I think that vertical progression could still be used as a good incentive/reward for gameplay. In other words, if you don't get stronger by grinding monsters repeatedly but rather by exploring strange lands and completing somewhat meaningful quests which are themselves fun to complete, and even then the progression is slow to the point where a player who has played for four years can still be beaten by a player who has only played for two years.
I agree with all 10. This issue is kind of like the sandbox issues. I think MMORPG players will play a game if it's good regardless of type. In this Era of themeparks that a vast majority of gamers have played nothing else. It's like saying burger joints sell well and that's all that is sold. So all people have ever eaten are burgers and that's the only option. Not many are going to want BBQ ribs if they have no concept of what it is. Most MMORPGS have vertical progression because WoW did. They don't have a concept of anything else to want it and developers were stuck on the WoW trend to try.
I agree with the OP that Vertical Progression generates a few problems.. especially as it is done in most games nowadays.
But in my opinion is not to eliminate vertical progression completely, but instead reduce it to a more realisticly amount, and focus more on horizontal progression. If you get there the right balance, you still have the sense of accompishment, getting stronger, but without most disadvantages.
I will quote two posts to get that point straight.
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by jalexbrown It's all nice and great that you can tell us what's wrong with the way things are being done right now (everyone can, or else this forum would be dead), but you don't propose anything as a solution beyond a simple definition of horizontal progression. Are you willing to outline and open to all of our critique a possible design plan built around horizontal progression?
They already exist. Here are some:
Puzzle Pirates
EVE Online
Ultima Online
Almost any social sandbox (There, vMTV, Kaneva, Sociolotron, Red Light Center, Second Life)
and
Originally posted by BadSpock
UO and SWG had elements of vertical progression, and worked just fine in PvE and PvP.
It's not black and white.
All designs could succeed or fail it's all about implementation.
Just like WoW is/was a huge success using the EQ formula, but the rest of the MMOs to try the same since have only enjoyed limited success.
And then you have a game like GW2 with very limited vertical progression at the cap - and it's also doing just fine.
Both named UO, but both could named all of them.. UO, SWG, EvE or DAoC(at lvl50, or precisely the RvR progression system).
One called it horizontal the other said they got elements of vertical progression and worked just fine... and both are more or less right. Those games got both, but focused more on horizontal progression and limited the amount of vertical progression so far that it avoids most of the problems.
Let's take a closer look to UO.
The amount of vertical progression in UO was extremely limited. You started with around 30 Hitpoints and the max value of Hitpoints you could reach(and only if you focus on HP) was 100. It is just a factor of 3.
In comparsion this amount of vertical progression is reached in WoW, if you advance from lvl 1 to lvl 5. Total amount in WoW is more like a factor of 100 and still rising.
With such a limited amount of vertical progression all content is all they way valid, just the amount of challenge changes. Bears are in the very beginning a almost not beatable challenge and later on it is a rather easy prey. You actually feel the amount of progression, but killing bears might be still usefull to collecting their furs, and you are at higher level able to do it a lot faster.
The same is true for EvE, DAoC PvP levels.. You can do in EvE all content all the time.. the beginner content just gets easier, but is not just one hits. With RR10 you are still beatable for RR1, at least for 2-3 RR1, but your are ultimately stronger and feel that way.
But all those games do have another thing in common.. they offer a lot more horizontal progression in comparsion to most on vertical progression focused games(like WoW).
You can learn a lot of different skills(in EvE and in UO), and with any new skill you progressed horizontally.. still any skill got a vertical progression, too. But that vertical progression is again rather limited, but noticeable. The same is true for the RR progression system of DAoC.. you get new skills for progression, and they offer mostly horizontal progression and some vertical progression.
And with such a system, with a gradually increasing vertical progression you can even accomplish never ending progression(like in EvE) without making old content useless, without divide the playerbase, or generate a insurmountable power gap between players.
Loke666 said basicly the same with other words and i do agree with him.
Originally posted by Loke666
MMOs only need one thing: A persistent world.
Of course you can make MMOs without vertical progression whatsoever but I think the real problem here can be solved better. As I see it we have 2 problems here:
1. Levels. Levels are very simple but it tends to make characters very similar, splits up the player population unnecessarily and it limits your choices (all thieves gets backstab at lvl 12 and similar). All characters of the same class gains about the same hitpoints and so on.
This could easily be fixed by using smarter progression, like Shadowruns (the pen and paper RPGs) use of karma which is a pool you can buy upgrades for whenever you can afford it, a skill based system as we seen in some sandboxes or Eves time based system.
2. The gap between the levels (or noobs, normal players and vets). This really split up all the player populations due to level and gear. While some difference really should exist the huge gaps we seen in modern MMOs tend to screw up PvP, makes it a lot harder to find a group and actually lower the skill of many players since they easily outlevel any hard content and then ace it without actually becoming better at playing. And as I said this includes gear as well as levels.
I would recommend a gap that means that a noob actually could beat a vet if the noob play great and the vet totally sucks if they have similar gear and that a guy in the poorest gear could do the same to a top gear player if the top gear player really sucks. Of course the vet would have a lot more options for his builds and so on but right now 20 noobs really cant kill a max leveled character in good gear in almost any MMO.
With those 2 mechanics you would still get better gear and better character as you play (something most RPGers really like) and still avoid the bad stuff from most MMOs. Progression is actually important in MMOs, players should feel the are getting better and better as they play but there is really no reason to start out as a worthless peasant and become a demi god as you play, that just makes PvP really boring.
Although levels is just a name convention.. you could do such a system with level more or less the same.. and if you look at Asherons Call it is basicly the same.. although i still thing the vertical progression in AC was a little bit too much, but by far not that worst as in WoW.
And by the way even in FPS games like the Battlefield series you do have some, very limited amount of vertical progression.. you earn new weapons for progression.. most offer a huge horizontal progression, but still some are slightly better and offer with that a vertical progression.. a full maxed out player in BF3(as example) is stronger than a noob, but not to that point that the noob do not have any chance at all.. he is just in a slight disadvantage.
In my humble opinion that would be the best way to go for MMOs, and especially for sandbox MMOs.. a huge amount of horizontal progression to move on the game and a slightly vertical progression to get the feeling of becoming more powerful.. but to just that degree to still be able to use all the content of the game all the time, and to be able to play with all of the playerbase all the time.. with the complete newbie and the veteran.
Originally posted by Pemmin i disagree you need a happy medium between the 2 types of progression. having one without the other just results in short term entertainment only.
Currents MMORPG are short enough for me to think there are no way they become shorter than how they are .
So don't worry ,
even without veritical progression , you still need an month to finish all contents at fast pace .
And few month if you don't rush through contents .
It strange for you to think nowadays MMORPGs as long term game to play like old MMORPGs.
I like how Eve reduced the grind of vertical progression.
They used offline time components to provide skill points.
If it was my game, I would take it one step further and use time based skill points to 'train' a skill to a given level, then require the player to actually practice it up to benefit from it.
The actual truth is that games have NEVER had Vertical progression because the game moves along at the same pace meaning your basically the same player all along.
It doesn't even matter what type of design,quests have you follow their path and can NEVER change it or add to it and combat/skill design limits your advancement based on the npc's you fight which are ALWAYS the same tier as you are.
IMO FFXI came the closest to actually giving you more tools to actually advance and it still took awhile as i guess it should.Your character became stronger through it's tools AND it's sub class design,so the more sub classes leveled up the more options.
The reason FFXI was best is because it added abilities and spells that you don't see in other games.Stuff like Paralyze and Slow,accuracy debuffs or giving yourself accuracy buffs as well as being able to remove status effects an removing enemy buffs.There is actually a lot more than that as "elemental and regular" buffs and debuffs lasted MUCH longer than other games so it was less spammy.MOST games simply give you ridiculous 2-5 second buffs and have you spamming buttons steadily.
My whole point is that games really DO need Vertical progression we just don't see it and seems most people THINK games are offering it.No difference really the quest hub games have you fighting a NEW tier that makes your player the same again or sometimes even WORSE as MOST bosses become immune to your best abilities.
My opinion is that games right now are developer real lazy,they grasp a few ideas that everyone else is suing and just go with it,no real thought or creativity.Crafting,quest hubs always the same,character point allotments always the same,nobody is using their noggin to create some interesting game play,just same old different shell.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I stopped the moment I read that GW2 did away with vertical progression. That's nonsense.
Having your level boosted doesn't put you on the same level playing field as someone that has actually reached max level, it only eases the level disparity slightly.
GW2 also has high level gear that gives an advantage, it is not simply cosmetic.
GW2 has as much vertical progression as any other theme park MMO.
A good game should offer both, not exclude one or the other.
Agree. As for gw2 it has very gradual vertical progression and very limited horizontal progression. Massive increase of latter is really needed IMO. Vertical at a very slow level is actually fine if everyone can access the gear and pvp is monitored.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Comments
I agree with all 10. This issue is kind of like the sandbox issues. I think MMORPG players will play a game if it's good regardless of type. In this Era of themeparks that a vast majority of gamers have played nothing else. It's like saying burger joints sell well and that's all that is sold. So all people have ever eaten are burgers and that's the only option. Not many are going to want BBQ ribs if they have no concept of what it is. Most MMORPGS have vertical progression because WoW did. They don't have a concept of anything else to want it and developers were stuck on the WoW trend to try.
I agree with the OP that Vertical Progression generates a few problems.. especially as it is done in most games nowadays.
But in my opinion is not to eliminate vertical progression completely, but instead reduce it to a more realisticly amount, and focus more on horizontal progression. If you get there the right balance, you still have the sense of accompishment, getting stronger, but without most disadvantages.
I will quote two posts to get that point straight.
and
Both named UO, but both could named all of them.. UO, SWG, EvE or DAoC(at lvl50, or precisely the RvR progression system).
One called it horizontal the other said they got elements of vertical progression and worked just fine... and both are more or less right. Those games got both, but focused more on horizontal progression and limited the amount of vertical progression so far that it avoids most of the problems.
Let's take a closer look to UO.
The amount of vertical progression in UO was extremely limited. You started with around 30 Hitpoints and the max value of Hitpoints you could reach(and only if you focus on HP) was 100. It is just a factor of 3.
In comparsion this amount of vertical progression is reached in WoW, if you advance from lvl 1 to lvl 5. Total amount in WoW is more like a factor of 100 and still rising.
With such a limited amount of vertical progression all content is all they way valid, just the amount of challenge changes. Bears are in the very beginning a almost not beatable challenge and later on it is a rather easy prey. You actually feel the amount of progression, but killing bears might be still usefull to collecting their furs, and you are at higher level able to do it a lot faster.
The same is true for EvE, DAoC PvP levels.. You can do in EvE all content all the time.. the beginner content just gets easier, but is not just one hits. With RR10 you are still beatable for RR1, at least for 2-3 RR1, but your are ultimately stronger and feel that way.
But all those games do have another thing in common.. they offer a lot more horizontal progression in comparsion to most on vertical progression focused games(like WoW).
You can learn a lot of different skills(in EvE and in UO), and with any new skill you progressed horizontally.. still any skill got a vertical progression, too. But that vertical progression is again rather limited, but noticeable. The same is true for the RR progression system of DAoC.. you get new skills for progression, and they offer mostly horizontal progression and some vertical progression.
And with such a system, with a gradually increasing vertical progression you can even accomplish never ending progression(like in EvE) without making old content useless, without divide the playerbase, or generate a insurmountable power gap between players.
Loke666 said basicly the same with other words and i do agree with him.
Although levels is just a name convention.. you could do such a system with level more or less the same.. and if you look at Asherons Call it is basicly the same.. although i still thing the vertical progression in AC was a little bit too much, but by far not that worst as in WoW.
And by the way even in FPS games like the Battlefield series you do have some, very limited amount of vertical progression.. you earn new weapons for progression.. most offer a huge horizontal progression, but still some are slightly better and offer with that a vertical progression.. a full maxed out player in BF3(as example) is stronger than a noob, but not to that point that the noob do not have any chance at all.. he is just in a slight disadvantage.
In my humble opinion that would be the best way to go for MMOs, and especially for sandbox MMOs.. a huge amount of horizontal progression to move on the game and a slightly vertical progression to get the feeling of becoming more powerful.. but to just that degree to still be able to use all the content of the game all the time, and to be able to play with all of the playerbase all the time.. with the complete newbie and the veteran.
Currents MMORPG are short enough for me to think there are no way they become shorter than how they are .
So don't worry ,
even without veritical progression , you still need an month to finish all contents at fast pace .
And few month if you don't rush through contents .
It strange for you to think nowadays MMORPGs as long term game to play like old MMORPGs.
I like how Eve reduced the grind of vertical progression.
They used offline time components to provide skill points.
If it was my game, I would take it one step further and use time based skill points to 'train' a skill to a given level, then require the player to actually practice it up to benefit from it.
Similar to rolemaster Temp/Potential system.
-WL
Werewolf Online(R) - Lead Developer
The actual truth is that games have NEVER had Vertical progression because the game moves along at the same pace meaning your basically the same player all along.
It doesn't even matter what type of design,quests have you follow their path and can NEVER change it or add to it and combat/skill design limits your advancement based on the npc's you fight which are ALWAYS the same tier as you are.
IMO FFXI came the closest to actually giving you more tools to actually advance and it still took awhile as i guess it should.Your character became stronger through it's tools AND it's sub class design,so the more sub classes leveled up the more options.
The reason FFXI was best is because it added abilities and spells that you don't see in other games.Stuff like Paralyze and Slow,accuracy debuffs or giving yourself accuracy buffs as well as being able to remove status effects an removing enemy buffs.There is actually a lot more than that as "elemental and regular" buffs and debuffs lasted MUCH longer than other games so it was less spammy.MOST games simply give you ridiculous 2-5 second buffs and have you spamming buttons steadily.
My whole point is that games really DO need Vertical progression we just don't see it and seems most people THINK games are offering it.No difference really the quest hub games have you fighting a NEW tier that makes your player the same again or sometimes even WORSE as MOST bosses become immune to your best abilities.
My opinion is that games right now are developer real lazy,they grasp a few ideas that everyone else is suing and just go with it,no real thought or creativity.Crafting,quest hubs always the same,character point allotments always the same,nobody is using their noggin to create some interesting game play,just same old different shell.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I stopped the moment I read that GW2 did away with vertical progression. That's nonsense.
Having your level boosted doesn't put you on the same level playing field as someone that has actually reached max level, it only eases the level disparity slightly.
GW2 also has high level gear that gives an advantage, it is not simply cosmetic.
GW2 has as much vertical progression as any other theme park MMO.
A good game should offer both, not exclude one or the other.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D