Originally posted by QuirhidI'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.
By your own words, that wouldn't be a class but role.
That is the difference here, you are imagining things, making up pseudo scenarios and dismiss/ignore any arguments not flying your boat to justify your false conclusions, I don't.
The meaning of RPG is "Role Playing Game", it has nothing to do with levels, experience and gear.
If you are playing the role of your character, that is, making decisions with a good degree of freedom, as if you were the character, then you are playing an RPG. Now I realize this is quite a broad definition, so let's add a few things.
-RPG means story. RPGs have their roots in fantasy and SF books turned into an interactive medium (a pen an paper game with a narrator and rule books). The point of an RPG is basically to write your own story, as a character inside that story.
-RPG means choice. If you have only one way of solving most issues (like shooting it), it's probably not an RPG. It's pretty obvious if you understand the point above. If you're not making any meaningful choice, you're not writing your own story, you're merely reading it.
Experience points, levels, items, skills, all those things, are certainly often found in RPGs because they are a convenient and well established way of giving the player a sense of progression. Certainly, in computer RPGs, they have become a staple, because they are one of the easiest things to implement.
Does it mean that XP/level = RPG ?
No.
Because you can easily put levels and XP points in all sorts of games, and it won't magically turn them into RPGs.
And you can conceive RPGs that don't include XP/Levels as part of their progression mechanics, and they'll still be RPGs.
One of the biggest problems we deal with is marketing buzzwords, and the reduction of meaning to its most base and crass expression. Acronyms are not spelled out or thought about, but rather are just spat out, with no regard as toward what the words once meant. MMO is now used to mean 'a very popular game that lots of people play', such that Super Data Research refers to World of Tanks and League of Legends as 'MMO' games, even though any rational analysis would call those games battlegrounds. 15v15 is not massive, and neither is 5v5, not by any stretch of the imagination, nor by any permutation of rhetoric. Yet 'massive' they are called, if only because of popularity.
The role play has been stripped out of role playing games, leaving only a computerized level and experience point grind game, bereft of its origin in pen and paper tabletop gaming. These kinds of games were brought to a much larger audience by computerization, an audience that often has much knowledge of video gaming, and no awareness at all of tabletop. There is a richness to the pen and paper experience that has been lost, left behind by an avalanche of samey level grinders.
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.
By your own words, that wouldn't be a class but role.
That is the difference here, you are imagining things, making up pseudo scenarios and dismiss/ignore any arguments not flying your boat to justify your false conclusions, I don't.
All what I have said in this about roles is that classes and roles are not the same thing so
I am not imagining anything, nor am I making up pseudo scenarios (whatever that is) and I am only dismissing arguments that I have shown are weak.
You're not really good at this debating thing are you? All you've basically said so far is: "I'm right and you're wrong just because."
Ships work very much like classes and you can view skill points as a currency to unlock stuff.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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.
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.
But those aren't RPG's.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For me, the problem isn't levels.. I support some form of character progression, rather it be levels, or skills, etc etc.. A character needs to improve over time, no different then any real life hobby or game.. To me the real issue is the power curve that is associated with levels.. A newbie joining the game may start off with 100 health, and doing 5 points of damage.. With each "DING" as he levels up, he/she becomes more powerful, so by the time they reach level cap (60th level) they have 10,000 health and doing 200 pts of damage per hit.. This is just an insane power curve that is very disruptive to a game.. IMO.. You split up and segregate the community into level groups, forcing players to only associate with those within a define range of levels.. Sure some can make up a list of "pro's", but I feel the list of con's is far bigger..
Keep the levels (character progression) or any alternate form, and minimize the power gaps that occur.. So in my example above instead of the max level 60 guy running around one shotting everything more then 20 levels below him, lets change just how much of an increase they receive per "DING". lol Using "rule of 72", as a generic template.. I would like to see an increase of character strength around 1% per level.. So by the time the character reaches 60th level, he has 160 health vs. 100 (starting), instead of some insane number that makes him a God.. Maybe over time as the character progresses they acquire better gear, and training so they can now do 10-15 pts of damage, instead of one shotting everything..
For me the goal and focus of a MMORPG should be on content and community, and ROLE PLAYING.. not power progression. I envision a game where lvl 60's can technically group up with newbies and be more of a big brother, then an invincible God..
D&D was not the only tabletop rules system, but because of its popularity, a lot of D&D features have transferred into MMORPGs; not just character levels and classes, but also such cliches as "mages must wear cloth".
A much better set of rules was Dragonquest, published by SPI. Here you still earned experience points, but you decided how to spend them - learning a new skill, upping a stat, improving an existing skill. So your character progressed, but you had huge freedom in deciding how it progressed, and you were never corralled down the same advancement path as everyone else.
I don't see why an MMORPG can't operate similarly. It might do more to break the rigidity of warrior = tank, mage = DPS and so on that is repeated over and over.
I'd do it too, it works well. MMO's levels, XP and class system are based on D&D.
'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.
Agreed. Also, in my opinion, I think MMORPGs have moved further and further away from the good RPG elements and have tried too hard on the MMO part ...
Originally posted by Ket_Viliano 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.
D&D was not the only tabletop rules system, but because of its popularity, a lot of D&D features have transferred into MMORPGs; not just character levels and classes, but also such cliches as "mages must wear cloth".
A much better set of rules was Dragonquest, published by SPI. Here you still earned experience points, but you decided how to spend them - learning a new skill, upping a stat, improving an existing skill. So your character progressed, but you had huge freedom in deciding how it progressed, and you were never corralled down the same advancement path as everyone else.
I don't see why an MMORPG can't operate similarly. It might do more to break the rigidity of warrior = tank, mage = DPS and so on that is repeated over and over.
While I love such systems myself, this always results in massive whining about there not being clear cut roles & trinity system. Just look at games like GW2. They tried to do hings slightly differently and people to this days till have not stopped complaining about the lack of a rigid trinity and how it supposedly results in nothing but "zerg" gameplay.
Originally posted by Ket_Viliano 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.
This is because many do not implement it well.
Agreed, and as he mentioned games would be better off with more of a horizontal progression style rather than steep vertical progression. Unfortunately that doesnt appeal to the masses. People want to see massive number growth (even though they really mean nothing at all when fighting content your level). If they gain 50 levels, they want to literally feel 50x stronger. Really though so many games would be much better off between min and max levels you were only about 50-100% stronger in raw power, and most of the benefits came from other smaller factors that added up.
D&D was not the only tabletop rules system, but because of its popularity, a lot of D&D features have transferred into MMORPGs; not just character levels and classes, but also such cliches as "mages must wear cloth".
A much better set of rules was Dragonquest, published by SPI. Here you still earned experience points, but you decided how to spend them - learning a new skill, upping a stat, improving an existing skill. So your character progressed, but you had huge freedom in deciding how it progressed, and you were never corralled down the same advancement path as everyone else.
I don't see why an MMORPG can't operate similarly. It might do more to break the rigidity of warrior = tank, mage = DPS and so on that is repeated over and over.
While I love such systems myself, this always results in massive whining about there not being clear cut roles & trinity system. Just look at games like GW2. They tried to do hings slightly differently and people to this days till have not stopped complaining about the lack of a rigid trinity and how it supposedly results in nothing but "zerg" gameplay.
GW2 never replaced it with anything; they just removed it.
D&D was not the only tabletop rules system, but because of its popularity, a lot of D&D features have transferred into MMORPGs; not just character levels and classes, but also such cliches as "mages must wear cloth".
A much better set of rules was Dragonquest, published by SPI. Here you still earned experience points, but you decided how to spend them - learning a new skill, upping a stat, improving an existing skill. So your character progressed, but you had huge freedom in deciding how it progressed, and you were never corralled down the same advancement path as everyone else.
I don't see why an MMORPG can't operate similarly. It might do more to break the rigidity of warrior = tank, mage = DPS and so on that is repeated over and over.
While I love such systems myself, this always results in massive whining about there not being clear cut roles & trinity system. Just look at games like GW2. They tried to do hings slightly differently and people to this days till have not stopped complaining about the lack of a rigid trinity and how it supposedly results in nothing but "zerg" gameplay.
GW2 never replaced it with anything; they just removed it.
It didn't need to be replaced. There were a variety of builds that were clearly better suited to performing certain roles, people just chose to not play them and instead whine that they don't exist. The biggest thing GW2 changed was that being a "tank" was different than being a "tank" in other games because you didnt have some ridiculous taunt skill that made every enemy magically focus on nothing but you the entire fight just because you shouted at it or some crap. You had to actually manage the fights by proper use of CC and positioning without an auto-IWINAGGRO button.
Funny thing is, if you look at a game like ESO where they offer the same idea of any class being able to perform any role but in different ways.... you dont see the same constant crying about it.
D&D was not the only tabletop rules system, but because of its popularity, a lot of D&D features have transferred into MMORPGs; not just character levels and classes, but also such cliches as "mages must wear cloth".
A much better set of rules was Dragonquest, published by SPI. Here you still earned experience points, but you decided how to spend them - learning a new skill, upping a stat, improving an existing skill. So your character progressed, but you had huge freedom in deciding how it progressed, and you were never corralled down the same advancement path as everyone else.
I don't see why an MMORPG can't operate similarly. It might do more to break the rigidity of warrior = tank, mage = DPS and so on that is repeated over and over.
While I love such systems myself, this always results in massive whining about there not being clear cut roles & trinity system. Just look at games like GW2. They tried to do hings slightly differently and people to this days till have not stopped complaining about the lack of a rigid trinity and how it supposedly results in nothing but "zerg" gameplay.
GW2 never replaced it with anything; they just removed it.
It didn't need to be replaced. There were a variety of builds that were clearly better suited to performing certain roles, people just chose to not play them and instead whine that they don't exist. The biggest thing GW2 changed was that being a "tank" was different than being a "tank" in other games because you didnt have some ridiculous taunt skill that made every enemy magically focus on nothing but you the entire fight just because you shouted at it or some crap. You had to actually manage the fights by proper use of CC and positioning without an auto-IWINAGGRO button.
Funny thing is, if you look at a game like ESO where they offer the same idea of any class being able to perform any role but in different ways.... you dont see the same constant crying about it.
I wonder to what extent player conditioning is needed to get the players used to doing things differently. It would seem that customer education is crucial to market acceptance. To extend a quote from H. Ford, they want a faster horse, but will need driving and mechanics lessons to appreciate the automobile.
And a little further note, the fighter as tank, and mage as DPS thing only applies at low levels in D&D; at high levels the mage may have the least HP, but can get the best AC by taking every defensive spell the game offers, and winds up with the best saving throws. This is from a game in the 3.0 and 3.5 rules, pretty sure it works that way in original AD&D and likely still holds true in more recent versions. And still people think the mage is the DPS.
And a little further note, the fighter as tank, and mage as DPS thing only applies at low levels in D&D; at high levels the mage may have the least HP, but can get the best AC by taking every defensive spell the game offers, and winds up with the best saving throws. This is from a game in the 3.0 and 3.5 rules, pretty sure it works that way in original AD&D and likely still holds true in more recent versions. And still people think the mage is the DPS.
Well, if I stretch my memory back to the 1970s, in original D&D the tank role for fighters was not so rigid either. For a start, there was no aggro - monsters were as smart or stupid as the DM chose in any encounter. So no taunting. The fighter's capacity to intercept damage was restricted to him being at the front of the party. Secondly, the fighter was expected to hand out respectable DPS himself, so he wasn't just a defensibe bulwark.
But I agree - I would be quite happy in a MMORPG where the mages could stand at the front and be protected by magical auras as strong as any plate armour. Why not? if you believe in magic and fantasy, it should be possible. In fact, why should mages not wear plate armour? Just because Gary Gygax said they couldn't is no reason, and remember that Gygax also said that a sack can only hold 50 coins. I think he never actually saw a sack.
Well being a mage would take a great deal of book learning making it less likely they would also have time but not impossible they would have time to develop the strength and endurance to wear 40-60 pounds of gear for hours and hours and hours.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by ruonim Of course. Try asking to remove levels on some popular mmo board. You will get eaten by fanbois.
Of course they (we?) will. Levels=Character Progression.
Levels also come in a variety of forms: Character/Monster/Zone level Skill level Gear level
Do you propose to get rid of all of these "levels?" If so, how do you propose your character to "improve/advance/get better" over time?
Or are you of the "I am my character" school of thought and as you get better at a game, so does your character? (Nothing wrong with that, just asking for clarity.)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
D&D was not the only tabletop rules system, but because of its popularity, a lot of D&D features have transferred into MMORPGs; not just character levels and classes, but also such cliches as "mages must wear cloth".
A much better set of rules was Dragonquest, published by SPI. Here you still earned experience points, but you decided how to spend them - learning a new skill, upping a stat, improving an existing skill. So your character progressed, but you had huge freedom in deciding how it progressed, and you were never corralled down the same advancement path as everyone else.
I don't see why an MMORPG can't operate similarly. It might do more to break the rigidity of warrior = tank, mage = DPS and so on that is repeated over and over.
You like chocolate I like vanilla. You would claim chocolate is factually better and not JUST YOUR @#$% opinion.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
The meaning of RPG is "Role Playing Game", it has nothing to do with levels, experience and gear.
If you are playing the role of your character, that is, making decisions with a good degree of freedom, as if you were the character, then you are playing an RPG. Now I realize this is quite a broad definition, so let's add a few things.
-RPG means story. RPGs have their roots in fantasy and SF books turned into an interactive medium (a pen an paper game with a narrator and rule books). The point of an RPG is basically to write your own story, as a character inside that story.
-RPG means choice. If you have only one way of solving most issues (like shooting it), it's probably not an RPG. It's pretty obvious if you understand the point above. If you're not making any meaningful choice, you're not writing your own story, you're merely reading it.
Experience points, levels, items, skills, all those things, are certainly often found in RPGs because they are a convenient and well established way of giving the player a sense of progression. Certainly, in computer RPGs, they have become a staple, because they are one of the easiest things to implement.
Does it mean that XP/level = RPG ?
No.
Because you can easily put levels and XP points in all sorts of games, and it won't magically turn them into RPGs.
And you can conceive RPGs that don't include XP/Levels as part of their progression mechanics, and they'll still be RPGs.
You're missing the point here, role playing game is a title, a name, XP and levels (upwards progression handled through numbers) which signify your characters rise from nothing to something... are a genre staple, that's part of playing the role, you're building a character to a criteria laid out by the rules of said game...be it virtual, P&P, etc... They've almost always worked that way. Your entire premise here though is akin to arguing the finer points of a thread based on title alone, you're missing the body and with it the substance.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
By your own words, that wouldn't be a class but role.
That is the difference here, you are imagining things, making up pseudo scenarios and dismiss/ignore any arguments not flying your boat to justify your false conclusions, I don't.
The meaning of RPG is "Role Playing Game", it has nothing to do with levels, experience and gear.
If you are playing the role of your character, that is, making decisions with a good degree of freedom, as if you were the character, then you are playing an RPG. Now I realize this is quite a broad definition, so let's add a few things.
-RPG means story. RPGs have their roots in fantasy and SF books turned into an interactive medium (a pen an paper game with a narrator and rule books). The point of an RPG is basically to write your own story, as a character inside that story.
-RPG means choice. If you have only one way of solving most issues (like shooting it), it's probably not an RPG. It's pretty obvious if you understand the point above. If you're not making any meaningful choice, you're not writing your own story, you're merely reading it.
Experience points, levels, items, skills, all those things, are certainly often found in RPGs because they are a convenient and well established way of giving the player a sense of progression. Certainly, in computer RPGs, they have become a staple, because they are one of the easiest things to implement.
Does it mean that XP/level = RPG ?
No.
Because you can easily put levels and XP points in all sorts of games, and it won't magically turn them into RPGs.
And you can conceive RPGs that don't include XP/Levels as part of their progression mechanics, and they'll still be RPGs.
One of the biggest problems we deal with is marketing buzzwords, and the reduction of meaning to its most base and crass expression. Acronyms are not spelled out or thought about, but rather are just spat out, with no regard as toward what the words once meant. MMO is now used to mean 'a very popular game that lots of people play', such that Super Data Research refers to World of Tanks and League of Legends as 'MMO' games, even though any rational analysis would call those games battlegrounds. 15v15 is not massive, and neither is 5v5, not by any stretch of the imagination, nor by any permutation of rhetoric. Yet 'massive' they are called, if only because of popularity.
The role play has been stripped out of role playing games, leaving only a computerized level and experience point grind game, bereft of its origin in pen and paper tabletop gaming. These kinds of games were brought to a much larger audience by computerization, an audience that often has much knowledge of video gaming, and no awareness at all of tabletop. There is a richness to the pen and paper experience that has been lost, left behind by an avalanche of samey level grinders.
All what I have said in this about roles is that classes and roles are not the same thing so
I am not imagining anything, nor am I making up pseudo scenarios (whatever that is) and I am only dismissing arguments that I have shown are weak.
You're not really good at this debating thing are you? All you've basically said so far is: "I'm right and you're wrong just because."
Ships work very much like classes and you can view skill points as a currency to unlock stuff.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No they don't turn into RPGs, but those elements they put in are commonly called "RPG elements".
Wouldn't that be an adventure game then?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
But those aren't RPG's.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
..and right after you follow up with:
Repeating same mantra over and over ignoring any counter-arguments. Priceless.
My 2 cents..
For me, the problem isn't levels.. I support some form of character progression, rather it be levels, or skills, etc etc.. A character needs to improve over time, no different then any real life hobby or game.. To me the real issue is the power curve that is associated with levels.. A newbie joining the game may start off with 100 health, and doing 5 points of damage.. With each "DING" as he levels up, he/she becomes more powerful, so by the time they reach level cap (60th level) they have 10,000 health and doing 200 pts of damage per hit.. This is just an insane power curve that is very disruptive to a game.. IMO.. You split up and segregate the community into level groups, forcing players to only associate with those within a define range of levels.. Sure some can make up a list of "pro's", but I feel the list of con's is far bigger..
Keep the levels (character progression) or any alternate form, and minimize the power gaps that occur.. So in my example above instead of the max level 60 guy running around one shotting everything more then 20 levels below him, lets change just how much of an increase they receive per "DING". lol Using "rule of 72", as a generic template.. I would like to see an increase of character strength around 1% per level.. So by the time the character reaches 60th level, he has 160 health vs. 100 (starting), instead of some insane number that makes him a God.. Maybe over time as the character progresses they acquire better gear, and training so they can now do 10-15 pts of damage, instead of one shotting everything..
For me the goal and focus of a MMORPG should be on content and community, and ROLE PLAYING.. not power progression. I envision a game where lvl 60's can technically group up with newbies and be more of a big brother, then an invincible God..
You are bad. Very bad.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
D&D was not the only tabletop rules system, but because of its popularity, a lot of D&D features have transferred into MMORPGs; not just character levels and classes, but also such cliches as "mages must wear cloth".
A much better set of rules was Dragonquest, published by SPI. Here you still earned experience points, but you decided how to spend them - learning a new skill, upping a stat, improving an existing skill. So your character progressed, but you had huge freedom in deciding how it progressed, and you were never corralled down the same advancement path as everyone else.
I don't see why an MMORPG can't operate similarly. It might do more to break the rigidity of warrior = tank, mage = DPS and so on that is repeated over and over.
Agreed. Also, in my opinion, I think MMORPGs have moved further and further away from the good RPG elements and have tried too hard on the MMO part ...
This is because many do not implement it well.
While I love such systems myself, this always results in massive whining about there not being clear cut roles & trinity system. Just look at games like GW2. They tried to do hings slightly differently and people to this days till have not stopped complaining about the lack of a rigid trinity and how it supposedly results in nothing but "zerg" gameplay.
Agreed, and as he mentioned games would be better off with more of a horizontal progression style rather than steep vertical progression. Unfortunately that doesnt appeal to the masses. People want to see massive number growth (even though they really mean nothing at all when fighting content your level). If they gain 50 levels, they want to literally feel 50x stronger. Really though so many games would be much better off between min and max levels you were only about 50-100% stronger in raw power, and most of the benefits came from other smaller factors that added up.
GW2 never replaced it with anything; they just removed it.
It didn't need to be replaced. There were a variety of builds that were clearly better suited to performing certain roles, people just chose to not play them and instead whine that they don't exist. The biggest thing GW2 changed was that being a "tank" was different than being a "tank" in other games because you didnt have some ridiculous taunt skill that made every enemy magically focus on nothing but you the entire fight just because you shouted at it or some crap. You had to actually manage the fights by proper use of CC and positioning without an auto-IWINAGGRO button.
Funny thing is, if you look at a game like ESO where they offer the same idea of any class being able to perform any role but in different ways.... you dont see the same constant crying about it.
I wonder to what extent player conditioning is needed to get the players used to doing things differently. It would seem that customer education is crucial to market acceptance. To extend a quote from H. Ford, they want a faster horse, but will need driving and mechanics lessons to appreciate the automobile.
And a little further note, the fighter as tank, and mage as DPS thing only applies at low levels in D&D; at high levels the mage may have the least HP, but can get the best AC by taking every defensive spell the game offers, and winds up with the best saving throws. This is from a game in the 3.0 and 3.5 rules, pretty sure it works that way in original AD&D and likely still holds true in more recent versions. And still people think the mage is the DPS.
Well, if I stretch my memory back to the 1970s, in original D&D the tank role for fighters was not so rigid either. For a start, there was no aggro - monsters were as smart or stupid as the DM chose in any encounter. So no taunting. The fighter's capacity to intercept damage was restricted to him being at the front of the party. Secondly, the fighter was expected to hand out respectable DPS himself, so he wasn't just a defensibe bulwark.
But I agree - I would be quite happy in a MMORPG where the mages could stand at the front and be protected by magical auras as strong as any plate armour. Why not? if you believe in magic and fantasy, it should be possible. In fact, why should mages not wear plate armour? Just because Gary Gygax said they couldn't is no reason, and remember that Gygax also said that a sack can only hold 50 coins. I think he never actually saw a sack.
Levels also come in a variety of forms:
Character/Monster/Zone level
Skill level
Gear level
Do you propose to get rid of all of these "levels?" If so, how do you propose your character to "improve/advance/get better" over time?
Or are you of the "I am my character" school of thought and as you get better at a game, so does your character? (Nothing wrong with that, just asking for clarity.)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
In my way of thinking, remove the progression and what you have left is exactly that.
While it doesn't always have to be levels, MMORPG' s always have progression mechanics, it's what the "P" stands for you know.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You forgot to list the millions of man hours spent playing level based MMORPGs as a sure sign that it "doesn't work in MMOs".
fail.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
You like chocolate I like vanilla. You would claim chocolate is factually better and not JUST YOUR @#$% opinion.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
You're missing the point here, role playing game is a title, a name, XP and levels (upwards progression handled through numbers) which signify your characters rise from nothing to something... are a genre staple, that's part of playing the role, you're building a character to a criteria laid out by the rules of said game...be it virtual, P&P, etc... They've almost always worked that way. Your entire premise here though is akin to arguing the finer points of a thread based on title alone, you're missing the body and with it the substance.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
well thats crap since a new mmorpg coming called Skyforge wont have lvls att all
http://sf.my.com/us/news/announcements/skyforge-technical-beta-weekend-begins-november-13th