Levels are a balance gate, so you can control when power is unlocked, otherwise why would you ever get a lesser skill might as well always get the best.
This is indeed the point
As for the zone levels..no elder scrolls has this feature, in single player elder scrolls game everything just levels with you.
This is only true for Oblivion, Morrowind and Skyrim neither had level-scaling content
To answer OP, no, it just wouldn't work. The levels are there to control access to power and limit imbalances.
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
Looking at that post and your last sentence is kinda amusing.
I'm the one making it overly complicated? Ok
Yes, a soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A better soldier is a more powerful soldier. Giving him a power that's better in a specific situation makes him more powerful - which is vertical progression.
It's really very simple. Once again - if you give something that makes them more powerful - you're giving them VERTICAL progression. ALL progression is vertical.
If you add fishing to an MMO - that's not giving a player PROGRESSION. That's adding to the gameplay HORIZON. However, WITHIN that specific activity - you can have PROGRESSION - as in the player can get BETTER at fishing. As in, he's going to be better at fishing than someone who hasn't progressed.
Progression is becoming BETTER - moving FORWARD - it's becoming more POWERFUL.
"True" horizontal progression is an ILLUSION - because it would mean giving players powers that are each identical in power - which CAN NOT HAPPEN in a world controlled by binary numbers and math.
If something was truly identical - it wouldn't represent any kind of progression, horizontal or otherwise.
I think we're going in circles, at this point - don't you?
By all means, if you consider fishing and housing progression - then that's fine - I don't.
If you think giving a player more powers is not vertical progression (MORE powerful because of more choice) - fine, I don't.
HOWEVER:
We essentially agree. MMOs need a wider gameplay horizon. They don't need horizontal progression - because it doesn't exist.
You're obviously not going to get this. I've given you the clear definitions and I've explained this as simply as I possibly can.
If horizontal progression doesn't exist... then neither would vertical progression. It would just be... progress. We divide this concept into categories for a reason. They are words used to describe how the progress is made in a conceptual expression. They are adjectives - they give meaning and more clarity to the noun. These are standard industry terms. You saying "horizontal progression" doesn't exist is like saying the word "horizontal" doesn't exist. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
What the hell is gameplay horizon? I'm 31 years old. I've been playing video games since I was 5 years old. My first game ever was Super Mario Brothers on the NES. The second game I ever played was Tiger Heli. I have never, not one time, in all my life, heard the term "gameplay horizon." Seriously dude... are you just making this crap up as you go?
It doesn't matter what you "think". It matters what is. You're telling me what you personally consider to be true, and I'm telling you what actually IS true.
We're done here, I think. I know I am.
I'm 37 years old and my first game was a horse racing game with letters representing horses on the ZX-81 - so do I win the prize or what?
Yes, we have opinions - and I'm giving you mine and I'm using rational arguments to support it.
I'm not going to agree with you unil what you're saying makes sense.
As for "gameplay horizon" those are two words I assume you understand. I assume you understand what gameplay is and what a horizon is.
A horizon is what you look towards - and in this case, it's about how many options you have as a gamer. The wider the horizon - the more options.
That's not power and it's not progression, however.
As for you telling me what is "true" - are you seriously telling yourself that represents a convincing argument? Because then you'll be very, very disappointed.
I don't let others dictate truth, sorry.
If you can't rationalise your point - you will fail to convince.
Okay. Congratulations on being 37!
My point in saying my age wasn't to win a pissing contest. My point was to illustrate that in 26 years of being involved in the industry in one form or another, I have never heard a game developer, publisher, marketer, no one, use the term "gameplay horizon" to describe anything about a game or a concept within the game. When the gaming industry absorbs this as a common concept that professionals use as a standard for conveying a specific element within a game... then I'll accept this as a term from you. Unfortunately... they don't use this term as far as I am aware, and 26 years is a long time to go without ever hearing it, especially when you stay current on this industry like I do.
Because of this, I have to assume you're just making it up in your own domain of language processing. My issue with it is that no one else on this earth uses that process. They use another process. This process is called a standard. Horizontal Progression is a standard within that process. Gameplay Horizon is not.
Yes, I understand what the words mean when they are apart. What I don't understand is how you put these two words together and expect me to come to the conclusion that what I am talking about... is actually that, when what I am talking about is actually what I called it, justified by the fact that what I called it is an industry standard term. I don't understand gameplay horizon, because unlike Horizontal Progression... gameplay horizon isn't an actual term used within the industry.
I'm not rationalizing anything to you. It's already been rationalized by the industry that coined the term. I'm using the term properly to explain an idea about what I think MMO's need more of. I used the term Horizontal Progression, knowing what it meant, and assuming others knew what it meant, since it's an industry standard term that means exactly how I am using it in my explanation.
I bet you're going to tell me that "volumetric fog" and "dynamic lighting" don't exist, next. Instead, what they actually are is "cloudy mass of game mystery" and "bright exclamation mark of simulated vision."
- My opinion was about how the industry standard term "Horizontal Progression" should be applied in an MMO. Your opinion is that "Horizontal Progression" doesn't actually exist.
- I gave you the definitions to the industry standard term Horizontal Progression, and explained how they make sense according to those REAL dictionary definitions. You gave me a made up term that no one has ever heard of before, by applying your own interpretation of the definitions to the words that make up that term.
- My use of the industry standard term Horizontal Progression is not an opinion. The idea to better utilize the concept within the MMO is. Your opinion is that I am wrong because the industry standard term Horizontal Progression doesn't actually exist... it's actually a made up word gameplay horizon.
- And your final claim is that you are more rational with your conclusion.
Alright.... we're done here.
I'm sorry, but because horizontal progression has become trendy in the industry - it doesn't make your understanding of it logical or rational.
For every buzzword out there - there will be different ways of perceiving it and using it.
"Immersion" is another buzzword that means many things to many people.
If you need the industry to hold your hand before you can accept the use of words describing gameplay concepts, then you're right - we're done here.
I can't provide that, as I don't really care about industry standards.
I care about logic and rational arguments when having a debate - and you can't provide that.
Have fun
You can't have a debate without standards. This is why a dictionary exists in the first place. All it is is a book full of standards. This is why people in this world go to great lengths to find the meaning of a word. Words are symbols by which we infer meaning. These words are in and of themselves, standards. The English language you are using to write to me uses standards. You use these because it is already understood... with these standards, we may communicate.
An industry standard is a symbol created to convey a specific concept within that industry. "Pipeline" is a term in many industries used to describe the nature by which production of a product is managed within a company. This pipeline can implement different strategies, but it never deviates from what the term means. Going from one industry or company to another, you carry this terminology with you. This creates a standard within said industry. It isn't created because it is "trendy."
Your refusal to use these standards neither means anything in relation to the quality of the standard, nor to the integrity of people who use it within the industry. All it means is you choose not to cooperate with people who would otherwise probably love to work with you. The only problem here, is you.
Communication is the backbone to every successful team endeavor. Building a game is a team endeavor. Standards are created so that the team may express bigger ideals to their team mates, in a few short words or by use of an acronym. This creates a more efficient method of communicating. This means that the team now has more time to spend turning a concept of a game into a reality.
I've explained to you what I meant with the term. I don't use the words because they are trendy. I use them because they make sense to me. I've explained as best I can how they make sense to me by the very definition of the words within the term. I also used the term because when I use the it, most people who understand why standards are used in the first place aren't completely lost by what it means - because of the standard. I chose not to hate the word because of some juvenile hipster ideal of conformity. I use it simply as a tool to communicate with people who like being involved in collaborative efforts.
A discussion... is a collaborative effort. I would love to use your word for what you are talking about... but your definition of that word is not defining what I am actually talking about, and I disagree with you when you say that the industry standard that already exists, which I used, doesn't actually exist. Since you don't want to use industry standards for juvenile reasons, not only do I not want to collaborate with you further, but I don't think anyone else who actually treats this industry with some respect would either. Your position on this is petty and unprofessional.
It is apparent, now (as if it weren't before) that the only reason you are arguing about this is because you don't like people using certain words... because you don't like those words. How much more useless can a person get, to lawyer over something so trivial simply because you don't like it? I mean, what exactly did you expect to happen here, honestly? That you were somehow going to convince someone that they are wrong.... because you say so?
I'm only asking this, because... seriously... I... I can't believe this. It blows my mind that someone would behave this way. A 37 year old, no less. Seriously dude... I've spent all night trying to have a conversation with you about something, and you've been nothing but a child about it.
Oh, I get it. You're one of those people who can only consider others children when they disagree with you and you can't accept that they look at concepts differently. I see.
No, I'm not being a child. I'm explaining to you why "horizontal progression" doesn't actually exist. The TERM exists, yeah, but it's not actual progression. It's an illusion of progression.
I've explained that to you over and over again, and you've utterly failed to refute it.
You keep pretending "horizontal progression" exists as actual progression because developers use the term, as if developers are implicitly capable of no fault and can't be logically and semantically in the wrong.
GW2 developers have been trying to sell the concept since they started marketing the game, and yet they've failed to rationalise the concept.
I don't know why something so simple seems to be so hard for you to understand, I really don't.
But I think I'm done repeating myself.
Again, if you consider fishing and housing horizontal progression, fine, I don't.
Again, if you consider giving more powers of a similar "strength" to a soldier horizontal progression, fine, I don't.
I call the first part of the gameplay horizon, and I consider the second vertical progression - because more powers mean more to choose from, and in the end - an advantage to the soldier, making him more efficient in more situations. That's power, that's progression and that's vertical.
If that's being a child in your eyes, that's quite ok with me. I don't agree, but I really don't mind.
Let's get this right. I'm telling you straight up - so try not to twist what I am saying. Your entire counter argument is this, as far as I can understand it. You're welcome to adjust it if you are so inclined:
"I disagree with you because the word "progression" can only mean "vertical" by definition because it is an increase, but only when you ignore everything else "progression" by definition actually means, but I'll ignore that part, because my argument only works when you ignore that part, and because this other term that I made up has nothing to do with this discussion." - THIS is why I disagree with you. This, sir, doesn't make sense to me. I blame you for not explaining how this is supposed to make sense.
You're a child because you think an industry standard term with a clear definition that many people within the industry understand and use is too "trendy" and is thereby non-sense to you as a result. Only a shallow child would actually care about something like that. Adults would be too busy using it to communicate everything I have said about it to their colleagues and team members, not because they love the word, but because it's simply a tool to use in a collaboration, and everyone pertinent knows what it means.
Good luck with your gameplay horizon.
No, progression can mean many things - but it can only BE vertical - as in "power" can only be gained or lost. It can't go "sideways" no matter how much the industry is making you think so. You need to think for yourself a bit, if you're going to understand this relatively simple point.
As for the whole "shallow child" insult you keep using, I should probably tell you that I don't take insults from strangers very seriously. They rarely make much of an impression, you know? Usually, it happens when people run out of logical arguments.
So, I look at arguments and if they're rational, I acknowledge them - even if I don't agree with them. Your "argument" has been that the industry is telling you that there is such a thing as horizontal progression, and so obviously the industry is right and only "shallow children" would disagree. Apparently the industry gets to define truth and represent ultimate objectivity in your world. Obviously, you know all about what the "industry" has said when it comes to horizontal progression - and you know for a fact that everyone in the entire industry has the exact same perception of the concept as you do. Sure
So, not only have you resorted to personal insults, you've failed to argue your case rationally - and on top of that, you claim to know for a fact what the entire industry believes to be true about horizontal progression.
I find it pretty amusing that you expect me to take you seriously at this point.
Anyway, you seem to be a fan of getting the last word - so I'll leave you to it
this game would be better with No character Levels and No Zone Levels
This would make the game more adventurous to make our own
Adventure.
The level rails make the gane feel more themepark than it needs to be.
Dont get me wrong. Levels can stay for thr skills and skill point gain.
But remove the charactet levels and Zones.
The Singleplayer game gets away with levels because the world scales to the one player and not hundreads of players. For a single game world.
Get rid of levels and make all the world a big world with no start and endpoint defined.
I am sure if this was the case you'd make a different post about how the game has no content. I understand you're just here to make controversial posts to garner yourself some attention.
No, progression can mean many things - but it can only BE vertical - as in "power" can only be gained or lost. It can't go "sideways" no matter how much the industry is making you think so. You need to think for yourself a bit, if you're going to understand this relatively simple point.
As for the whole "shallow child" insult you keep using, I should probably tell you that I don't take insults from strangers very seriously. They rarely make much of an impression, you know? Usually, it happens when people run out of logical arguments.
So, I look at arguments and if they're rational, I acknowledge them - even if I don't agree with them. Your "argument" has been that the industry is telling you that there is such a thing as horizontal progression, and so obviously the industry is right and only "shallow children" would disagree. Apparently the industry gets to define truth and represent ultimate objectivity in your world. Obviously, you know all about what the "industry" has said when it comes to horizontal progression - and you know for a fact that everyone in the entire industry has the exact same perception of the concept as you do. Sure
So, not only have you resorted to personal insults, you've failed to argue your case rationally - and on top of that, you claim to know for a fact what the entire industry believes to be true about horizontal progression.
I find it pretty amusing that you expect me to take you seriously at this point.
Anyway, you seem to be a fan of getting the last word - so I'll leave you to it
First of all... you insulted me way before I called you childish. So eat your own bullshit on that one, bud. I bent over backwards post after post to try and answer your question - to clarify what I was talking about. And you had the audacity to repay that with "you're brainwashed and stupid." Honestly - what kind of a person with a sincere outlook does that? I don't even care if you agree with me... but don't call me brainwashed and stupid - shit....
I just wish you had at least attempted to understand what I was talking about instead of closing off over something childish and unproductive. Unfortunately, I close off to adults when they behave like children, because frankly... I expect better from them. I gave you every opportunity to provide me with a better reason than "your word is trendy thus I think you're stupid" to disagree with me. I really had hoped you had... something... that I can at least work with. I just can't work with an insult as an opposing argument.
I don't expect children to take anything seriously. I guess I expected too much from you.
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
Wow and somebody called me a troll in this thread.
This Notimeforbs person laid it out in words, explaining just what been trying to say for months now.
Had to paint the picture for you, which he/she did and all.
I would have thought this was an alt of mine or something!
Not this discussion again.... NDA is lifted and things like this will never happen...
Why not accept the main features of the game as what they are, since they are set in stone and will not change anymore, and discuss those things that they actually can change in the six weeks they have still left... or even post release..
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Wow and somebody called me a troll in this thread.
This Notimeforbs person laid it out in words, explaining just what been trying to say for months now.
Had to paint the picture for you, which he/she did and all.
I would have thought this was an alt of mine or something!
Let me ask you, have you played BOTH ESO and TSW? ESO that is skill-level + character levels vs. TSW which is skills but not character levels. Did you find TSW's design substantially better because it had no levels? Or EVE's for that matter?
Because it seems to me that you're just posting random stuff with no actual experience with such systems. What specific MMOs have you enjoyed that had a non-level progression system?
I loved TSW and think it had some of the best dungeons and i loved it's freeform system, but at the end of the day even though it had no levels while ESO does, i don't see a massive difference in the feel of the game due to character progression. (obviously combat and stuff are vastly different).
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Wow and somebody called me a troll in this thread.
This Notimeforbs person laid it out in words, explaining just what been trying to say for months now.
Had to paint the picture for you, which he/she did and all.
I would have thought this was an alt of mine or something!
Let me ask you, have you played BOTH ESO and TSW? ESO that is skill-level + character levels vs. TSW which is skills but not character levels. Did you find TSW's design substantially better because it had no levels? Or EVE's for that matter?
Because it seems to me that you're just posting random stuff with no actual experience with such systems. What specific MMOs have you enjoyed that had a non-level progression system?
I loved TSW and think it had some of the best dungeons and i loved it's freeform system, but at the end of the day even though it had no levels while ESO does, i don't see a massive difference in the feel of the game due to character progression. (obviously combat and stuff are vastly different).
I've played them both, and I've played others that feature a skill system. Of the best - EVE and SWG with an honorable mention to City of Heroes.
The thing that makes these games stand out as such amazing examples of the potential for this sort of system isn't necessarily the system itself. It's how closely woven into the greater aspect of the game it is that matters. Having different skills in SWG and EVE doesn't just mean you have different attacks in combat. It changed what sorts of things you could actually do in the game. And entire systems within the game were built specifically to provide these skills with a useful function.
In EVE, Outfitting your chassis with a lot of boosters, a large cargo hold, and a serious warp drive, with little to no guns changes your options for game content. You aren't outfitted for combat - you are outfitted for courier work. Your entire game changes because of your "character build." And this isn't some boring line of work. This sort of work comes with it not only its own content engine, but it allows you to experience the game in a way that provides meaning to the entire game and every player in it.
SWG was similar in effect, though not executed as well. What made this game special was that you had a purpose outside of the group. You had a job - a function. You could contribute to the bigger picture. I give credit to SWG for this, because it came before EVE. We used to call this aspect player interdependency.
Basically what it meant was every Profession had something some other Profession needed. It provided a service. Some times that service was collecting hides. Other times that service was building something. We really badly wanted them to build on THAT within the game, but SOE screwed it over and wasted time on superfluous crap - but whatever. The point was... and I swear to you - no other game since has gotten this right besides EVE: Players have to provide content for one another based on a specific function that only their class, or build, or whatever you want to call it, can do.
They can't just be about "combat" or "crafting". They all have to provide a service for one another, and they all have to be equally important in relation to what kind of impact they can have for other players and the whole game. You can't undermine crafting by providing loot in RAIDs. People who craft NEED those players to NEED them. You can't undermine PvP by throwing 10 people in a ring and calling it a "match". They have to be out there in the open world, doing it all for the whole world to see - so they remember whose side they are on and why. You can't undermine the integrity of an entire class by calling it a Tank or a DPS or a Healer... and that's all it ever will be. That's just a manner in which it fights. That doesn't define the character. Let the players define their character - always. If some class option or build potential doesn't have a bigger function... the game needs to either drop that class or build, or create the bigger function it is used for.
Frankly, I don't care what else you put in the game.... it has to have that. Without it... no amount of perfect design in anything else will make it anymore than a game that just has you running through the story killing mobs. That's pretty much what every major MMO for the past 10 years has done.
This is why TSW is not on this list. It copied a design, and ripped out its core.
City of Heroes gets an honorable mention because... well... it gave you a really cool system that merged a skill progression and a level progression really well. Not only did it work... but it was a blast just deciding on how to build your character.
They did leveling scaling in Elder Scrolls Oblivion to make horizontal progression. A lot of people didn't like it. I really hated it because you never felt powerful and you also never felt weak (like there was a powerful challenge to look forward to). You really don't need scaling for progression. Skyrim removed a lot of the scaling of mobs and people seemed to have no problem exploring. I didn't have any issues with it.
Wow and somebody called me a troll in this thread.
This Notimeforbs person laid it out in words, explaining just what been trying to say for months now.
Had to paint the picture for you, which he/she did and all.
I would have thought this was an alt of mine or something!
Let me ask you, have you played BOTH ESO and TSW? ESO that is skill-level + character levels vs. TSW which is skills but not character levels. Did you find TSW's design substantially better because it had no levels? Or EVE's for that matter?
Because it seems to me that you're just posting random stuff with no actual experience with such systems. What specific MMOs have you enjoyed that had a non-level progression system?
I loved TSW and think it had some of the best dungeons and i loved it's freeform system, but at the end of the day even though it had no levels while ESO does, i don't see a massive difference in the feel of the game due to character progression. (obviously combat and stuff are vastly different).
TSW does have levels. Its on the gear. Which may be or may not be a more interesting way to do it. But it is a leveled game. Anyone saying different either doesn't understand the game or is being disingenuous.
One of the interesting aspects of level on gear is that switching builds generally means switching gear too (and there is a mechanic that switches both gear and skills for a pre-made build) and you can concievablly lower your effective level by switching builds.
TSW does have levels. Its on the gear. Which may be or may not be a more interesting way to do it. But it is a leveled game. Anyone saying different either doesn't understand the game or is being disingenuous.
Correct, it does. As do most of those types of games. This is something that people who play them realize - either early on or eventually. That the levels are there, just hidden. And this is why those games, even without levels, are generally built in the same way in terms of world progression with "low-level" areas that contain easy mobs and "high-level" areas that contain hard mobs, etc.
Hence why my question was directed at MMOEXPOSED, asking where he actually had his experiences with the no-levels games. Since he doesn't seem to realize that the world created as a result of those systems is more often than not quite similar to the world created by a system such as ESO, that has "overt" levels.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
No matter how many times you use this acronym, it's not going to become a thing that other people use. They are MMORPGs.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
TSW does have levels. Its on the gear. Which may be or may not be a more interesting way to do it. But it is a leveled game. Anyone saying different either doesn't understand the game or is being disingenuous.
Correct, it does. As do most of those types of games. This is something that people who play them realize - either early on or eventually. That the levels are there, just hidden. And this is why those games, even without levels, are generally built in the same way in terms of world progression with "low-level" areas that contain easy mobs and "high-level" areas that contain hard mobs, etc.
Hence why my question was directed at MMOEXPOSED, asking where he actually had his experiences with the no-levels games. Since he doesn't seem to realize that the world created as a result of those systems is more often than not quite similar to the world created by a system such as ESO, that has "overt" levels.
This is why they never give actual designs and just feature requests.
More nice/cool sounding little bites with zero actual gameplay specific explanation or even feasibility.
Yes, EvE has levels - tons of them, and yes, much the content is heavily gated around those levels.
SWG was the exact same way.
Even UO in many ways had levels that gated access to content.
Even a "true" sandbox like Minecraft has content gating - you have to build certain types of mining picks, for example, before you can start harvesting the more advanced resources like Diamonds (you can't mine diamonds with a wooden pickaxe.)
Removing character levels and zone levels would just mean you could wander into an area that required you to have higher skills and mobs there would wtfpwn you.
Sure, that can teach "danger" and "I'll have to come back here later once I'm more powerful" yadda yadda but all it really does is hide mechanics instead of presenting them - it's a cheap, completely transparent way to do things- which is why no one does it that way anymore.
Hell even con'ing certain colors based off of danger is an improvement on a no level / zone level system, I first remember seeing that in SWG 10 years ago, though I'm sure it is older than that.
There is ZERO difference between "wow that mob cons Red to me" and "wow that mob is 10 levels higher than me" other than presentation.
Between that and "hey, let me go see if I can fight that monster.... OUCH I got one-shot?!" - what is the point? Frustration? Vast majority of players would prefer a little less is hidden from them, it's kind of a dick move by developers, IMO.
TSW does have levels. Its on the gear. Which may be or may not be a more interesting way to do it. But it is a leveled game. Anyone saying different either doesn't understand the game or is being disingenuous.
Correct, it does. As do most of those types of games. This is something that people who play them realize - either early on or eventually. That the levels are there, just hidden. And this is why those games, even without levels, are generally built in the same way in terms of world progression with "low-level" areas that contain easy mobs and "high-level" areas that contain hard mobs, etc.
Hence why my question was directed at MMOEXPOSED, asking where he actually had his experiences with the no-levels games. Since he doesn't seem to realize that the world created as a result of those systems is more often than not quite similar to the world created by a system such as ESO, that has "overt" levels.
This is why they never give actual designs and just feature requests.
No one is getting paid to write up complete design documents so you guys can read over them and bash them anyway, here. You could lower your expectations a little to be more realistic since this isn't a real job environment that matters. I don't see anyone offering real design counter-arguments to anything in retrospect. It's all a bunch of nerd theory.
I don't see anyone offering real design counter-arguments to anything in retrospect.
Actually i've offered quite solid counter-argument in bringing up a recent AAA MMO that went down the path of "no levels", yet ended up wiht largely the same zone design strategy as ESO.
The OP's post clearly states that the game would be better without levels. I offer an example of a very similar game without levels for him to evaluate as to whether it indeed "turns out better". I mean, given that's a very theoretical discussion in the first place, this is probably as concrete as we're going to get.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Leveling is there to provide content at a measured pace - and give you a reason to exist in the world for a long while.
If you take that out, you better have some other way of extending content - because people can exhaust years of work by hundreds of people in just a few days if you don't.
As for people failing to explain how a non-leveled environment would actually work and failing to provide examples of actual horizontal progression, that's hardly a surprise.
We've already had one guy making up insults and lies because he ran out of support for his fantasy about actual horizontal progression.
I wouldn't expect much in the way of evidence here - armchair design-document or otherwise.
That said, I don't rule out the possibility of a non-leveled environment - but you'd still have to provide a reason for players to keep playing.
MMOs are primarily based on the power fantasy - and if you expect to lure people away from their real lives, you better be really inventive if you can't provide power progression in some form.
I've yet to imagine an MMO that has absolutely no power progression. But I can't rule it out entirely.
Comments
This is a themepark MMORPG..
To answer OP, no, it just wouldn't work. The levels are there to control access to power and limit imbalances.
No, progression can mean many things - but it can only BE vertical - as in "power" can only be gained or lost. It can't go "sideways" no matter how much the industry is making you think so. You need to think for yourself a bit, if you're going to understand this relatively simple point.
As for the whole "shallow child" insult you keep using, I should probably tell you that I don't take insults from strangers very seriously. They rarely make much of an impression, you know? Usually, it happens when people run out of logical arguments.
So, I look at arguments and if they're rational, I acknowledge them - even if I don't agree with them. Your "argument" has been that the industry is telling you that there is such a thing as horizontal progression, and so obviously the industry is right and only "shallow children" would disagree. Apparently the industry gets to define truth and represent ultimate objectivity in your world. Obviously, you know all about what the "industry" has said when it comes to horizontal progression - and you know for a fact that everyone in the entire industry has the exact same perception of the concept as you do. Sure
So, not only have you resorted to personal insults, you've failed to argue your case rationally - and on top of that, you claim to know for a fact what the entire industry believes to be true about horizontal progression.
I find it pretty amusing that you expect me to take you seriously at this point.
Anyway, you seem to be a fan of getting the last word - so I'll leave you to it
I am sure if this was the case you'd make a different post about how the game has no content. I understand you're just here to make controversial posts to garner yourself some attention.
First of all... you insulted me way before I called you childish. So eat your own bullshit on that one, bud. I bent over backwards post after post to try and answer your question - to clarify what I was talking about. And you had the audacity to repay that with "you're brainwashed and stupid." Honestly - what kind of a person with a sincere outlook does that? I don't even care if you agree with me... but don't call me brainwashed and stupid - shit....
I just wish you had at least attempted to understand what I was talking about instead of closing off over something childish and unproductive. Unfortunately, I close off to adults when they behave like children, because frankly... I expect better from them. I gave you every opportunity to provide me with a better reason than "your word is trendy thus I think you're stupid" to disagree with me. I really had hoped you had... something... that I can at least work with. I just can't work with an insult as an opposing argument.
I don't expect children to take anything seriously. I guess I expected too much from you.
We both lose, here.
Wow and somebody called me a troll in this thread.
This Notimeforbs person laid it out in words, explaining just what been trying to say for months now.
Had to paint the picture for you, which he/she did and all.
I would have thought this was an alt of mine or something!
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Not this discussion again.... NDA is lifted and things like this will never happen...
Why not accept the main features of the game as what they are, since they are set in stone and will not change anymore, and discuss those things that they actually can change in the six weeks they have still left... or even post release..
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Let me ask you, have you played BOTH ESO and TSW? ESO that is skill-level + character levels vs. TSW which is skills but not character levels. Did you find TSW's design substantially better because it had no levels? Or EVE's for that matter?
Because it seems to me that you're just posting random stuff with no actual experience with such systems. What specific MMOs have you enjoyed that had a non-level progression system?
I loved TSW and think it had some of the best dungeons and i loved it's freeform system, but at the end of the day even though it had no levels while ESO does, i don't see a massive difference in the feel of the game due to character progression. (obviously combat and stuff are vastly different).
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
All SCMORPGs are themeparks in some way. Its a scale. Not a fixed title of either Themepark or Sandbox.
it looks more like this
i may explain it in a thread soon.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I've played them both, and I've played others that feature a skill system. Of the best - EVE and SWG with an honorable mention to City of Heroes.
The thing that makes these games stand out as such amazing examples of the potential for this sort of system isn't necessarily the system itself. It's how closely woven into the greater aspect of the game it is that matters. Having different skills in SWG and EVE doesn't just mean you have different attacks in combat. It changed what sorts of things you could actually do in the game. And entire systems within the game were built specifically to provide these skills with a useful function.
In EVE, Outfitting your chassis with a lot of boosters, a large cargo hold, and a serious warp drive, with little to no guns changes your options for game content. You aren't outfitted for combat - you are outfitted for courier work. Your entire game changes because of your "character build." And this isn't some boring line of work. This sort of work comes with it not only its own content engine, but it allows you to experience the game in a way that provides meaning to the entire game and every player in it.
SWG was similar in effect, though not executed as well. What made this game special was that you had a purpose outside of the group. You had a job - a function. You could contribute to the bigger picture. I give credit to SWG for this, because it came before EVE. We used to call this aspect player interdependency.
Basically what it meant was every Profession had something some other Profession needed. It provided a service. Some times that service was collecting hides. Other times that service was building something. We really badly wanted them to build on THAT within the game, but SOE screwed it over and wasted time on superfluous crap - but whatever. The point was... and I swear to you - no other game since has gotten this right besides EVE: Players have to provide content for one another based on a specific function that only their class, or build, or whatever you want to call it, can do.
They can't just be about "combat" or "crafting". They all have to provide a service for one another, and they all have to be equally important in relation to what kind of impact they can have for other players and the whole game. You can't undermine crafting by providing loot in RAIDs. People who craft NEED those players to NEED them. You can't undermine PvP by throwing 10 people in a ring and calling it a "match". They have to be out there in the open world, doing it all for the whole world to see - so they remember whose side they are on and why. You can't undermine the integrity of an entire class by calling it a Tank or a DPS or a Healer... and that's all it ever will be. That's just a manner in which it fights. That doesn't define the character. Let the players define their character - always. If some class option or build potential doesn't have a bigger function... the game needs to either drop that class or build, or create the bigger function it is used for.
Frankly, I don't care what else you put in the game.... it has to have that. Without it... no amount of perfect design in anything else will make it anymore than a game that just has you running through the story killing mobs. That's pretty much what every major MMO for the past 10 years has done.
This is why TSW is not on this list. It copied a design, and ripped out its core.
City of Heroes gets an honorable mention because... well... it gave you a really cool system that merged a skill progression and a level progression really well. Not only did it work... but it was a blast just deciding on how to build your character.
TSW does have levels. Its on the gear. Which may be or may not be a more interesting way to do it. But it is a leveled game. Anyone saying different either doesn't understand the game or is being disingenuous.
One of the interesting aspects of level on gear is that switching builds generally means switching gear too (and there is a mechanic that switches both gear and skills for a pre-made build) and you can concievablly lower your effective level by switching builds.
Correct, it does. As do most of those types of games. This is something that people who play them realize - either early on or eventually. That the levels are there, just hidden. And this is why those games, even without levels, are generally built in the same way in terms of world progression with "low-level" areas that contain easy mobs and "high-level" areas that contain hard mobs, etc.
Hence why my question was directed at MMOEXPOSED, asking where he actually had his experiences with the no-levels games. Since he doesn't seem to realize that the world created as a result of those systems is more often than not quite similar to the world created by a system such as ESO, that has "overt" levels.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
No matter how many times you use this acronym, it's not going to become a thing that other people use. They are MMORPGs.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
This is why they never give actual designs and just feature requests.
More nice/cool sounding little bites with zero actual gameplay specific explanation or even feasibility.
Yes, EvE has levels - tons of them, and yes, much the content is heavily gated around those levels.
SWG was the exact same way.
Even UO in many ways had levels that gated access to content.
Even a "true" sandbox like Minecraft has content gating - you have to build certain types of mining picks, for example, before you can start harvesting the more advanced resources like Diamonds (you can't mine diamonds with a wooden pickaxe.)
Removing character levels and zone levels would just mean you could wander into an area that required you to have higher skills and mobs there would wtfpwn you.
Sure, that can teach "danger" and "I'll have to come back here later once I'm more powerful" yadda yadda but all it really does is hide mechanics instead of presenting them - it's a cheap, completely transparent way to do things- which is why no one does it that way anymore.
Hell even con'ing certain colors based off of danger is an improvement on a no level / zone level system, I first remember seeing that in SWG 10 years ago, though I'm sure it is older than that.
There is ZERO difference between "wow that mob cons Red to me" and "wow that mob is 10 levels higher than me" other than presentation.
Between that and "hey, let me go see if I can fight that monster.... OUCH I got one-shot?!" - what is the point? Frustration? Vast majority of players would prefer a little less is hidden from them, it's kind of a dick move by developers, IMO.
No one is getting paid to write up complete design documents so you guys can read over them and bash them anyway, here. You could lower your expectations a little to be more realistic since this isn't a real job environment that matters. I don't see anyone offering real design counter-arguments to anything in retrospect. It's all a bunch of nerd theory.
Actually i've offered quite solid counter-argument in bringing up a recent AAA MMO that went down the path of "no levels", yet ended up wiht largely the same zone design strategy as ESO.
The OP's post clearly states that the game would be better without levels. I offer an example of a very similar game without levels for him to evaluate as to whether it indeed "turns out better". I mean, given that's a very theoretical discussion in the first place, this is probably as concrete as we're going to get.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
Leveling is there to provide content at a measured pace - and give you a reason to exist in the world for a long while.
If you take that out, you better have some other way of extending content - because people can exhaust years of work by hundreds of people in just a few days if you don't.
As for people failing to explain how a non-leveled environment would actually work and failing to provide examples of actual horizontal progression, that's hardly a surprise.
We've already had one guy making up insults and lies because he ran out of support for his fantasy about actual horizontal progression.
I wouldn't expect much in the way of evidence here - armchair design-document or otherwise.
That said, I don't rule out the possibility of a non-leveled environment - but you'd still have to provide a reason for players to keep playing.
MMOs are primarily based on the power fantasy - and if you expect to lure people away from their real lives, you better be really inventive if you can't provide power progression in some form.
I've yet to imagine an MMO that has absolutely no power progression. But I can't rule it out entirely.