When you apply for a job, they don't ask you what level you are in system administration.
When you apply for a job, they ask you about years of experience. You and I call that XP. Which is what is used in games to gain levels.
Except that their "years of experience" mean exactly jack and squat. I've known System Administrators who've been doing the job for 20 years who don't know shit compared to some kid that graduated MIT yesterday... that's skill.
are you trying to say that XP in games should be removed because the word 'experience' is basically a bunch of B.S. to you?
It's worse than that actually. What he said was twenty years of skill ups in industry is not worth as much as three years levelling at MIT. He thought he said the reverse, but he didn't.
When you apply for a job, they don't ask you what level you are in system administration.
When you apply for a job, they ask you about years of experience. You and I call that XP. Which is what is used in games to gain levels.
Except that their "years of experience" mean exactly jack and squat. I've known System Administrators who've been doing the job for 20 years who don't know shit compared to some kid that graduated MIT yesterday... that's skill.
are you trying to say that XP in games should be removed because the word 'experience' is basically a bunch of B.S. to you?
It's worse than that actually. What he said was twenty years of skill ups in industry is not worth as much as three years levelling at MIT. He thought he said the reverse, but he didn't.
I said nothing of the sort in any way shape or form. I said that I have known people who spent 20 years in my industry and still weren't as skilled as someone coming right out of MIT.
Some people come into our industry and learn enough to stay afloat and keep their job and spend 20 years at the company. Some people come into our industry and spend every month trying to make themselves better and after two years they're far more proficient at their job than the guy with 18 years of "experience" on them.
By the archaic, nonsensical Gary Gygax standard of the 1970's, the guy with 20 years at the company would be more competent only because he kept dinging up years or levels of experience with the company. That's just a bit silly to say the least.
Rapid clicking and jumping to demonstrate "skill" is really more the purview of console gaming. I'm not really about jumping over barrels thrown by pixilated gorillas, but if that is the kind of game you are seeking then they are out there for your enjoyment.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Rapid clicking and jumping to demonstrate "skill" is really more the purview of console gaming. I'm not really about jumping over barrels thrown by pixilated gorillas, but if that is the kind of game you are seeking then they are out there for your enjoyment.
This comment doesn't even remotely come close to being part of this discussion. In fact:
When you apply for a job, they don't ask you what level you are in system administration.
When you apply for a job, they ask you about years of experience. You and I call that XP. Which is what is used in games to gain levels.
Except that their "years of experience" mean exactly jack and squat. I've known System Administrators who've been doing the job for 20 years who don't know shit compared to some kid that graduated MIT yesterday... that's skill.
are you trying to say that XP in games should be removed because the word 'experience' is basically a bunch of B.S. to you?
It's worse than that actually. What he said was twenty years of skill ups in industry is not worth as much as three years levelling at MIT. He thought he said the reverse, but he didn't.
I said nothing of the sort in any way shape or form. I said that I have known people who spent 20 years in my industry and still weren't as skilled as someone coming right out of MIT.
Some people come into our industry and learn enough to stay afloat and keep their job and spend 20 years at the company. Some people come into our industry and spend every month trying to make themselves better and after two years they're far more proficient at their job than the guy with 18 years of "experience" on them.
By the archaic, nonsensical Gary Gygax standard of the 1970's, the guy with 20 years at the company would be more competent only because he kept dinging up years or levels of experience with the company. That's just a bit silly to say the least.
Actually you did say, and continue to say, that with regards to SysAdmin work, levelling at MIT is more useful than skilling up on the job. But as you seem to have some sort of grievance about some real life experience of yours you seem incapable of seeing that.
You seem to prefer skill based rather than level based progression, nothing wrong with that. You probably should just say that and talk about why you think it is a better mechanic, your analogies are just tying you in knots. IMHO levelling has a historical place in MMORPGs, what is missing is the period of training with a master after you have accumulated the XP and before you get the benefits. Skill ups are fine too. EQ had both and a blend of the two seems best to me but your mileage may vary.
When you apply for a job, they don't ask you what level you are in system administration.
When you apply for a job, they ask you about years of experience. You and I call that XP. Which is what is used in games to gain levels.
Except that their "years of experience" mean exactly jack and squat. I've known System Administrators who've been doing the job for 20 years who don't know shit compared to some kid that graduated MIT yesterday... that's skill.
are you trying to say that XP in games should be removed because the word 'experience' is basically a bunch of B.S. to you?
It's worse than that actually. What he said was twenty years of skill ups in industry is not worth as much as three years levelling at MIT. He thought he said the reverse, but he didn't.
I said nothing of the sort in any way shape or form. I said that I have known people who spent 20 years in my industry and still weren't as skilled as someone coming right out of MIT.
Some people come into our industry and learn enough to stay afloat and keep their job and spend 20 years at the company. Some people come into our industry and spend every month trying to make themselves better and after two years they're far more proficient at their job than the guy with 18 years of "experience" on them.
By the archaic, nonsensical Gary Gygax standard of the 1970's, the guy with 20 years at the company would be more competent only because he kept dinging up years or levels of experience with the company. That's just a bit silly to say the least.
Actually you did say, and continue to say, that with regards to SysAdmin work, levelling at MIT is more useful than skilling up on the job. But as you seem to have some sort of grievance about some real life experience of yours you seem incapable of seeing that.
You seem to prefer skill based rather than level based progression, nothing wrong with that. You probably should just say that and talk about why you think it is a better mechanic, your analogies are just tying you in knots. IMHO levelling has a historical place in MMORPGs, what is missing is the period of training with a master after you have accumulated the XP and before you get the benefits. Skill ups are fine too. EQ had both and a blend of the two seems best to me but your mileage may vary.
At this point you are either arguing to argue, deliberately trolling, or actually incapable of performing basic reading comprehension. *shrug* moving on.
It's worse than that actually. What he said was twenty years of skill ups in industry is not worth as much as three years levelling at MIT. He thought he said the reverse, but he didn't.
I said nothing of the sort in any way shape or form. I said that I have known people who spent 20 years in my industry and still weren't as skilled as someone coming right out of MIT.
Some people come into our industry and learn enough to stay afloat and keep their job and spend 20 years at the company. Some people come into our industry and spend every month trying to make themselves better and after two years they're far more proficient at their job than the guy with 18 years of "experience" on them.
By the archaic, nonsensical Gary Gygax standard of the 1970's, the guy with 20 years at the company would be more competent only because he kept dinging up years or levels of experience with the company. That's just a bit silly to say the least.
You seem to be buying into the wrong idea that leveling was supposed to be about age or experience.
It's not.
Leveling is progression.
So it's a measure of skill.
So it's like Craftseeker said.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To be fair, the analogy taken is a weird one because one of the things to consider about technology is that it continues to change. You take a person that's done the same job at one company for ten years and chuck them into a new company using new software and hardware, then they likely are going to hit a few roadblocks rather fast that a person who just got out of training at a school for the new tech would be familiar with. It's sort of a built in bias in the work field when it comes to that.
The intent isn't entirely wrong though. The problem highlighted is that vertical progression does not reflect skill progression. Both of them are technically able to be presented as leveling.
Where the analogy might work better is if one were to say that school educated skills level faster than work progressed skills. That's still not a great analogy and is far from true in every context, but the point of it would be to highlight that they are technically of comparative level, they just obtained those levels in different ways that take different amounts of time. Neither particularly tabulates the person's aptitude with the knowledge gained or ability to apply it well.
Hourglass' complaint would be the point that in a system that uses vertical progression such as D&D, "more levels = better character" irregardless of the effort or aptitude applied. This wouldn't be an argument to remove levels, but an argument that levels that focus on stat progression foremost ends up diminishing the relative meaning of the growth obtained.
This would actually be a counter-example where D&D can be said to be better than many of it's contemporaries too, however. While there is plenty of vertical progression, there is a huge amount of horizontal progression obtained in D&D and they don't burden the players with a silly amount of levels either. Some levels not a whole lot changes except a number might shift a little, other levels you now have access to new feats, abilities, spells, etc that can change how you approach your gameplay quite a lot.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's worse than that actually. What he said was twenty years of skill ups in industry is not worth as much as three years levelling at MIT. He thought he said the reverse, but he didn't.
I said nothing of the sort in any way shape or form. I said that I have known people who spent 20 years in my industry and still weren't as skilled as someone coming right out of MIT.
Some people come into our industry and learn enough to stay afloat and keep their job and spend 20 years at the company. Some people come into our industry and spend every month trying to make themselves better and after two years they're far more proficient at their job than the guy with 18 years of "experience" on them.
By the archaic, nonsensical Gary Gygax standard of the 1970's, the guy with 20 years at the company would be more competent only because he kept dinging up years or levels of experience with the company. That's just a bit silly to say the least.
You seem to be buying into the wrong idea that leveling was supposed to be about age or experience.
It's not.
Leveling is progression.
So it's a measure of skill.
So it's like Craftseeker said.
Yes, generic character leveling is progression. A terrible and antiquated form of progression that I would like to see the industry move away from. Less WoW level 90 Arcane Face Melter and more like EVE Online where the skills you choose define your character rather than a class and a level.
In the video game industry a character fills up an xp bar and levels from level 1 to level 2 and suddenly, without any cause other than the fact that they filled up a generic xp bar, they are suddenly better at everything.
They gain more HP, more damage, more stamina, more magic, more damage resistance... ect, all at once for doing nothing but turning in that final quest that puts them into the XP range that says "Ok, you turned in enough antelope gallbladders to the stationary question mark, and that makes you better at casting spells!"
Now, as the OP asked on page 1, I'm answering the question concerning what I would like to see going forward. I would like to see generic levels and generic XP bars go away. I would like to see characters which have attributes and and a long list of available skills. I want to be able to have the ability to gain proficiency in skills by using those skills.
They gain more HP, more damage, more stamina, more magic, more damage resistance... ect, all at once for doing nothing but turning in that final quest that puts them into the XP range that says "Ok, you turned in enough antelope gallbladders to the stationary question mark, and that makes you better at casting spells!"
Now, as the OP asked on page 1, I'm answering the question concerning what I would like to see going forward. I would like to see generic levels and generic XP bars go away. I would like to see characters which have attributes and and a long list of available skills. I want to be able to have the ability to gain proficiency in skills by using those skills.
I agree with this sentiment, though I would put a caveat.
Leave levels, but as a yardstick to show/measure how much accumulated progress a character has experienced, not dictate.
As in player skills and stats progress individually by using them or whatever, and "levels" are gained as a means to simply say a player has advanced enough in any given skills and stats to have obtained a milestone denoting the progress they have obtained (meaning that after you have gained enough points in a skill or across multiple things, your "level" is raised to reflect the total sum of what you have trained/invested into your character).
The reason for this is that while levels in this context don't do anything on a technical level, they are a representative feature players can reference as a shorthand for how much any player has progressed in the game. Keeping it as that kind of feature is about convenience. Letting players do a quick assessment of how much a character is capable of in a vague sense, even if they are level 20 only because they are the master of fishing and underwater basket weaving as opposed to someone else who is level 20 because they trained in dragon headbutting.
It's shorthand for how much effort has been invested even if the gained skills are not the same. A secondary feature that lets you obtain skill-based titles to use would be handy for understanding what kind of focus a player has would help flesh that out.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
They gain more HP, more damage, more stamina, more magic, more damage resistance... ect, all at once for doing nothing but turning in that final quest that puts them into the XP range that says "Ok, you turned in enough antelope gallbladders to the stationary question mark, and that makes you better at casting spells!"
Now, as the OP asked on page 1, I'm answering the question concerning what I would like to see going forward. I would like to see generic levels and generic XP bars go away. I would like to see characters which have attributes and and a long list of available skills. I want to be able to have the ability to gain proficiency in skills by using those skills.
I agree with this sentiment, though I would put a caveat.
Leave levels, but as a yardstick to show/measure how much accumulated progress a character has experienced, not dictate.
As in player skills and stats progress individually by using them or whatever, and "levels" are gained as a means to simply say a player has advanced enough in any given skills and stats to have obtained a milestone denoting the progress they have obtained (meaning that after you have gained enough points in a skill or across multiple things, your "level" is raised to reflect the total sum of what you have trained/invested into your character).
The reason for this is that while levels in this context don't do anything on a technical level, they are a representative feature players can reference as a shorthand for how much any player has progressed in the game. Keeping it as that kind of feature is about convenience. Letting players do a quick assessment of how much a character is capable of in a vague sense, even if they are level 20 only because they are the master of fishing and underwater basket weaving as opposed to someone else who is level 20 because they trained in dragon headbutting.
It's shorthand for how much effort has been invested even if the gained skills are not the same. A secondary feature that lets you obtain skill-based titles to use would be handy for understanding what kind of focus a player has would help flesh that out.
Now this is the reasonable discussion I've been searching for here.
I can see this bringing balance to the force. It allows players like me who want individual skill progression to join worlds with those who like having that number by their name.
I'm fine with this symbiotic model as long as that number by the name doesn't cause progression, but is instead a meter of how much progression someone has attained through gaining proficiency in skills.
Is it "levels" or how the games have designed and used "levels" that should be looked at?
As games have been designed, levels are the be-all-and-end-all of game play. And that's what's turned MMO's into the static and boring game play they have become.
Turn the conversation around. Look at how GAME PLAY should be changed, and then fit the advancement system to that. Level/Class based or Skill based, and how it fits in to this new concept of how you play, and what you play for.
Level systems are ineffective with MMORPG. They work when you enforce more MOB grinds. Then you spend time with your community leveling but its tedious and not much fun.
Once you start leaning towards conveniences and fast progression you start defeating the point of levels being there.
Progression is short and finite but takes up most of the world. End game is long and repetitious and takes up a small portion of the world.
Doesn't it make more sense to make the end game majority of the world and your progression get a small portion of the world?
My answer is to reduce class progression to class quest plus usage gain for each power or skill.
Is it "levels" or how the games have designed and used "levels" that should be looked at?
As games have been designed, levels are the be-all-and-end-all of game play. And that's what's turned MMO's into the static and boring game play they have become.
Turn the conversation around. Look at how GAME PLAY should be changed, and then fit the advancement system to that. Level/Class based or Skill based, and how it fits in to this new concept of how you play, and what you play for.
Level can be pure measurement of the characters without it being an altering factor.
Level systems are ineffective with MMORPG. They work when you enforce more MOB grinds. Then you spend time with your community leveling but its tedious and not much fun.
Once you start leaning towards conveniences and fast progression you start defeating the point of levels being there.
Progression is short and finite but takes up most of the world. End game is long and repetitious and takes up a small portion of the world.
Doesn't it make more sense to make the end game majority of the world and your progression get a small portion of the world?
My answer is to reduce class progression to class quest plus usage gain for each power or skill.
Is it "levels" or how the games have designed and used "levels" that should be looked at?
As games have been designed, levels are the be-all-and-end-all of game play. And that's what's turned MMO's into the static and boring game play they have become.
Turn the conversation around. Look at how GAME PLAY should be changed, and then fit the advancement system to that. Level/Class based or Skill based, and how it fits in to this new concept of how you play, and what you play for.
Level can be pure measurement of the characters without it being an altering factor.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here (in the first quote).
I agree with your reply to my post, but that doesn't seem to address what I was getting at.
What I was trying to say is that if you build a level grind, big power gap per level, zone to zone game (the common Themepark), then levels are going to be what they are. The thing to play for. The all important X. Because that's how you make your steps through the game to get to "End Game".
If you want any other sort of game play than that, then you have to change what you are playing for. Make it "Not Levels". That doesn't mean to exclude levels (or skills). It means that when players go adventuring, they aren't looking to level up. Instead, they are looking for something else. Be that knowledge, special MATs, solving mysteries, capturing a powerful pet, mapping a dungeon, building a guild castle, whatever. With that change in what you play for, you need to fit the leveling system to that.
Now, that being said, one of the fallacies in game design is that you can do the above with the same leveling system. But that depends entirely on your guild or group being in the same level range. When members fall off that range, they are no longer viable in that game play. That's bad. Moreover, if you keep that same leveling system, the game will turn into a play for level grinding and the other stuff loses importance, and developer support. You didn't change what players play for.
With that, I hope you all can see, that the standard level/gear grind is pure and utter evul. (just joking, but it's bad.)
So, if you ever want a game to be about anything else but level grind (primarily and foremost), then you have to change that leveling grind system. That does NOT mean you have to get rid of classes. It just means you have to reduce the power gaps and make it a game of free movement and open access in the world and between players. Any sort of advancement system will work, as long as it doesn't start dividing players into content zones. It's those content zones that, in effect, make a game about level grind.
And level grind is what levels are for in the current MMO space. That's what levels, as is, accomplish (per the OP). And that what's got to change if gamers want to change the genre.
Levels are heritage from P&P games like D&D and early computer RPGs to which many of the first ones I remember playing where based on imo. They usually indicate how strong a character is compared to other characters.
Now that the genre has evolved/devolved I would encourage game developers to explore level-less system and to that mention classless. I hope the future brings more freedom to character development in mmorpgs so that we could start seeing some individuality in our characters other than name. I'm sure there are reasonable mechanics to allow such gameplay.
I don't think levels are a necessity in an mmorpg. It's kind of unimaginative to have a level 5 wolf and a level 85 wolf. Wolfs are wolfs. They are hunted for meat, for their belts and to protect farm animals for example. Their teeth might make a fine necklace.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
Let's replace "Level 100" with "1.7E+14 Giant Rats Slain." Then you can go up against an Ogre with "217 human n00b kills."
More 'realistic', right? Whenever you replace brevity with prolixity, you're almost certainly heading in the wrong direction.
It's more 'honest' to remove all of the information whatsoever about your target from its name box. Dump the levels and the hit point bar. Given the player no information whatsoever that his character wouldn't have--the soul of roleplay!
Except it would make for pretty horrible risk/reward scenarios. Meet the tiny bunny that one-shots experienced knights!
The PVP would suck pretty badly, too. Try to evaluate your chances of defeating that Red player without visual cues.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here (in the first quote).
Well I was basically saying that leveling is bad for the genre unless it's slow. Grinding is bad for western players. It's kind of paradox.
Right now end game is long but takes up a small part of the world in MMORPG. Progression is short but takes up nearly all the world. Shouldn't this be opposite?
Make progression use a small part of the world and be short and the end game use majority of the game world and be long.
I agree with your reply to my post, but that doesn't seem to address what I was getting at.
I get what your saying. I was just stating how leveling is done in current MMORPG doesn't have to be done. Levels can be just a measurement of progress without actually effecting the characters stats or giving power plateaus.
Let's replace "Level 100" with "1.7E+14 Giant Rats Slain." Then you can go up against an Ogre with "217 human n00b kills."
More 'realistic', right? Whenever you replace brevity with prolixity, you're almost certainly heading in the wrong direction.
It's more 'honest' to remove all of the information whatsoever about your target from its name box. Dump the levels and the hit point bar. Given the player no information whatsoever that his character wouldn't have--the soul of roleplay!
Except it would make for pretty horrible risk/reward scenarios. Meet the tiny bunny that one-shots experienced knights!
The PVP would suck pretty badly, too. Try to evaluate your chances of defeating that Red player without visual cues.
Old RPGs didn't give much information about what you were up against. It was often a trial and error type of learning experience.
I agree with those that say levels don't have to give a lot of power like they do in modern games. There can be small increases per level where the only attributes that increase are ones tied with what you were doing to gain the level. HP doesn't need to be increased every level.
This ties in with equipment again. Similar to the large power gains you get during leveling up you also get constant equipment upgrades that increase attributes by large amounts. This would generally never happen in an older game. You would get a 2 damage sword. Then you might get a 2 damage sword +1 or and epic sword with +1 fire damage.
What it comes down to is things power levels are skewed by too much increase in power per level and too much increase in power per item. Things are also far too spelled out for players to the point it is often not very interesting. You don't even have to attempt to solve anything in game other then how to beat x boss.
Is it "levels" or how the games have designed and used "levels" that should be looked at?
As games have been designed, levels are the be-all-and-end-all of game play. And that's what's turned MMO's into the static and boring game play they have become.
Turn the conversation around. Look at how GAME PLAY should be changed, and then fit the advancement system to that. Level/Class based or Skill based, and how it fits in to this new concept of how you play, and what you play for.
Calling levels the "be-all-end-all" of gameplay doesn't make it true.
Gameplay is decisions. It's what you're doing in a game.
Levels aren't what you're doing, they're just a measure of progress that sits beside the main activities of a game.
Only severely myopic "destination-only" players view levels as the be-all-end-all. "Journey" players view the game as the game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Is it "levels" or how the games have designed and used "levels" that should be looked at?
As games have been designed, levels are the be-all-and-end-all of game play. And that's what's turned MMO's into the static and boring game play they have become.
Turn the conversation around. Look at how GAME PLAY should be changed, and then fit the advancement system to that. Level/Class based or Skill based, and how it fits in to this new concept of how you play, and what you play for.
Calling levels the "be-all-end-all" of gameplay doesn't make it true.
Gameplay is decisions. It's what you're doing in a game.
Levels aren't what you're doing, they're just a measure of progress that sits beside the main activities of a game.
Only severely myopic "destination-only" players view levels as the be-all-end-all. "Journey" players view the game as the game.
It's because the journey sucks in MMORPG. Thats why its been shortened. Mob grinding and menial task are just crappy vessels to feed us progression. Its a rabbit pressing the button to get a treat worthy. And its the majority of the content available. End game is a small section that you spend majority of your time in even worst repetituous small content.
The activities you do generally aren't not enjoyable while leveling. They are tolerable at best. You would not play a game that you had to do those task and grinds if you didn't level. Single player RPGS the story and game play have to have merit on their own. MMORPG leveling is why you play and content is just the means to do it.
Is it "levels" or how the games have designed and used "levels" that should be looked at?
As games have been designed, levels are the be-all-and-end-all of game play. And that's what's turned MMO's into the static and boring game play they have become.
Turn the conversation around. Look at how GAME PLAY should be changed, and then fit the advancement system to that. Level/Class based or Skill based, and how it fits in to this new concept of how you play, and what you play for.
Calling levels the "be-all-end-all" of gameplay doesn't make it true.
Gameplay is decisions. It's what you're doing in a game.
Levels aren't what you're doing, they're just a measure of progress that sits beside the main activities of a game.
Only severely myopic "destination-only" players view levels as the be-all-end-all. "Journey" players view the game as the game.
First of all, everyone knows that players rush through levels in the current MMO's. The faster the better.
As long as games are made with this design, where you level and level and level to get to "End Game" and collect your "reward" along the way, then players will be on a race to get there. That's human nature. It's hardwired in our brains to be efficient and fast for more "reward".
So as long as games have this tiered level design, and "reward" based on said levels (based on the big power gaps), players will rush through it, no matter what they really want for game play. And the worst part is that the "journey" players will never be able to go back for said "journey" because they've rushed right past the rewards based on those power gaps. (Well, they can, they just don't get reward or good game play from vastly under-powered content.)
It's because the journey sucks in MMORPG. Thats why its been shortened. Mob grinding and menial task are just crappy vessels to feed us progression. Its a rabbit pressing the button to get a treat worthy. And its the majority of the content available. End game is a small section that you spend majority of your time in even worst repetituous small content.
The activities you do generally aren't not enjoyable while leveling. They are tolerable at best. You would not play a game that you had to do those task and grinds if you didn't level. Single player RPGS the story and game play have to have merit on their own. MMORPG leveling is why you play and content is just the means to do it.
I've explained multiple times that "short"* leveling in modern games is designed to aid in having a large pool of teammates for the group-intensive gameplay that exists at endgame. (*insofar as 7-15 days worth of playtime can be considered "short")
Similarly I've explained multiple times how endgame will naturally be more repetitive, as developers lose the most players early on after a new player installs the game (in mobile games you often literally lose around half the players on day #2. That's a gigantic number!) Naturally this results in a smart developer spending inverse effort relative to the player loss: if you lose most of your players on the first day, the first week, and the first month, then obviously you should optimize your content around that problem so that you give players enough fun that lots of them are still playing by endgame a few months into the game's release.
When a professional game designer comes in and tells you facts about game design, what possible benefit do you gain by choosing ignorance over knowledge? Is your false world view about gaming really that precious to you that you don't even care that it's dead wrong?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
First of all, everyone knows that players rush through levels in the current MMO's. The faster the better.
As long as games are made with this design, where you level and level and level to get to "End Game" and collect your "reward" along the way, then players will be on a race to get there. That's human nature. It's hardwired in our brains to be efficient and fast for more "reward".
So as long as games have this tiered level design, and "reward" based on said levels (based on the big power gaps), players will rush through it, no matter what they really want for game play. And the worst part is that the "journey" players will never be able to go back for said "journey" because they've rushed right past the rewards based on those power gaps. (Well, they can, they just don't get reward or good game play from vastly under-powered content.)
Nonsense.
Players are going to improve their situation rapidly. This isn't a "current MMO" thing. It's been true of gaming since the start.
It's not a product of game design, but a fundamental human instinct to try to improve our position in life.
It doesn't matter what form the improvement takes: getting a nice house in UO, reaching max level, or getting the best sword are all the same thing.
Level just happens to be clearest and simplest form of progression, so it's used a lot more.
It doesn't benefit you to have a selective memory and conveniently forget that players tried to work towards having a nice house in UO as fast as possible, or leveling in EQ as fast as possible, or countless other ways that early MMORPGs let players improve their characters. Choosing to deliberately ignore the past doesn't aid you. So why do it?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Some people come into our industry and learn enough to stay afloat and keep their job and spend 20 years at the company. Some people come into our industry and spend every month trying to make themselves better and after two years they're far more proficient at their job than the guy with 18 years of "experience" on them.
By the archaic, nonsensical Gary Gygax standard of the 1970's, the guy with 20 years at the company would be more competent only because he kept dinging up years or levels of experience with the company. That's just a bit silly to say the least.
Rapid clicking and jumping to demonstrate "skill" is really more the purview of console gaming. I'm not really about jumping over barrels thrown by pixilated gorillas, but if that is the kind of game you are seeking then they are out there for your enjoyment.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
You seem to prefer skill based rather than level based progression, nothing wrong with that. You probably should just say that and talk about why you think it is a better mechanic, your analogies are just tying you in knots.
IMHO levelling has a historical place in MMORPGs, what is missing is the period of training with a master after you have accumulated the XP and before you get the benefits. Skill ups are fine too. EQ had both and a blend of the two seems best to me but your mileage may vary.
It's not.
Leveling is progression.
So it's a measure of skill.
So it's like Craftseeker said.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The intent isn't entirely wrong though. The problem highlighted is that vertical progression does not reflect skill progression. Both of them are technically able to be presented as leveling.
Where the analogy might work better is if one were to say that school educated skills level faster than work progressed skills. That's still not a great analogy and is far from true in every context, but the point of it would be to highlight that they are technically of comparative level, they just obtained those levels in different ways that take different amounts of time. Neither particularly tabulates the person's aptitude with the knowledge gained or ability to apply it well.
Hourglass' complaint would be the point that in a system that uses vertical progression such as D&D, "more levels = better character" irregardless of the effort or aptitude applied. This wouldn't be an argument to remove levels, but an argument that levels that focus on stat progression foremost ends up diminishing the relative meaning of the growth obtained.
This would actually be a counter-example where D&D can be said to be better than many of it's contemporaries too, however. While there is plenty of vertical progression, there is a huge amount of horizontal progression obtained in D&D and they don't burden the players with a silly amount of levels either. Some levels not a whole lot changes except a number might shift a little, other levels you now have access to new feats, abilities, spells, etc that can change how you approach your gameplay quite a lot.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
In the video game industry a character fills up an xp bar and levels from level 1 to level 2 and suddenly, without any cause other than the fact that they filled up a generic xp bar, they are suddenly better at everything.
They gain more HP, more damage, more stamina, more magic, more damage resistance... ect, all at once for doing nothing but turning in that final quest that puts them into the XP range that says "Ok, you turned in enough antelope gallbladders to the stationary question mark, and that makes you better at casting spells!"
Now, as the OP asked on page 1, I'm answering the question concerning what I would like to see going forward. I would like to see generic levels and generic XP bars go away. I would like to see characters which have attributes and and a long list of available skills. I want to be able to have the ability to gain proficiency in skills by using those skills.
Leave levels, but as a yardstick to show/measure how much accumulated progress a character has experienced, not dictate.
As in player skills and stats progress individually by using them or whatever, and "levels" are gained as a means to simply say a player has advanced enough in any given skills and stats to have obtained a milestone denoting the progress they have obtained (meaning that after you have gained enough points in a skill or across multiple things, your "level" is raised to reflect the total sum of what you have trained/invested into your character).
The reason for this is that while levels in this context don't do anything on a technical level, they are a representative feature players can reference as a shorthand for how much any player has progressed in the game. Keeping it as that kind of feature is about convenience. Letting players do a quick assessment of how much a character is capable of in a vague sense, even if they are level 20 only because they are the master of fishing and underwater basket weaving as opposed to someone else who is level 20 because they trained in dragon headbutting.
It's shorthand for how much effort has been invested even if the gained skills are not the same. A secondary feature that lets you obtain skill-based titles to use would be handy for understanding what kind of focus a player has would help flesh that out.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I can see this bringing balance to the force. It allows players like me who want individual skill progression to join worlds with those who like having that number by their name.
I'm fine with this symbiotic model as long as that number by the name doesn't cause progression, but is instead a meter of how much progression someone has attained through gaining proficiency in skills.
As games have been designed, levels are the be-all-and-end-all of game play.
And that's what's turned MMO's into the static and boring game play they have become.
Turn the conversation around. Look at how GAME PLAY should be changed, and then fit the advancement system to that. Level/Class based or Skill based, and how it fits in to this new concept of how you play, and what you play for.
Once upon a time....
Once you start leaning towards conveniences and fast progression you start defeating the point of levels being there.
Progression is short and finite but takes up most of the world. End game is long and repetitious and takes up a small portion of the world.
Doesn't it make more sense to make the end game majority of the world and your progression get a small portion of the world?
My answer is to reduce class progression to class quest plus usage gain for each power or skill.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here (in the first quote).
I agree with your reply to my post, but that doesn't seem to address what I was getting at.
What I was trying to say is that if you build a level grind, big power gap per level, zone to zone game (the common Themepark), then levels are going to be what they are. The thing to play for. The all important X. Because that's how you make your steps through the game to get to "End Game".
If you want any other sort of game play than that, then you have to change what you are playing for. Make it "Not Levels". That doesn't mean to exclude levels (or skills). It means that when players go adventuring, they aren't looking to level up. Instead, they are looking for something else. Be that knowledge, special MATs, solving mysteries, capturing a powerful pet, mapping a dungeon, building a guild castle, whatever.
With that change in what you play for, you need to fit the leveling system to that.
Now, that being said, one of the fallacies in game design is that you can do the above with the same leveling system. But that depends entirely on your guild or group being in the same level range. When members fall off that range, they are no longer viable in that game play. That's bad.
Moreover, if you keep that same leveling system, the game will turn into a play for level grinding and the other stuff loses importance, and developer support. You didn't change what players play for.
With that, I hope you all can see, that the standard level/gear grind is pure and utter evul.
So, if you ever want a game to be about anything else but level grind (primarily and foremost), then you have to change that leveling grind system.
That does NOT mean you have to get rid of classes. It just means you have to reduce the power gaps and make it a game of free movement and open access in the world and between players.
Any sort of advancement system will work, as long as it doesn't start dividing players into content zones.
It's those content zones that, in effect, make a game about level grind.
And level grind is what levels are for in the current MMO space. That's what levels, as is, accomplish (per the OP). And that what's got to change if gamers want to change the genre.
Once upon a time....
Now that the genre has evolved/devolved I would encourage game developers to explore level-less system and to that mention classless. I hope the future brings more freedom to character development in mmorpgs so that we could start seeing some individuality in our characters other than name. I'm sure there are reasonable mechanics to allow such gameplay.
I don't think levels are a necessity in an mmorpg. It's kind of unimaginative to have a level 5 wolf and a level 85 wolf. Wolfs are wolfs. They are hunted for meat, for their belts and to protect farm animals for example. Their teeth might make a fine necklace.
More 'realistic', right? Whenever you replace brevity with prolixity, you're almost certainly heading in the wrong direction.
It's more 'honest' to remove all of the information whatsoever about your target from its name box. Dump the levels and the hit point bar. Given the player no information whatsoever that his character wouldn't have--the soul of roleplay!
Except it would make for pretty horrible risk/reward scenarios. Meet the tiny bunny that one-shots experienced knights!
The PVP would suck pretty badly, too. Try to evaluate your chances of defeating that Red player without visual cues.
Right now end game is long but takes up a small part of the world in MMORPG. Progression is short but takes up nearly all the world. Shouldn't this be opposite?
Make progression use a small part of the world and be short and the end game use majority of the game world and be long.
I get what your saying. I was just stating how leveling is done in current MMORPG doesn't have to be done. Levels can be just a measurement of progress without actually effecting the characters stats or giving power plateaus.
I agree with those that say levels don't have to give a lot of power like they do in modern games. There can be small increases per level where the only attributes that increase are ones tied with what you were doing to gain the level. HP doesn't need to be increased every level.
This ties in with equipment again. Similar to the large power gains you get during leveling up you also get constant equipment upgrades that increase attributes by large amounts. This would generally never happen in an older game. You would get a 2 damage sword. Then you might get a 2 damage sword +1 or and epic sword with +1 fire damage.
What it comes down to is things power levels are skewed by too much increase in power per level and too much increase in power per item. Things are also far too spelled out for players to the point it is often not very interesting. You don't even have to attempt to solve anything in game other then how to beat x boss.
Gameplay is decisions. It's what you're doing in a game.
Levels aren't what you're doing, they're just a measure of progress that sits beside the main activities of a game.
Only severely myopic "destination-only" players view levels as the be-all-end-all. "Journey" players view the game as the game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The activities you do generally aren't not enjoyable while leveling. They are tolerable at best. You would not play a game that you had to do those task and grinds if you didn't level. Single player RPGS the story and game play have to have merit on their own. MMORPG leveling is why you play and content is just the means to do it.
As long as games are made with this design, where you level and level and level to get to "End Game" and collect your "reward" along the way, then players will be on a race to get there.
That's human nature. It's hardwired in our brains to be efficient and fast for more "reward".
So as long as games have this tiered level design, and "reward" based on said levels (based on the big power gaps), players will rush through it, no matter what they really want for game play.
And the worst part is that the "journey" players will never be able to go back for said "journey" because they've rushed right past the rewards based on those power gaps. (Well, they can, they just don't get reward or good game play from vastly under-powered content.)
Once upon a time....
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Similarly I've explained multiple times how endgame will naturally be more repetitive, as developers lose the most players early on after a new player installs the game (in mobile games you often literally lose around half the players on day #2. That's a gigantic number!) Naturally this results in a smart developer spending inverse effort relative to the player loss: if you lose most of your players on the first day, the first week, and the first month, then obviously you should optimize your content around that problem so that you give players enough fun that lots of them are still playing by endgame a few months into the game's release.
When a professional game designer comes in and tells you facts about game design, what possible benefit do you gain by choosing ignorance over knowledge? Is your false world view about gaming really that precious to you that you don't even care that it's dead wrong?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Nonsense.
- Players are going to improve their situation rapidly. This isn't a "current MMO" thing. It's been true of gaming since the start.
- It's not a product of game design, but a fundamental human instinct to try to improve our position in life.
- It doesn't matter what form the improvement takes: getting a nice house in UO, reaching max level, or getting the best sword are all the same thing.
- Level just happens to be clearest and simplest form of progression, so it's used a lot more.
It doesn't benefit you to have a selective memory and conveniently forget that players tried to work towards having a nice house in UO as fast as possible, or leveling in EQ as fast as possible, or countless other ways that early MMORPGs let players improve their characters. Choosing to deliberately ignore the past doesn't aid you. So why do it?"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver