author>DigitalReverend</author>
	<datestamp>1246960740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I play WoW.  I used to play UO.  Skipped EQ/EQ2 altogether.  I think a combination of things should result in a character gaining a level.  It should be XP + some other requirement.   Some ideas off the top of my head would be a certain amount of XP plus, raising some other set of skills to a specific point and you gain a level.  So in WoW, you to go from level 10 to 11 you would maybe need 20,000 XP, plus your cooking and one of your weapons skills must be at x amount of points and you must have earned Y amount of gold. As you gain more levels, the requirements to go to the next level increase.  By the time you hit the level cap, you would have really learned all aspects of your character, become a productive member of at least your guild and truly get a sense of accomplishment.</p><p>80 levels of button mashing isn't an accomplishment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I play WoW .
I used to play UO .
Skipped EQ/EQ2 altogether .
I think a combination of things should result in a character gaining a level .
It should be XP + some other requirement .
Some ideas off the top of my head would be a certain amount of XP plus , raising some other set of skills to a specific point and you gain a level .
So in WoW , you to go from level 10 to 11 you would maybe need 20,000 XP , plus your cooking and one of your weapons skills must be at x amount of points and you must have earned Y amount of gold .
As you gain more levels , the requirements to go to the next level increase .
By the time you hit the level cap , you would have really learned all aspects of your character , become a productive member of at least your guild and truly get a sense of accomplishment.80 levels of button mashing is n't an accomplishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I play WoW.
I used to play UO.
Skipped EQ/EQ2 altogether.
I think a combination of things should result in a character gaining a level.
It should be XP + some other requirement.
Some ideas off the top of my head would be a certain amount of XP plus, raising some other set of skills to a specific point and you gain a level.
So in WoW, you to go from level 10 to 11 you would maybe need 20,000 XP, plus your cooking and one of your weapons skills must be at x amount of points and you must have earned Y amount of gold.
As you gain more levels, the requirements to go to the next level increase.
By the time you hit the level cap, you would have really learned all aspects of your character, become a productive member of at least your guild and truly get a sense of accomplishment.80 levels of button mashing isn't an accomplishment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611905</id>
	<title>Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MMOs often don't really encourage the players to acquire skill, because in many parts of the game you just don't need it. The target audience are noobs.<br>In high-end PvE areas or PvP however, you'll quickly notice the difference between a good healer and a bad one. Same goes for most other classes, although some classes are definately easier to master than others.</p><p>When you compare MMOs to FPS/RTS games, you have to consider that in FPS and RTS all players have pretty much the same setup (balanced for 1vs1), while in MMOs the classes are mostly designed in a scissors-stone-paper way (balanced for mass battles). That means a certain class may have an advantage over the other in small scale battles, no matter how skilled the players are.<br>This often leads to the conclusion that the game doesn't take any skill, because one class always wins, but actually the losing player just picks a bad matchup.</p><p>The main skills in MMOs, except knowing the game of course, are timing and good positioning. These skills won't make you invincible when you're alone, but the more good players play together the bigger the difference will be.</p><p>Skill based vs level based: I prefer level based games... in skill based games' PvE you rely more on other players and I don't like to rely on noobs (target audience, remember). Play Guild Wars with random groups and you'll kn-<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no, don't. It'll give you nightmares.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MMOs often do n't really encourage the players to acquire skill , because in many parts of the game you just do n't need it .
The target audience are noobs.In high-end PvE areas or PvP however , you 'll quickly notice the difference between a good healer and a bad one .
Same goes for most other classes , although some classes are definately easier to master than others.When you compare MMOs to FPS/RTS games , you have to consider that in FPS and RTS all players have pretty much the same setup ( balanced for 1vs1 ) , while in MMOs the classes are mostly designed in a scissors-stone-paper way ( balanced for mass battles ) .
That means a certain class may have an advantage over the other in small scale battles , no matter how skilled the players are.This often leads to the conclusion that the game does n't take any skill , because one class always wins , but actually the losing player just picks a bad matchup.The main skills in MMOs , except knowing the game of course , are timing and good positioning .
These skills wo n't make you invincible when you 're alone , but the more good players play together the bigger the difference will be.Skill based vs level based : I prefer level based games... in skill based games ' PvE you rely more on other players and I do n't like to rely on noobs ( target audience , remember ) .
Play Guild Wars with random groups and you 'll kn- ... no , do n't .
It 'll give you nightmares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MMOs often don't really encourage the players to acquire skill, because in many parts of the game you just don't need it.
The target audience are noobs.In high-end PvE areas or PvP however, you'll quickly notice the difference between a good healer and a bad one.
Same goes for most other classes, although some classes are definately easier to master than others.When you compare MMOs to FPS/RTS games, you have to consider that in FPS and RTS all players have pretty much the same setup (balanced for 1vs1), while in MMOs the classes are mostly designed in a scissors-stone-paper way (balanced for mass battles).
That means a certain class may have an advantage over the other in small scale battles, no matter how skilled the players are.This often leads to the conclusion that the game doesn't take any skill, because one class always wins, but actually the losing player just picks a bad matchup.The main skills in MMOs, except knowing the game of course, are timing and good positioning.
These skills won't make you invincible when you're alone, but the more good players play together the bigger the difference will be.Skill based vs level based: I prefer level based games... in skill based games' PvE you rely more on other players and I don't like to rely on noobs (target audience, remember).
Play Guild Wars with random groups and you'll kn- ... no, don't.
It'll give you nightmares.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610925</id>
	<title>Re:Both are bad.</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1246992420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy, and hard encounters are impossible until you level up, at which point they are easy. It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher. You didn't learn shit.</p></div><p>Half true, half false. Usually you have more attacks, more skills, more HP and mana management at higher levels. You just don't notice it because you're getting pretty good at it. Of course every MMORPG includes one click-the-button class (usually warrior) for those that just want to be part of the group and not manage anything like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy , and hard encounters are impossible until you level up , at which point they are easy .
It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game , which is enjoyable , but in fact your character is just tougher .
You did n't learn shit.Half true , half false .
Usually you have more attacks , more skills , more HP and mana management at higher levels .
You just do n't notice it because you 're getting pretty good at it .
Of course every MMORPG includes one click-the-button class ( usually warrior ) for those that just want to be part of the group and not manage anything like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with too many RPGs is that easy encounters are easy, and hard encounters are impossible until you level up, at which point they are easy.
It FEELS like you are gaining skill at the game, which is enjoyable, but in fact your character is just tougher.
You didn't learn shit.Half true, half false.
Usually you have more attacks, more skills, more HP and mana management at higher levels.
You just don't notice it because you're getting pretty good at it.
Of course every MMORPG includes one click-the-button class (usually warrior) for those that just want to be part of the group and not manage anything like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614387</id>
	<title>Re:and baking is just knowing the recipe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246962660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also the notion of reinventing the wheel. I've played multiple mmorpgs, for one I was only about 6 months late in being part of the start, so when I got to endgame which was still underpopulated, I got into one of the high end guilds, they taught me everything and showed me guides on how to do the fights. For a long time this was what we did, we looked up guides on how to beat new bosses, until finally we were able to attempt new monsters as they were released (no information), and ever since then we had to figure things out on our own, make our own strategies and etc..</p><p>Now I'm in a new mmo, just recently hit the level cap, I'm looking up the info for all the fights I do now since everyone else seems to know them and not knowing what to do hurts the group, I've been a leader of a guild before, I've planned my own strategies, figured out how to beat stuff, but here I am as a nameless "newbie" gearing up and preparing to maybe one day be at the leading edge of this new game.<br>
&nbsp; <br>For mmo's it's all about being on a curve, if you're far behind the curve it only makes sense to look up strategies and follow a guide to quickly catch up, once you're at the top you're forced to become innovative. Strategies also rarely work 100\% to plan, if you're not able to think on the spot or adjust to your group's setup, you're going to stagnate on your place on the curve.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Also in super smash, the damage meter is much more realistic and skill involving than you realize, Basically when you're at 0\% a strong hit will knock you back maybe 2 steps, at 150\% a minor hit could knock you back halfway across the screen, heavier characters are able to survive with more damage (but are always slower at moving, or fall faster and have shorter jumps) The goal is to knock someone off the screen, which is nearly impossible to do at 0-50\% and gets progressively easier to do from there. A skilled player can go well above 200\% and not die if he's able to avoid any strong attacks, while an unskilled player will never find themselves over 100\% without dying. It also adds a nice psychological factor, at low \%'s you can afford to be more rash and go for a big hit that'll leave you open, but at high \%'s you're going to be scared for your life and probably avoid close encounters and depend on ranged attacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also the notion of reinventing the wheel .
I 've played multiple mmorpgs , for one I was only about 6 months late in being part of the start , so when I got to endgame which was still underpopulated , I got into one of the high end guilds , they taught me everything and showed me guides on how to do the fights .
For a long time this was what we did , we looked up guides on how to beat new bosses , until finally we were able to attempt new monsters as they were released ( no information ) , and ever since then we had to figure things out on our own , make our own strategies and etc..Now I 'm in a new mmo , just recently hit the level cap , I 'm looking up the info for all the fights I do now since everyone else seems to know them and not knowing what to do hurts the group , I 've been a leader of a guild before , I 've planned my own strategies , figured out how to beat stuff , but here I am as a nameless " newbie " gearing up and preparing to maybe one day be at the leading edge of this new game .
  For mmo 's it 's all about being on a curve , if you 're far behind the curve it only makes sense to look up strategies and follow a guide to quickly catch up , once you 're at the top you 're forced to become innovative .
Strategies also rarely work 100 \ % to plan , if you 're not able to think on the spot or adjust to your group 's setup , you 're going to stagnate on your place on the curve .
  Also in super smash , the damage meter is much more realistic and skill involving than you realize , Basically when you 're at 0 \ % a strong hit will knock you back maybe 2 steps , at 150 \ % a minor hit could knock you back halfway across the screen , heavier characters are able to survive with more damage ( but are always slower at moving , or fall faster and have shorter jumps ) The goal is to knock someone off the screen , which is nearly impossible to do at 0-50 \ % and gets progressively easier to do from there .
A skilled player can go well above 200 \ % and not die if he 's able to avoid any strong attacks , while an unskilled player will never find themselves over 100 \ % without dying .
It also adds a nice psychological factor , at low \ % 's you can afford to be more rash and go for a big hit that 'll leave you open , but at high \ % 's you 're going to be scared for your life and probably avoid close encounters and depend on ranged attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also the notion of reinventing the wheel.
I've played multiple mmorpgs, for one I was only about 6 months late in being part of the start, so when I got to endgame which was still underpopulated, I got into one of the high end guilds, they taught me everything and showed me guides on how to do the fights.
For a long time this was what we did, we looked up guides on how to beat new bosses, until finally we were able to attempt new monsters as they were released (no information), and ever since then we had to figure things out on our own, make our own strategies and etc..Now I'm in a new mmo, just recently hit the level cap, I'm looking up the info for all the fights I do now since everyone else seems to know them and not knowing what to do hurts the group, I've been a leader of a guild before, I've planned my own strategies, figured out how to beat stuff, but here I am as a nameless "newbie" gearing up and preparing to maybe one day be at the leading edge of this new game.
  For mmo's it's all about being on a curve, if you're far behind the curve it only makes sense to look up strategies and follow a guide to quickly catch up, once you're at the top you're forced to become innovative.
Strategies also rarely work 100\% to plan, if you're not able to think on the spot or adjust to your group's setup, you're going to stagnate on your place on the curve.
  Also in super smash, the damage meter is much more realistic and skill involving than you realize, Basically when you're at 0\% a strong hit will knock you back maybe 2 steps, at 150\% a minor hit could knock you back halfway across the screen, heavier characters are able to survive with more damage (but are always slower at moving, or fall faster and have shorter jumps) The goal is to knock someone off the screen, which is nearly impossible to do at 0-50\% and gets progressively easier to do from there.
A skilled player can go well above 200\% and not die if he's able to avoid any strong attacks, while an unskilled player will never find themselves over 100\% without dying.
It also adds a nice psychological factor, at low \%'s you can afford to be more rash and go for a big hit that'll leave you open, but at high \%'s you're going to be scared for your life and probably avoid close encounters and depend on ranged attacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28621833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28624447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28625489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28621519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28617001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28630555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28643383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28628967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28623965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28630151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28625701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28617633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28621061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_163236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28623843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28625489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28630555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28621061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613149
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28630151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28623843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28621519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28643383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28617633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611697
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613093
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618349
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614387
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612847
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613447
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613193
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612095
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613665
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28628967
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612451
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28621833
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616923
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613675
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28625701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28615137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28616313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28612439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28623965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28624447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28617001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28613819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_163236.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28620893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28619133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28611667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28610877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28618231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_163236.28614515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
