MMORPGs - Skill Vs. Time: which is better?

exactly that i missed too for GW ..., hate this dumb lvl 20 cap for PvE..for pvp its fine and very good, makes PvP most balanced, but in PvE, we don't need such a shit like level caps...

In PvE i want to improve my character over time and that my chara "can" reach anytime the strengh, so that i become even able to solo places, which i had to do x levels before with a full party ...

could anyone in the moment imagine, how it would end, when you really try to solo any dungeons with ur lvl 20 chara , which is full of lvl 28 Monsters or even higher, when soon HM comes ...
When you really try it alone (solo, which means without any henchs or heroes, you get only killed in several seconds ....
In an classical real MMORPG you could improve the strength of your character over time and come back later to the places to solo them

something like our vanguisher titles would be a lot more awesome, when you could really do them ALONE, but we can#t, we need ever to have for every shit full parties -.-

Sure its naturally called a MMO, but the player has long enough played with others, before you became strongh enough to really solo places ..
This is, like as if you could run with your lvl 20 chara back to the presearing tutorial and could theoretically go there with a 8 man party, would anyone go there with 8 people, when you easily could all there alone ?
Sure, people would do this only for fun maybe ... and this fun should be possible, but Anet doesn't enables us this kind of fun, cause of their god damn level cap in PvE ...

I'm very glad, that level cap in GW2 will be raised to 100 and that the game becomes thusby more a classical MMORPG, because how high ur max level is, and the problem of grind fest occurs only ,when the game gives the players over time only too less Exp, so that they can't max their charas by normal player, when you could reahc level 100 through normal playing by making missions, quests and so on, no one would complain about grinding ...

give Missions and so on then level Requirements, which tell which level playersm ust be to make the missions and no one could rush through the game, like players do in GW1, rushing through missions with minimal level by help through lvl 20 charas oO ...

such rushing is imo not the sense of the game, mission level reqs in GW2 would also help preventing, that people wouldn't took others into a party, cause of their too low level, what is an old problem of classical old MMORPG's

I asked me ever, why Anet made it not like the example i quoted here now friom Clord... stand alone games fine and good, but anet also said, making ever stand onle games stopped them from making real good game improvement,s because they had to make ever again new tutorials, whihc have eaten up ever much storage place for the new game ...

Im still at the opinion, that a game needs only 1 main game, and after that only add ons, which improve the main game, because its lots easier to handle a game, as when u make thousands of stand alone games, which split up only the community, as we can see in GW1 ...

everything is in EotN, and the campaigns become more and more empty over time ..., with only 1 main game and x add ons ,this won't happen ...

increasing the max level cap of pve also enables the developers to balance enemies far better, then ever putting only more and more masses of monsters against the players, which will have ever only like 33% higher max levels then the players, to make the enemies challenging ...

enemies can also be challenging, when they have the same max level of players, and the only thing which should have higher levels then players should be epic boss enemies, but most bosses of Guild Wars are just boring and far away from being epic, bosses starte now first to become a bit more epic with EotN ...

I really hope, these ancient dragons in GW2 will be the big change, because those ones alone in the description sounded, as if there iwll be finally await us real epic enemies in GW2
===========

About the topic at all:

I find, a mix about both is the best for a MMORPG, would we mix features from GW and certain thing from WoW (implement other features from other wowlike classical MMORPG's), i think we would receive the perfect MMORPG

Both systems have their pros and cons

In old classical RPG's (which work with the system of offline RPGs) i really loved it ever, to train my Characters over time, when my character received a new level, to put then received points into Status attributes, like Strength, Vitality, Agility, Wisdom, Intelligence and so on

But most old classical MMO's have then damn problem, that they make this system not for players resetable, which is the nice feature of GW, that you can ever change ur settings, when you want, would a developer do this in an classical MMORPG with such classical stats, we would have again the perfect classical MMORPG, because then the problem in such MMO's wouldn't exist, that players could skill their characters false and get forced to make new characters, when they have misskilled their stats...

Also one classical problem of classical MMORPGs is camping and kill stealing, btw loot stealing, last one solved anet still in GW1

Same thing could do ANet surely to enemies, once a player has targeted an enemy, the enemy belongs to the player who has targeted it, thus meaning, when a possible kill stealer will appear now, and kill ur tageted monster, the kill stealer won't receive exp then, only the player who has targeted the enemy first will receive the exp, and when targeted, but not killed, after say 10 minutes the taget won't count anymore, when the targeted enemy is until then not killed and the player has to target it again.

stays only the problem of camping and respawns, im very interested, how anet will solve this in GW2 with its persistant world

However, would have done anet at the beginning for PvE this example there above, game would be a lot better and the community wouldn't be so extreme splitted ingame

Hm, skill is hard to define here? What is skill? Is skill grabbing the right build from wiki? Or maybe reading an article on how to complete a certain mission? Knowing how to exploit certain weaknesses? Having a lucky team?

I think we need a good mix between time invested/dedication/veterance at the one hand and skill/knowing how to/strategy at the other hand. Imo Guild Wars always has been too much on the side of skill with it's low level cap and lack of better item stats for greens and other high-end stuff. I'm glad to read that Guild Wars 2 will have a better balance, so I'm looking forward to the release to the game.

PS. I do NOT like endless grinding.

QFT. Were & how you focus or design based on one or the other is the key.

I'd say skill is better and more funz. Like the Super Smash Brothers game. But you need to spend time to get good at stuff too, but that's not the same as spending time to level and then spend time to get good.
Asian MMO's are really about time and grind, compared to US MMO's the grind is wayy harder and longer. But then most Asian MMO's have good graphics. I think Guild Wars is an exception with the graphics, it's got great ones but I think that's because Anet sent it to NCSoft which does a few of those grindy Asian MMO's and it had to be to NCSoft's standards.

Skill > Time. For everyone connecting greater skill with greater time spent, you're correct, but a bit out of context.

The OP is directing the comparison at games using the different systems, not within the same game (GW) where you do develop more skill over a period of time. It's really a comparison of high and low level caps. You need to take GW's quick-to-max-level approach and compare it with other games that have an extremely high cap that requires extensive amounts of time to reach.

Low cap - you quickly reach upper levels for health, energy, attributes, armor, damage, etc. There's a ceiling everyone gets to fairly quick compared to most games. The environment is also build around these same requirements and balance is forced as a result. When a ceiling is in place you'll find the players get better at maximizing their abilities within those constraints.

Now take a uber-high level cap game. Health, energy, weapon damage, armor values... all constantly increase. There is no balance. You cannot compete with someone levels ahead of you with "leet" gear... just the fact that they are there is enough for them to beat you. Players develop enough to do what works, and as their characters grow they get better by default. There will inevitably be some who increase in skills, but skill stagnation is inevitable with the majority... for the majority, if you can better without having to work for it you will tend to do so (again, with exceptions of course).

Skill vs Time is really simply Getting Better Because You Have To vs. Getting Better Because You've Been Playing A Long Time And Get Better.

To me, personally, the low cap methodology is superior.

Behold the power SCIENCE!!

http://www.sirlin.net/?p=178

I personally feel that "winning" in *any* context should be a meritocracy, that only skill equates to reward. I'm not going into depth on this because the Gamasutra article in that link explains my feelings more eloquently than I could ever hope to express myself. Just pretend he's discussing Guild Wars and it still makes sense.

I say you cant have an MMO without either! Obviously it requires skill, but you should also get rewarded for being a long running player.

I dont see why either is an issue!

As for all this talk about certain things requires alot of time to achieve, like title ranks. Those are optional, so there is no force on you to do them. I concider a reward for playing that long to be the rainbow pheonix and the HOM.

But GWEN or GWs at a whole, doesnt really contain any real reward for playing for long times, other then festivals and maybe prestige armor. But only the pheonix could be considered a reward because its free.

I like both styles and will play whichever I am in the mood for. There is nothing inherently wrong with either mindset, which is why it dissappoints me when I see people saying that GW should reward you for time played. I already have plenty of games like that, GW is the only one I have that doesn't. If I wanted to be the top dog in a game, I would play one of the others. But when I don't, I play GW.

What you are asking me is do I want to be graded based upon who gets the most right answers in the classroom (on a curve) or on who spends the most time in the library...

Is there a way I can pick Neither?

There is no way to avoid a certain amount of grading on the curve, if you will, in PvP. It is competition against one another which is exactly what grading on the curve is about - forcing students to compete against one another so the one with most right takes top position on the ladder. I can accept this for PvP. But why should it be so for PvE? Nor is grind, death leveling, etc. any indication of getting good grades. Just because you stay in the library for 100 hours does not show your quality, dedication, or achievement.

Right now there are the Norn Fighting rings. You beat X number of guys you get a cup - class over. Take the class again if you want to. You beat a certain person, sign them up in your livery for competing against the environment or hero battles. These are event achievements. Now, when beat X number of guys for your grade becomes beat 2,000,000 guys and pay 100 gold every time you go out side or it won't count - then it is no longer event achievement it is Grind.

Slay the five great dragons to be title Legendary Dragon Slayor - that is event achievement; slay 1,000,000 dragons is grind/time in game. I dont want to play a grind fest. I have never wanted to play a grind fest. Nor am I in game to see who has the biggest. Comparison on the grade does not mean anything to me, and I find those who need it to be rather immature, or even too centered in the consciousness of self (does not mean selfish).

What makes the GW skill set work is not that it lets someone who is totally incompetant vs someone who is flawless at all things in life play on equal footing. Those two persons do not now exist and have never existed. What GW skills allow for is the myriad of ways in which people are simply different and can therefore function in different ways more efficiently. Some people have naturally developed fast twitch muscle - which is a different kind of muscle than is needed for raw power. Some people have an easier time with one kind of math versus another. Thsoe differences can make it easier for one person to play an interupter, another a degener, another a nuker, and another a tank. Therefore the only good skill bar for a person is the one that lets them play to their own personal advantages - not the one that compares them on a curve against someone else.

So, my vote is for GW 2 to be neither about time in game, nor about grading on the curve, but about Event Achievement. And any good manager knows that efforts to attaining goals are divided into stages and steps - not set up for grind.

I played street fighter 2 since 1992, there was no such thing as ranking nor achievement nor character development nor titles, but because when people saw me play, then they knew I was good, and no matter what fighting games I play, even the most unfamiliar ones, I could win by applying the most fundamental skill sets I transferred from playing street fighters. Guild Wars PvP had the potential to be that, but it was lost on the way.

PvE I could care less, because if I would invest that much time in some titles that rewards ME nothing, in terms of being a better leader, a better thinker, a better planner or a better player. To say the least PvE is a story line, a book to say, not even with the best selling writers, maybe some average joe hired by some software company, why spent so much time on it? What is a quest teaching you? What is a mission teaching you? Nothing.

I refuse to be an acolyte of a game, following blindly and cheerful about everything it offers, I stayed because I see potential for this game to be greater than others, it headed to the right direction.

To Anet: Don't trade your ideals for profit. Things that are done right needs to be encourage no matter what, and now it's the time to do it because players are more awaken than ever.

A top of the ladder Hero Battle player will tell you skill.

A person with r7 KoaBD will tell you time.

Me? Actually, I just like my games to be fun to play, please?

For starters, I like GW's fairly low level cap. I wouldn't be averse to a higher one, but an absence of, or a large, difficult to max, level cap would be aggravating to me. I don't want to feel that to play in the hardest areas, I HAVE to spend a lot of time grinding levels, like in WoW.
The only real grind in Guild Wars (yes, I'll admit that FoW armors, and some of the more expensive weapons require a grind) is for titles. These are by no means necessary, and its nice to have a few titles to show off.
As for skill... well, compared to most MMORPGs, Guild Wars has done a fine job with PvP. Its a level playing field - despite some of the balancing issues, as everyone can take a certain build (case in point is Hero Arena R/P builds) and the majority of it is... well, if not skill, teamwork.
And fun? Well, except when I'm in a vanquish failing miserably, its pretty fun. I guess you guys must agree, otherwise you wouldn't play it. (Though, the amount of complaining on this forum persuades me that some people don't, which begs the question... if they really don't enjoy the game, why are they playing?). I probably would find grinding my Luxon title track up to Savior a real bore. So I don't. I mean, I'd like the title, but I wouldn't enjoy it. So I stick to my favorite non-grind title - vanquishing. Its turning out to be a nice little earner too... I didn't have to farm a cent to get my Norn armor. So what I say to the question posed is that neither skill not time is better. Just find something you enjoy.

Personally, I like to have both. To be honest, my favorite part of MMORPGs is seeing my character grow over time. In GW after a while my character seemed to stop growing, which made it a lot less fun for me.

However, I also LOVE the fact that I never have to worry about my friends being 1 billion levels higher than me or vice versa.

The perfect system, IMHO, is where you can continue to level for a long time and get better gear but the difference in strength between levels gets radically smaller as levels go up. Think about it as a comparison between major vigor runes and superior ones... 41 and 50 are practically the same number in terms of effectiveness in PvE, but yet one is more powerful than another to give a sense of character progression

Another game that got leveling down near perfectly is Planetside. In Planetside a lvl 1 character can still outplay a lvl 20 character, but a lvl 20 character has many more options in playstyle than a lvl 1. One day a lvl 20 might choose to focus on healing, the next day heavy weaponry, and the day after creating deployables. None of those are more powerful options than the other, but a lvl 20 has access to them ALL whereas a lvl 1 character does not.

If GW2 was like either of those systems... wow... it would be amazing. However, ANet is good with innovation, so maybe they will come up with something even better!

skill= time

usually although there are cases like a junior bobby fisher but then again who r we kidding we are gamers.

Kinda chicken or the egg here.

Skill requires an investment of time

Investing time can result in improvement of skill

I don't consider Hero Battles a legit form of PvP

I think what the OP was asking is whether you prefer getting a reward from completing a challenging task or from completing an easy task 50 times.

I agree. Guild Wars has a changing metagame. You can't use the same set of skills over and over and expect it to be as useful as they were when GW was released. You will have to adapt. That takes player talent.

You have all completely missed the point.

Skill > Time does not mean that you don't get better with practice. Of course you should win more if you practice more and get better at the game. Its just like any sport or chess. But what skill > time SHOULD mean is that a level 50 never gets an advantage over a level 1 simply by virtue of being level 50. Its like giving a basketball team a ball with +15% chance of making free throws if they get a lucky drop or giving one chess player a bishop with 50% resistance to knights because he played more games. It makes a mockery of the competitive game, and tosses the human skill element right out the window. The field must always be equal, and then those with skill, either by practice or by inherent ability, should win against those who lack skill, regardless of how many more hours the unskilled people log. That's the difference between skill, including skill that you develop by practice, and time, including time spent repeating the same mistakes.

Skill should always, Always, ALWAYS trump time. Time should NEVER give an inherent advantage. Practice can develop skill, but practice should never give an inherent advantage.

The skill based approach makes for much better gameplay. Although, I understand how some people can favor the time-based approach, I think it's rather stupid. Most people who favor time > skill are, quite frankly, loosers. They often have a great deal of time on their hands, aren't very smart, and are rarely very good at anything. There are a lot of people like this, and you can find most of them playing WoW, working in fast food (I'm talking long-term fast food employees here), or working in the exciting feild of sanatation engineering (a.k.a. janitor), et cetera. When your time isn't very valuable because you're a looser, games that make you a winner just by you spending time playing them are very attractive.

Now, you can argue that time spent and your skill are roughly proportionate, and this is true to some degree. People need time to develop skill, obviously, but I think everyone knows the amount of time some people need to get good at something is a lot less than the amount of time other people need. This doesn't always reflect their maximum potential, but I think it's a fairly good indicator. Someone who's been playing two weeks and is better than an average player who's been playing for a year is probably going to be a better player. It's not always true, but it's true enough to be a useful measuring device.

Similarly, you can try to equate time and experience, but I don't think this is very accurate. Smart/talented people pick up on things other people don't, or pick up on it much faster. Again, the more anyone plays the more experience they'll gain, but some people are going to walk out of an identical situation with a different amount of things learned, and sometimes different things learned. An example of this would be two Warriors trying to complete the Nolani Academy mission in Prophecies. A dumb player might, while trying to complete the bonus, aggro a bunch of ghosts and die. The smart player might do the same thing the first time. The second time around, though, I'll bet the smart player performs better. He's learned not to aggro too many ghosts, and he's probably also thinking 'is there any other factor that is causing them to run to me like rabbid dogs one after the other? Is there another strategy I can employ to finish this faster, etc.' The dumb player is probably going to try something very similar to what he did the last time, not giving it much thought, and thinking to himself 'if I just try hard enough I'll do it eventually.' Basically, the smart player is actively trying to improve/succeed, and the average player is trying again (there's a qualitative difference between just trying again and trying to succeed). By the time they complete the mission, one player is probably going to think 'wow that was a hard bonus I kept dying, I wonder why they made it so hard' and the other might think 'So, if I ever attempt that bonus again the key is to do X and Y, and I should watch out incase any similar situations pop up later on.' There's a really big difference in what the two players took away after playing that mission. (Oh, and you sould assume it took them both the exact same amount of time to finish for this argument, even though I'd bet the smart player finishes sooner, because he's probably got a better group, and has learned enough by now about how the game works to complete the mission in a much more effective manner than the other guy)

One thing I think the OP was complaining about was the inability to recognize better players because of what makes a player better in a skill-based system. Looking at the example of the two warriors, it was really their mindset, and what they took away from the experience. There were no outward signs you can instantly see if you were to walk up to the player in town. You can't say "they have 15k armor they must be good!" At least, you can't say it with any degree of accuracy. You also can't judge people based on titles, etc. Because they don't really show skill. I think this is actually a problem with Guild Wars, is it's hard to recognize how skilled a player really is without playing with them a fair amount. There are players that everyone knows because they're good, though, for example if I asked random noobs in RA AD 1 if Soul Wedding was good, all of them who had ever heard of Soul Weeding would say "yes." If I asked them if player X was good, and none of them had ever heard of them, they'd probably say "no." So basically things that accurately reflect how you rank against other people are the real judges of skill. Guild Wars has a ladder, and you can be in a guild that is #1 on the ladder and has gold trim and still be a terrible player... I could go on and on about this, and since I'm just writing this because I'm bored, I'm not going to bother. I'm just going to conclude that the only accurate measure of skill in Guild Wars at the moment is judging a player from first hand experience/observation, and even that can be tainted by bias. Other things like what guild they're in, and what rank does have some correlation with skill, but it's loose enough that it doesn't mean a lot. Sure, most good players have at least a wolf or a tiger, but so do thousands of terrible players, so you can't use that as a factor in determining weither a player is any good; saying "all good players are rank X" (assume for arguments sake that it is true) is not the same as saying "all players who are rank X are good." I think I've made my point, and I feel like I've been rambling so I'm moving on. (Yeah, someone is going to say my entire post is rambling, but I'm basically writing what pops into my head with absolutely zero editing, and at 2 am, so judging by that standard this post is actually pretty good! )

I think a lot of the problem with telling if people are good comes from the fact most people aren't. Additionally, most people use bad ways of measuring if someone is good. I know I've said this before in my previous paragraph, but you can not judge someone accurately just by looking at what they've accomplished. Heck, one could claim they were #1 in an "open tournament." This could be true, they could be the winner of a 1 vs 1 guild hall scrimmage tournament. There are actually people who tout this as something important. Obviously, it doesn't mean anything about how good that player is, because there's no accurate way to measure based on the information you have. The only accurate way to measure a players skill is by actually seeing them play, not their accomplishments in the game.

Anyway, a skill-based system is superior to a time-based system because it's accurate, and limits the amount of wasted time you have to suffer while playing. Why would you want to spend 5 minutes flying to another city (an action that doesn't benefit you at all aside from transport) if you could just map there instantly? Basically, what I'm trying to say is in a skill-based system your time isn't wasted, which is really good for people whos time is actually valuable.

Additionally, a purely skill-based system is great for the competitive player. They don't ever have to say "Well, I could have won if I had access to the rocket launcher, but the other guy deserves the win because he spent a lot of time playing to unlock it!" Nor would they ever say that; they'd rage at the game for being stupid and making you suffer through pointless grind. In a skill-based game the only factor that matters is you. You get an accurate measuring of how good you are against other players, because the only difference between you and those other players is how good you are at the game. In my rambling, I'm really not doing the exquisite beauty of the skill-based game justice, but for any competitive player that's ever played one, you know what I'm taling about. For you time-based grindmasters, you're probably thinking: "but a guy who worked to unlock the rocket launcher should totally beat the guy who still needs to play 25 more hours to unlock it1!1!1!11!1!1111111!" It's really a matter of opinion, but you'll find that smart/competitive players like games that reward skill, and loosers like games that reward time.

I should probably take a paragraph to clarify some things. First, I don't mean to offend anyone who prefers the time-based approach. I hopefully didn't say everyone who prefers it is a looser. I know some very smart people who actually do prefer it, simply because they don't need to think. I also understand that my post is mostly unfocused rambling. I've done a really poor job of explaining the differences between the two approaches, and in the differences between the types of players who prefer each approach. In fact, my whole post is one giant genralization that contains information most people probably already know... But, whatever, maybe I'll come back tomorrow, look at this post, then delete and write something that doesn't suck as much. Then again, this post is about average quality (although in the lower bounds) for this area of the forum, so maybe I'm just judging myself too harshly... Hey, I'm rambling again guys!

/end post


***EDIT***

Just read Blame's post if you don't want to read mine. His post doesn't suck. Gogogogogoogo rambling. I'm going to sleep now. Bye bye.

after Factions, GW had lost one big part, what made the game good in PvP, which made the game really Skill > Time

That was the fact of having unlocked Skills through making Quests, there you could play absolutely normally and could receive easily new skills without grinding or farming for gold (obviously the same).
Since FA, it imo changed to Time > Skill, because you had to farm lots of Skill Points and Platin, to be able to unlock one Skill after another...

Ok, Anet made after Time some Changes now, after implementign the hard Mode, but those Tome Items are no real help, because you can learn with them only Skill, that are still unlocked.
you you learn through them every Skill of a Class, regardless if now unlocked for your account or not, those tomes would be really useful and innovative.
===========

However, as said still, the system of such MMO's like GW or any other is EVER the same

It requires Time, to get Skills and with more invested time, the Player "may" become more skilled in playing the Game.

And thats the point, why it sucks, that Anet had removed with Fa/NF the system of prophecies, because so has unlocking skills only had become a senseless Skill Grinding ...

It imo still sucks, that players can unlock new Elite Skills still only through using Signets of Capture.
Why can't there also exist "Master Quests" or so, with that you can unlock like in Proph then Skills for you, with the difference, that it are then Elite Skills.
Why can't we as player do sumthing in Bibliotheries, like study and "learn" new Skills through reading Skill Books and Magic Books...

Or why can't we search for us a "Master" who will teach us new Skills by training us *letting us do quests* and each master has its difference kind of thing, that the player must do, so that those master npc's accept the players as their pupils.

GW looks to me since the beginning of the game, only like a "Test Run" with lots of unused potencial, so see, if the system and the concept behind the game works and that now with GW2 will come first the real improved game with lots of improved features from GW1

If you are making a competitive game it has to revolve around player skill. Your game isn't competitive if matches are predetermined by gear, level, and other things you have to grind to get. Hence, why PvP is a joke in most MMOs and more of a "My character is better than yours" status game than a truly competitive game. I find a large amount of players love grinding their character up because with a grind based system you really can't fail if you just keep at it. Simultaneously, they tend to hate a full skill based PvP system because for all their grinding they still get massacred.

A time based game will snare a lot more players, good competitive players are the minority. They are difficult to please, will discover the flaws in your game rapidly, and are more difficult to maintain. However, if you pull off a good skill based game you end up with a rabidly loyal player base and a game that refuses to die (see Starcraft.) Even competitive games with glaring flaws can foster strong player bases (Guild Wars and Counterstrike.)

Yes, you can get people addicted to a time based game if you do the carrot on the stick properly and probably get a lot more players (WoW, Everquest.)

As for the Time=Skill part, people touting this don't truly understand the competitive gameplay environment. Yes, it takes time to develop skill. However, time=skill is not true. If time=skill was true why aren't these PvE players who have been playing since beta able to compete with GvG players who may have only been playing for a few months? Why are there rank 9-rank 12 tombs players who have grinded the crap out of tombs and yet are still mediocre players in the competitive environment. A player can ascend to become a strong competitive player in a very short time. A great example of this is tribes. You either got that game or you didn't, the learning curve was essentially vertical. There were players who adapted to that game very quickly and rose to be nothing short of gods in the competitive environment. Others just could never get it. People learn at different rates, plateau at different points, and simply sometimes don't have the mental hardware to learn something. Music is a great example of this, some people are tone deaf, some people can very quickly learn to play things by ear, others have to practice until their fingers hurt and their lips swell. If skill and time were equal then anyone who has played since beta should be able to beat many of the top 20 GvG teams right now.

Both Skill and Time are required for the game to have any real meaning.

Skill will let you play the game and time brings you greater rewards through patience and planning.

Want to beat the game? Use your mind to plan strategies and builds.
Want a rare item? Save your money, kill the foe that drops it untill it drops.

Both are absolute musts in a game that wishes people to play it repeatedly.
If simply defeating a tough boss gave you a perfect gold drop every time, then everyone would have that item and it would be worthless. Build the boss up untill its almost impossible to defeat and you create an imbalance where a few can achieve it and the vast majority will never aquire it save to play the game for vast amounts of time to earn vast amounts of money to buy it from those with the better skill.

I don't think there is a real difference: It takes a lot of time to find good skill combinations and to practice them, and it takes a lot of time to find good items which make you stronger. People may feel that its better to gather and practice skills, but in usage of time there's not much difference in gathering and using gear in other games...