Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Cross Level Grouping
faldlou
Member Posts: 38
I believe MMORPG would have more player longevity and better communites, if they would allow high level players to gain something for grouping with lower level players. Say the developers would create 10 elite instanced quest every 5 level that are repeatable and high level players could enter a que for any elite quest regardless of their level and be transport to the quest start once the group was full; They would temporarily level down to the hightest level set on that quest and gain say quest points that could be spent on equipment, mounts, consumable and raw crafting martials by completeing theses quests. This would keep the high level players engage with the low level players that just started the game. So all players reguardless of level would be able to play together and benefit. just and idea
Comments
Personally I think the ability to mentor down so you are playing at the same level as a friend is an important feature missing from WoW.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Edit: a bit more info here http://eq.crgaming.com/viewarticle.asp?Article=9550 and here http://eqvault.ign.com/fullstory.php?id=10954
It is the MMOs rules system that segregates players. Get rid of the rules that cause players to have to do separate things, such as:
Damage based on level difference between you and the monster. Get rid of level based systems.
Character advancement based on levels instead of in game achievements. Arbitrary levels are no sign of advancement. It is just a measure of sucessful time spent in game. Character advancement should be from achieving goals in a game. I certified myself through practice to use a samurai sword at the local dojo so now I can wield one with the knowledge I probably will not hurt myself. If I want to get better at it I must practice with it.
Character systems based on constantly adding attributes instead of a more logical system of customizing your character. In the real world adding superhuman strength would lessen your agility and endurance. Look at sumo wrestlers or weightlifters. They are very strong but lacking in other attributes. The geniuses of our world typically spend their time solving problems and working on their ideas instead of spending their time in the gym. In a more logical attribute system you would have to sacrifice some attributes to excel at others.
Class systems force groups or raids to need certain players and not need other players. Move to classless systems where all characters can play a primary role and eliminate secondary roles and support classes.
In a perfect game, there would be no levels, there would be no classes, people would train in the skills they want o be proficient at. If they do not use those skills they atrophy. Same thing with their character, a player must train to keep his attributes where he wants them. If he does not keep up his training for his attributes the attributes atrophy towards his starting attributes at a very slow rate.
But, that is my idea of a game... every person has their own opinion of what would be perfect in a game. However they do it, players need to be able to work together no matter their experience, or "level".
Just remove the levelling and the problem isn't there in the first place. Solved.
DIfferences in most level systems are differences in power. If you drop level systems and replace it with other systems, skills based or any other method, where the end result is differences in character power then you are back to the same problem. This is obvious.
If you don't want character advancement, drop the RPG from MMORPG and call it something else like MMOFPS. RPG=Charcter advancement.
How does your character advance then?
Someone already brought up skill based systems so I'll skip that one. There's also twitch based systems or tactical systems that rely entirely on the player's ability to... um... play. Finally, there's always financial advancement. Although with that last one you have to design the game so that money can actually be used to influence others and that would require a system of diminishing returns where money is difficult to come by but easy to lose.
What incentive is there to play the game?
What incentive is there to play current MMORPGs? You race to the level cap and then you're just like everyone else. Not only that, but as you get more powerful you fight the same monsters with higher stats. Once you get the level cap, the mobs are so much higher level that you that you have to group with people to take them down so you're actually more helpless than you were when you started. The reward / punishment system actually encourages you to constantly engage enemies that you know you can defeat before combat even starts while penalizing you for attempting to take down monsters that may actually be challenging to you. There is a reason why we refer to these games as treadmills. It's because you're actually just walking in place.
What the person you were replying to was probably getting at is that we need to make the journey more rewarding than the destination. There were no levels in Morrowind, Oblivion, or even The Legend of Zelda series. Most of us didn't play those games to become more powerful. We played them because the core gameplay was genuinely compelling. It's just sad that MMORPGs have everything so asshole backward that many MMO players have just accepted this crap as the way it's supposed to be.
When you are saying twitched based, you mean the player's skill rather than the characters skill. That is not rpg, as rpg mean character advancement.
In skill based system, does a more skill character become more powerful?
By the way I disagree with their being no incentive to play a non level-based game. When people reach the end-game in present mmorpgs they still have incentive to continue playing. Everquest, people were at the maximum level months, the added levels were seen more of a irritant than what people necessarily wanted. WoW, people continue playing, raiding, instancing whatever. Guild Wars, level 20 cap easily attainable quickly but have people continuuing to play. DAoC, at the cap and still have realm vs realm play as well as other play. This is all without mentioning skill-based mmorpgs.
A twitch game? AoC is attempting it and while I hope they are successful, I see it as problematic. Can you imagine trying to play DAoC upon release in a twitch environment? Everquest in a twitch environment would have been impossible. Half the raids had to be in first person looking at nothing but a wall in the Plane of Hate. For a twitch MMORPG to work, the latency has to be almost non-existent. FPS games work as twitch games because you are rarely playing with more than 64 people in the highest extremes without all of the background information that is contained in a single MMORPG character.. Planetside tried to be an MMOFPS with a progession. It didn't work out too well. I played Planetside for about a month. I came in late, so I was way behind. It wasn't much fun. And even then, it still wasn't more than 100 people in a given area. If AoC can't keep the latency very low, combat is going to be a huge problem. I honestly hope they do figure it out. AoC is one of very few unique games trying something out of the box. I just don't see Oblivion style combat as being a good, workable system for an MMO.
RvR in DAoC was another leveling system. Realm Points were collected. Those were then turned into Realm Ability Points that were used to purchase additional skills. People raided in WoW because once you hit the current level cap, there wasn't anything else to do. That and the T1-3 armor was all significantly better than anything else you could find. That made you dominant in the battlegrounds. Post TBC, that changed a little bit, but what happens when everyone hits the level cap again? Back to raiding because that's all there is. And the raid gear from the 24 man raids will again probably end up being better than what you can get elsewhere. That means PvP will be the same as it was pre-TBC. EQ raiding was about pride. It was a matter of pride to say you took out Cazic Thule and Innoruk. Lady Vox and Lord Nagafen. It was a matter of pride to say you cleared the Giant's Throne Room and beat the Avatar of War. Without the level system in EQ, none of that would have been possible.
What a novel concept in that the incentive should be to have fun, hang out with online friends, enjoy conversation, explore the online game world, and kick butt!
Lets take the feeling of "work" out of a game and replace it with a feeling of "enjoyment".
Sure, in EvE a 2 year old character has an advantage over a 2 month old character but thier combat system accomodates. A group of 20 5 day old characters in frigates can WTFBBQ any character in a battleship. The smaller ships also have thier place in the higher level so even a 2 month old character can contribute in a group with thier game veteran friends. In fact, the ships that see the most PvP are frigate and cruiser sized. Goonfleet is proof that a wailing horde of noobs can match any group of veterans.
Plus, there is so much variety in the skills and the later skills take so much longer to train. I think the difference between the training time for Battleships IV and V for me was about 28 days. Noob players in EvE can relatively quickly train to a level where they can hold thier own. Time only becomes a heavy factor when you specialize. My Retribution is kitted out to the max and I run 0.0 in it, but with the time it took for me to train to this level you could have easily trained for and started flying any Battleship and maybe even a capital ship, if you had the ISK for it.
The only problem I have with EvE's skill system is that is is based on real time. You quickly get to the point where you only log in to change your skill training. The only real benefit you can get from play time is more money, until you start getting into the warfare and then EvE might as well become a lifetime obsession.
I say rip off EvE's idea but use XP instead of time for the progression. Easy to get decent, hard to get uber and so many character advancement options it'll make your head spin. The only restriction on the character should be placed by whoever is playing it, and apart from EvE, and the long gone days of Pre NGE SWG, I've yet to find a game that doesn't pigeon hole the player into a carbon copy of everyone else.
Actually, there is Ryzom but it's kinda half and half. You've got the option not to, but you can pretty much bet you'll end up being like a hundred other people by accident. Being able to wear any armour type as a specialized caster seemed ok, but the negative effects forced you back to light anyway. Well, at least you had the choice right?
Skills, Realm points, gear, Alternate advancement are not levels. The key point I was making when I said 'remove levels' is with these other advancement means in mind that they DON'T divide people to the degree levels do. A level 1 and a level 60 cannot group in WoW, whereas lets take a system like was in EQ- Alternate advancement. Whether someone had 6 AAs or 200 AAs, they could group. Same with DAoC and players and their realmpoints.
for instance: 2 lvl 5's, 10's and 15's entering an instanced dungeon of some sort. There are multiple objectives to be taken and quests to be done before you can finish the dungeon.
Some objectives can only be done by the lvl 5's(or from 3 to 5) If it's done by one of the higher lvl's the deal's off. Goodbye. Start over.(or maybe something a little less harsh, but you get the picture).
When completing all objectives you can sommun/have access to the end boss/bosses/phat lewt etc.
Just a simple sumup without going into every minor detail.
Edit: oh right. XP and items has to be somwhat lvl related of course
Skill based games have pro's and con's
Level based games have pro's and con's
Twitch based games have pro's and con's
Each creates a dfiferent atmosphere in a game, and will appeal to different people. Preferring one approach or another makes you neither NOOB or 133T and going on and on about it has derailed this topic.
Getting back to my earlier point - mentoring is a good system for allowing people to work together in a level based game. Doesn't seem at all controversial.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Besides - aren't MMO's about working together as a team to achieve objectives, not having everyone going off and doing their own solo task appropriate to their level?
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
The sidekick system is not a sloppy band-aid fix at all. It is a logical, fun, effective way to solve the problem at hand. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than any other "solution" mentioned above.
The point about AA's is an interesting one, though. It would be cool to see a game designed around that kind of system. I'm sure people would give it a chance, just for being different and new.
My solution would be to do away with levels. I don't see any real purpose behind levels other than to simply ensure player retention without the need to create compelling content. Yes yes I know the old line about the old time vets wanting to be more leet than the guy who just started. There is some merit to that position, but mostly I find that to be the plea of a person too afraid to compete with others players on an even keel. It is easier for the veterain to to win and remain dominate if the only factor that goes into determing skill is time spent playing.
Levels serve to put all of the games focus on getting to "end-game," and once most players reach that "end-game" they find it lacking and begin to get bored. Game developers respond by allowing you to have multiple characters thereby allowing you to repeat the exact same grind all the way up again. Or they add expansions and publishes which target exclusively the "end-game" players and many times they do this by simply increasing the level cap to create a new grind. As soon as you log into an MMO with levels, tradtionally all player cares about is getting the grind the done. It turns what should be a fun and relaxing game into something more akin to work.
Also levels serve to seperate and isolate players. The gap at which players can still meaningfully interact differs from game to game, but generally you need to be within 5 levels or so to be able to play together. If you don't start playing around the same time and play for about the same amount of time per day you pretty much can't game with a person. I find that a silly community breaking policy to have in a genre of games that are supposed to be "social." Yes I am aware that some games create mechanisims to get around this, but wouldn't it be better and simpler to not have the need for there mechanisms to close level gaps?
In my opinion SWG pre-CU was onto something with its skill system. It still created a means of retention among players by having something to work (grind) towards. It also somewhat preserved that desire among some players to reward time spent in game. But it did so in a way that was more condusive to community building and overall enjoyment. I never felt the same pressure in SWG to get enough XP to spend all my skills points that I do to hit max level when I play a level based MMO. The reason for that was simple. Even spending all 250 skill points in combat trees didn't necessarily make you more powerful than someone who spent only say 75 points in combat trees. Skills made you more powerful yes, but only to a point. After that they only added more options to you and not more power. The system enabled new players to reach a respectable combat prowess to be able to compete with and play with the long time vets without having to grind away for weeks or months. Additonally the game allowed a player to change professions and try something new without having to start all the way from stratch. You could complete change even a combat professions and do so in a manner in which your overall combat effectivness remained somewhat stable. Yes the system had it flaws, but I think it was a far more enjoyable and entertaining way to design an MMO than we typically see.
City of Villains/Heroes is already doing BETTER than what you are asking for.
Told you CoV is ahead of the competitors by 5 to 10 years. Already better than that.
Let's me explain, first in City of Villain/Heroes you can Lackey/Sidekick a lowbie, so he is -1 level than you...or you can malefact down to it level. Second, the lowbie get awesome XP if he is lackeyed to a highbe, or the lowbie get a better teamate if he malefact down a highbee while the highbee remove debt or gain $ at a much faster rate than usual. Third, to gain some precise badges, you need to join someone mission, and these missions are set at some level...so if you miss a level 15 mission and need the badge for an accolade or just because you want the badge, well, you need to find a level 15 with the mission and have him invite you.
Again, City of Villains is already doing BETTER than what you request, while all competitors are having issues to even understand your request.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I will also bring in the pros/cons of systems that divide characters according to classes, since this tends to be a common feature amongst level based games. I have played MMOs based on both levels (WoW, EQ2) and skills (Ryzom). I have also played tabletop games that are both level based (D&D) and skill based (shadowrun, CoC, GURPs etc.)
- In skill based systems, characters tend to lack diversity. If a skill is powerful, many people will train it, if a skill is weak, only a few will acquire it. Hence although one may complain about lack of diversity in class/level based games, in skill based games it is much worse.
- Games based on classes/levels allow more powerful and diverse individual skills. In a game based on classes/levels, a character may get a single very powerful ability when they achieve an important level, but in compensation may be weak defensively, or be starved of abilities for some time afterwards.
- Conversely, skill based games tend to remove access to single very powerful abilities (such as a rogues sap or mages polymorph), since they ruin game balance. Alot of the skills actually implemented look like bland variations on a theme.
- Some skill based games limit initial access to skills by placing skills in a tree (e..g Diablo). But isn't the depth you have progressed into the tree pretty much the same as a level?
- Knowing someones class/level can be a very quick way to learn how they can contribute to a party e..g if you meet a level 50 mage in warcraft, you know he will be able to dps, cast polymorph, counterspell and create food/water - whereas in a skill based game finding out what someone else can contribute can take an extended conversation.
- There is a more powerful sense of achievement in obtaining a new level in a level based game rather than yet another point in yet another skill. Yes - I know having fun is important, but many of people want to have a sense of achievement as well. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
- When skill based games try to create a sense of progression, they can still make it very difficult for characters to work together. For example, in Ryzom if an inexperienced offensive mage joins a party of more skilled characters, he will find almost all his spells are resisted.
- Skill based games often work better in a tabletop enviroment, which can include a diverse range of challenges. Some characters may excel at combat, whilst others may be better in social situations, at espionage, or at solving technological problems. In MMOs, almost all characters have a very similar aim, namely to be effective in combat situations.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium