Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
RPG = Experience and levels
Caldicot
Member UncommonPosts: 455
The voice in this video says that RPG equals "earning XP and leveling up". What a joke.
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan
Comments
I'd do it too, it works well. MMO's levels, XP and class system are based on D&D. Levels are a good way to scale progression, balance class power, and offer challenging content.
There's people who just want to remove things for the sake of removing things, like trying to remove the trinity system, without offering a viable alternative.
Well without having listened to it I can't comment a lot, however I generally agree that rpg means at least progression. It has been a staple since... forever. It's a defining characteristic.
nearly every single RPG i have ever played since the says of dragon warrior and swords and serpents has had experience and leveling up.
that includes pnp RPG's as well like D&D so yeah, i kind of agree it does = rpg......
This is the important point. Removing something from a game generally leaves a void, and something has to replace it. I don't like many of the traditional PnP mechanisms such as levels and HPs. For the PnP versions, these mechanisms made life easy, allowing convenient steps of progression and avoiding math. Computers can do the math much faster (and more accurately) than people, so these conventions aren't as useful to computerized games, but no developer has really bothered to re-think these. Perhaps it is too difficult to build a smooth, continuous progression scheme or, more likely, it's just too expensive, but the developers know that removing the core of the existing leveling system will require some replacement system.
I'd like to remove levels. But I just don't have an answer for what to replace them with.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Having spent most of my life playing single player RPG's going back to the late 80's I'm finding it quite hard to pick myself off the floor from laughter.....but having said that,it may explain why there isn't as many quality rpg's as there once were.
I have played many that were purely story based,as we know its way easier for dev's to just follow the crowd and what has been done before than take a chance and try new things.So sure plenty are level based but to assume that's what makes a RPG a RPG they know nothing of what one is.
RPGs to me are defined by permanent character growth. This can be done without levels, but imo gear doesn't count.
Its one of the reasons why EQ was so great. With the AAs, you were always advancing your character even at 'max level'.
A huge problem with games today, and a reason for poor retention, is the actual RPG part of the game is short lived. When you are max level in a month of casual play it can get boring fast.
'Levels' is the only element of single player games that doesnt work in MMOs.
- they kill the world (leveling zones)
- they separate friends, guilds and community
- they cause pvp imbalance
- they hurt the MMORPG genre
...and probably causes cancer too.
There are plenty of examples of games that don't do what you just listed. Levels are bad if they are implemented badly (a shocker I know) but there's nothing wrong with them if they are done properly. Nearly all MMORPGs have levels in one form or another.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And herein is revealed, why we have so many 'RPG's that look, feel, and play almost exactly alike.
Most players, and by extension, most developers, have nearly zero imagination, and cannot possibly conceive of anything different that what they have already experienced.
Just to shake your heads up a bit, check out games like EvE, and UO, perhaps a UO freeshard under the olde rule set. These games have no levels, and no classes, only skills. The skills you need for combat level up so fast as to preclude much feeling of progression. TBH, IMHO EvE would be a better game if you could just fly all the ships right from the start, as the game is much more about its gameplay, not about 'grind' or 'progress'.
Most of you have forgotten, or never knew about adventure games like Zork, a genre that largely died out in the move to graphical games and away from text. More over, most of you are 'Roll' players, not 'Role' players, you are mostly stuck dicing your way around a numerical world, rather than interacting with your fellow players.
No, I am not in a mood to be nice, it is cold here and I don't yet have enough coffee to really feel like putting forth much effort. I suppose I should apologize for being harsh and nasty, yet it is so damn frustrating to try to communicate that there is more to having fun in an multiplayer game than just levels and xp.
Multiplayer games could be so much more, not so much if the developers would make a more interesting game, but if the audience would be more receptive to creative alternatives to that which has been done so poorly, so many times over.
Ok, enough of my rant for now, I will return to this thread later, and perhaps I shall even elaborate on some worthwhile alternatives.
Yes they do have levels. They are just called skill levels. No the whole characters is not getting stronger as the go up in levels but that particular skill is going up in levels.
They could just drop the skill levels, and the games would be more fun.
UO is said to have leveled up very quickly, and EvE levels damn slow sometimes, but that is just to keep you subbed for yet another month, rather than to improve gameplay or increase fun. UO forced the player to make a trade off between having different skills, EvE just makes you sub for-freaking-ever, the only trade off is in when, not if or what you max. In EvE, what you really level is your ISK bank account and your hangar fleet, not so much your skills.
I still think that levels are the bane of good MMORPG design, as a previous poster noted, levels separate friends, disturb both PvE and PvP balance, and lead to dead 'zones' that are populated with low lev mobs which become useless to the player at higher levels. Most MMORPGs would be better off with a flatter power level, and a stronger focus on player interaction.
Anyway, thanks for the decency of your response.
Unfornunatelly after the invasion of the instant gratification antisocial crowd that play FPS and now play WoW and MOBAS, they want to create a new genre: MMOPlatformer.
Not really.
The skill system in EVE creates diversity, another layer of choice. It is entirely different concept from UO or any character progression based system - leveling. There is no character progression in EVE.
Skill points in EVE are more of an asset than anything else.
The 2nd half of your post is merely your bias. If you ever followed any game attempting at horizontal progression, you would notice that people do not like it. The bold truth is, people do like progression, they do like gaining power and gear.
Most recent example is Firefall.
EvE is a weird one, quite different than anything else, and it is still around, which makes it rather noticeable. The skill system forces diversity only in the short term, given time nearly everyone winds up exactly alike, or will if the game runs long enough. Over time, every combat pilot winds up alike, same for every crafter, the diversity is only prevalent early on. Much of the EvE skill system is only there to force the player to remain subbed forever, and with multiple toons to boot.
EvE could have been done with a set maximum of skills, forcing a trade-off in capabilities, at the expense of monetization. The gameplay would remain unaffected; like you said, there is no character progression in EvE.
Horizontal changes are more in the nature of differentiation, rather than progression in power level, enabling the doing of different things, instead of doing the same thing with bigger numbers.
As for progression it self, there are countless people who grind instance upon instance of Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter, Tekken, Quake, Halo, ... heck, even Pac-Man or Space Invaders, where the avatar does not gain in power or ability at all, and these games are still fun enough to play many times over. Avatar power progression is not a critical component of fun, it is only one way to establish goals or keep score for the player. Sure, it works, but it works better in single player games than in multiplayer.
As for Firefall, that project seems to have had problems all its own, irregardless of any one feature or design element.
Considering that training all skills in EVE takes +27 years, no, it is not short term diversity.
Limiting skill points makes no sense in EVE since the game is horizontal - you can only use specific skill set at a time.
Unlike character progression, vertical based games when you can use all your skills anytime - ie. Darkfall.
Street fighter, Quake and alike are no (MMO)RPG.
Regardless what Firefall issues were/are, the people spoke clearly what they like and want in the game.
Except a good developer,system designer does not need balance.
Xp is only there as a tool to aid levels which if talking about player levels is not needed at all.Skill based is the proper way and skill levels is a MUCH better determination of a player.If for example your player was level 100 but had 0 skill in accuracy,0 skill in that weapon,o skill in avoidance,o skill in casting any buff/spell you would be as good as a level 1 noob.However the way games are designed you could not even play one minute either get a level 90 handed to you aka lame Blizzard OR sit idle in a group and collect xp never lifting a finger,so ya levels are a complete joke when comes to game design.
I got to witness both sides and how htey work in the same game >FFXI.FFXI is the best grouping game ever designed,no not perfect but much better than all the otehr games yet when came time to make xpansion sales aka just like Blizzard recently did,they changed the way XP could be earned and MANY a player sat idle attaining max level.
What has made gaming even more a joke is if we are to accept DnD ,that in itself had several changes of contradiction but even still it is a class base and stat base,games now are questing based.These modern games reward your Warrior for running errands,how on earth does running an errand make you a better Warrior,it doesnt so why are devs designing games like this,god only knows,probably because it is easy and simple .
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I'm more interested in whether a game is fun than in how you or some guy in a video care to classify it.
Puzzle Pirates has levels and Lineage has levels, but what they do with levels isn't at all similar to each other--and Puzzle Pirates is much closer in its leveling system to a game with no levels at all than it is to Lineage.
Sure there were levels in table top rpgs, but they never stop you from playing with people or trying new things. Somewhere levels became part of the "get player past the free 30 days" equation.
If you view skill points as a means to unlock stuff and ships as classes. It is not all that different from the rest.
It would only force people to have even more alts; this time for every ship, ship type or size class - however much you want to limit the characters really.
You are right, progression is not required. But what is required instead is rock-solid gameplay with depth. Something where MMORPGs are at a disadvantage due to their technical constraints.I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Sure you can do that, you will be wrong tho because ships are nothing like classes.
Says you? Care to elaborate how they are "nothing like classes"?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Ships being craftable and subject to game economy for one.
Ships do not really have "roles". Frigate or cruiser are just different but they have no determined roles like class do.
Ships are an equipment, a tool to use, it does not define you as a player/character.
etc. etc.
Well for level based progression there are alternatives. Such as the excellent skill-based system which Asheron's Call 1 had and the not so excellent one which Darkfall has.
Unfourtunately it is far easier to go with a level based one and hence why most devs do it.
My gaming blog
It doesn't matter at all that whether they are craftable or if they are subject to game economy. The fact that it is "equipment" is a minor detail considering what ships do in the game. I'm sure you can easily imagine a game where you pickup a set of gear to define your class: Medic's kit, Sniper's kit, Assault kit etc. It doesn't matter where classes come from. They are just sets of stats and abilities you can have at any one time.
And classes are not roles. You take up on a role when you equip your class with gear and skillset. Not too different from fitting a ship in Eve. Also, in Eve, like in many other games, some classes are better at some roles too.
Your ship defines you for the time you are in it. It doesn't matter if you have Titan skills if you're flying a HAC. When you fly a HAC you are just another HAC pilot. Everyone expects you to have all the relevant skills atleast level IV. Only thing that defines you is your current build.
"etc. etc." is not good enough. I'm sure you'll see it the way I do if you only thought about it for a moment. Really compare it to other games where you unlock classes and gear with either currency or experience.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky