The problem with no levels is the lack of framework for content. Players need progression. They need to build to something bigger and better. When you remove levels and relegate all progress to items, you introduce a massive way to circumvent the progression necessary to keep people playing the game (as can be seen in just about every sandbox mmo that incorporated it - ever).
Eve is an exception. In a game like Eve where the economy and the means for progression are kept in balance by massive gold sinks (ships and destruction), you can govern progression. Unfortunately, that system hasn't worked very well for anyone else. Not everyone wants that kind of loss in their MMO, and the kind of "content" available in Eve doesn't necessarily work in other games.
Not really. Themeparks in my opinion would be better if they lacked levels. There can still be shallow progression and a world with difficulty zones for example easy, intermediate, hard, group required.
Throw away content and world is just impractical unless your Blizzard who can pump millions into making expansions. Even their expansions are small and a few weeks worth content before you have your players stuck repeating the same dungeons and dailies.
Leveling is a bad mechanic and always has been. It has nothing to do with grouping. It has everything to do with linear game design and the irrelevancy of low level zones to the playerbase. Those MMOs with no leveling (like Eve), limited leveling with instanced difficulty settings for all zones (Guild Wars 1), or downscaling (Guild Wars 2), simply function that much better as explorable worlds.
Like WOW it's in the 'long-tail' phase of its life (while the decline of the last ~4 months looks particularly brutal, I'd guess that the decline will slow somewhat as usually the last dregs of a playerbase take a VERY long time to filter out).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem is your "evidence" is completely devoid of any logic or intelligent thought.
Speaking of "beyond your level of comprehension", yeah...
Whatever.
The relation between mass production and progression is simple, and obvious.
With a progression based game, the gear, the power is an achievement - the reason you play, to get stronger, get better gear etc.
This essentially disqualify two things:
1) Item loss.
Having a player running raids for weeks or months for gear just to lose it isn't a viable concept.
2) Mass production.
Mass production means items are treated as you said yourself - consumables. Unified stats, no power gaps, again non-viable concept when gear is supposed to be the driving force behind the game.
So there you have it.
Progression based design leads to permanent items - the gear is an achievement.
Progression-less based design allows for item loss - the gear isn't an achievement, it is merely a consumable.
Like I said, you mistake cause and consequence.
There are plenty of other errors you make with your assumptions but there is no point digging into it...you are not even capable to address any points that are already being raised.
Allow me to school you in a concept that while I learned for myself playing my first online RPGs in middle school, but was put in easier to define terms on the very first day of my Economics 101 class.
Economics is the study of how we use limited resources. One of those limited resources is time and labor. Everything that you do, absolutely everything, costs you lost opportunity.
So whatever method you use to acquire anything, it's costing you lost opportunity. This is the concept I learned in middle school. I could mine the ore, smelt the ore, and smith the finished product myself... or I could focus on learning which of those steps generated the most money the fastest, do that step, and let someone else do the other steps.
In other words you focus on earning money, generally by doing something you have a competitive advantage in, and then use that money to purchase the other resources and services you need.
So the origin of the loot does not matter to me AT ALL. Only it's cost does. Regardless of it's origin I'm going to identify a market opportunity or my competitive advantage and focus on using that to make money, then buy the gear.
1) Item Loss - I have, and always will think of ships, suits of gear etc. that I make in item loss games in terms of "What is the value of this?" "How long long will it take me to earn the money to replace this?" "What is the risk of losing this based on what I'm using it for?" "What are the potential rewards for winning and consequences for losing?" That allows me to determine the value of the equipment I'm willing to put on the line in any given situation. The source changes NOTHING other than potentially the value, which allows me to adjust my calculations up or down for it accordingly. The only way this Item Loss calculation could significantly change is if they either change the nature of gear loss, or make items soulbound. I'm still going to make a decision on what I'm willing to lose that best fits my need, purchase that equipment, and go risk it. And everyone else opposing me (if smart) will run the same calculations based on their ability to generate income and tolerance for risk.
2) Mass Production- I never took part in production and EVE. I would mine if I was doing something else in the background, ice-mine if I was REALLY not paying attention to the game whatsoever (For instance I sometimes mined ice and played Dust 514 at the same time) and run missions or go ratting in null-sec if I was on and really had time to pay attention to the game. I also had various more passive income sources like R&D and Planetary crap. I then took the isk I got from these income sources and used it to purchase whatever I need. If the economy has moved toward a loot based economy? Cool. Missions and ratting just got more profitable I guess. I'm still going to do the same things and use the money for what I need.
So again I don't see your point. Items are loot based now so I won't risk them? Yes I will unless there is no longer good money to be had in null sec and suicide ganking isn't a thing. You risk your items every time you leave the dock, like it or not "Don't undock it if you aren't willing to lose it" is still a thing. If loot based items are prohibitively expensive to risk in PvP then I can expect my opponents won't use them very much either. I guarantee you that if I go back to EVE I'm still going to find people blowing each other up in null sec. Loot based or manufacturing based.
Like WOW it's in the 'long-tail' phase of its life (while the decline of the last ~4 months looks particularly brutal, I'd guess that the decline will slow somewhat as usually the last dregs of a playerbase take a VERY long time to filter out).
Of course that decline has nothing to do with the game design that they used successfully over a decade and more to do with product life-cycle.
EVE was released in May of 2003. To put that in perspective WoW and Anarchy Online came out in 2001, the original Planetside was also released May 2003, and LoTRO was released in 2007.
So it's going pretty strong for it's age. I think the only MMOs comparable in age still going as strong as EVE are WoW and Runescape.
The problem with no levels is the lack of framework for content. Players need progression. They need to build to something bigger and better. When you remove levels and relegate all progress to items, you introduce a massive way to circumvent the progression necessary to keep people playing the game (as can be seen in just about every sandbox mmo that incorporated it - ever).
Eve is an exception. In a game like Eve where the economy and the means for progression are kept in balance by massive gold sinks (ships and destruction), you can govern progression. Unfortunately, that system hasn't worked very well for anyone else. Not everyone wants that kind of loss in their MMO, and the kind of "content" available in Eve doesn't necessarily work in other games.
Not really. Themeparks in my opinion would be better if they lacked levels. There can still be shallow progression and a world with difficulty zones for example easy, intermediate, hard, group required.
Throw away content and world is just impractical unless your Blizzard who can pump millions into making expansions. Even their expansions are small and a few weeks worth content before you have your players stuck repeating the same dungeons and dailies.
So its OK for a player on day 1 to immediately go do the hardest content in the game? Does that really sound practical and like a game that will last very long? Because that is the result without any form of leveling system.
The only way to prevent such a thing is to create a massive death penalty / gold sink, and that isn't something most people want to deal with.
Content gating is just a necessary thing in games if they are to have any sense of reward attached. Levels and time devotion are just the easiest way to achieve that.
The problem with no levels is the lack of framework for content. Players need progression. They need to build to something bigger and better. When you remove levels and relegate all progress to items, you introduce a massive way to circumvent the progression necessary to keep people playing the game (as can be seen in just about every sandbox mmo that incorporated it - ever).
Eve is an exception. In a game like Eve where the economy and the means for progression are kept in balance by massive gold sinks (ships and destruction), you can govern progression. Unfortunately, that system hasn't worked very well for anyone else. Not everyone wants that kind of loss in their MMO, and the kind of "content" available in Eve doesn't necessarily work in other games.
Not really. Themeparks in my opinion would be better if they lacked levels. There can still be shallow progression and a world with difficulty zones for example easy, intermediate, hard, group required.
Throw away content and world is just impractical unless your Blizzard who can pump millions into making expansions. Even their expansions are small and a few weeks worth content before you have your players stuck repeating the same dungeons and dailies.
So its OK for a player on day 1 to immediately go do the hardest content in the game? Does that really sound practical and like a game that will last very long? Because that is the result without any form of leveling system.
The only way to prevent such a thing is to create a massive death penalty / gold sink, and that isn't something most people want to deal with.
Content gating is just a necessary thing in games if they are to have any sense of reward attached. Levels and time devotion are just the easiest way to achieve that.
You don't need raw power whether through gear or level to gate content, if that is what you want to do.
A simple 'have to complete content x before y unlocks' is one simple solution, atleast if we are talking about dungeons or such, if it's openworld it's a bit harder.
Then there's also something like gw2's mastery system, where you can progress to say gain resistance to certain stuff in specific content that without you'll probably just die but doesn't give any advantage in other pve content or pvp.
They also had stuff like that in the original GW. There were enemies with a specific attack that would pretty much insta-gank you unless you had done a previous quest that made you resistant to that specific attack. It was only relevant to that content though.
However beyond the possibility of some storyline quests I don't see a great need to gate the vast majority content.
The problem with no levels is the lack of framework for content. Players need progression. They need to build to something bigger and better. When you remove levels and relegate all progress to items, you introduce a massive way to circumvent the progression necessary to keep people playing the game (as can be seen in just about every sandbox mmo that incorporated it - ever).
Eve is an exception. In a game like Eve where the economy and the means for progression are kept in balance by massive gold sinks (ships and destruction), you can govern progression. Unfortunately, that system hasn't worked very well for anyone else. Not everyone wants that kind of loss in their MMO, and the kind of "content" available in Eve doesn't necessarily work in other games.
Not really. Themeparks in my opinion would be better if they lacked levels. There can still be shallow progression and a world with difficulty zones for example easy, intermediate, hard, group required.
Throw away content and world is just impractical unless your Blizzard who can pump millions into making expansions. Even their expansions are small and a few weeks worth content before you have your players stuck repeating the same dungeons and dailies.
So its OK for a player on day 1 to immediately go do the hardest content in the game? Does that really sound practical and like a game that will last very long? Because that is the result without any form of leveling system.
The only way to prevent such a thing is to create a massive death penalty / gold sink, and that isn't something most people want to deal with.
Content gating is just a necessary thing in games if they are to have any sense of reward attached. Levels and time devotion are just the easiest way to achieve that.
Yes, it is ok. You can have other barriers like situational gear and the like to prevent entry just like action adventure games do. And yes, its as practical as making easy leveling games and forcing players to play end game fast anyway. Not sure what's the aversion considering how fast you reach end game in most MMOPRG.
No, its not read above.
Content gating can be done more creative than funneling people through the game in levels. How practical is it to have 95% of your game's content being outleveled in a mature game? Having zones based on difficulty instead of levels allows for "hard" content to remain relevant no matter how many expansions come out and you can even encorporated that into those zones without changing the balance of the game or leveling path.
Actually many mmos have addressed these issues. City of Heroes had a side kick option allowing you to level with your higher level friend. Everquest came up with a shroud system..the shroud would turn you into a specific monster of another class and a lower level. There were many shrouds...so the higher level would just shroud down to his friends level and could play another class that better fit whatever the group needed.
As for pvp, GW2 and ESO have a feature to where when you join the paticular battleground, campaign or what have you... you are all the same level..however seasoned toons still have an advantage but atleast your not level 10 fighting a end game toon.
The features added to a mmo is really up to the Devs and the community who offer ideas in forums where the Devs look.That being said I do agree with you on leveling with friends of different levels, having some sort of feature that could accomplish this without disrupting your progression, would be a cool feature and more MMOS should look into it.
Mmorpgs might all seem similar but each is its own package with different features unless of course the game is a clone than not so much. I think that is what is wrong with modern mmos as they have become watered down single player games except for a few dungeons, trying to be the next WOW. I think the genre needs something new mixed with some old school, but now im getting off topic. I have a feeling after this drought this genre will give us something that we havent played yet and it wont be a Wow clone.
If at first you dont succeed, call it version 1.0
The problem is your "evidence" is completely devoid of any logic or intelligent thought.
Speaking of "beyond your level of comprehension", yeah...
Whatever.
The relation between mass production and progression is simple, and obvious.
With a progression based game, the gear, the power is an achievement - the reason you play, to get stronger, get better gear etc.
This essentially disqualify two things:
1) Item loss.
Having a player running raids for weeks or months for gear just to lose isn't viable concept.
2) Mass production.
Mass production means items are treated as you said yourself - consumables. Unified stats, no power gaps, again non-viable concept when gear is supposed to be the driving force behind the game.
So there you have it.
Progression based design leads to permanent items - the gear is an achievement.
Progression-less based design allows for item loss - the gear isn't an achievement, it is merely a consumable.
Like I said, you mistake cause and consequence.
There are plenty of other errors you make with your assumptions but there is no point digging into it...you are not even capable to address any points that are already being raised.
Reminds me of Firefall.
Gear was essentially a buff that degraded. To hold any sort of stature among your peers you had to maintain this buff.
So in the end it didn't really matter how that compared to other systems you were still chasing the acquisition of stat boosts.
Which is fine.
----
Like others have said: progression is a core design pillar of RPGs. Even a massively multiplayer version of Zelda which appears to have very flat power curve would have progression in terms of item progression.. but how OP would hook shoting around the place be compared to someone that does not possess?
This argument is tired and old. reforging isnt the answer making something new is.
I immediately thought of Firefall as well. As I remember it (correct me if I'm wrong), the addition of gear degradation actually pushed away many of its players, which in a way is an example that negates the OPs assumption that this would "fix the problem".
Like leveling or not, it doesn't change the fact that without it or some other motivations implemented to strive for, any game would struggle to hold the "massive population" the OP is looking for. Most people like purpose and progression in their games, and a need to hold on to what they achieved, or else no game would ever need a "save" function.
Actually many mmos have addressed these issues. City of Heroes had a side kick option allowing you to level with your higher level friend. Everquest came up with a shroud system..the shroud would turn you into a specific monster of another class and a lower level. There were many shrouds...so the higher level would just shroud down to his friends level and could play another class that better fit whatever the group needed.
As for pvp, GW2 and ESO have a feature to where when you join the paticular battleground, campaign or what have you... you are all the same level..however seasoned toons still have an advantage but atleast your not level 10 fighting a end game toon.
The features added to a mmo is really up to the Devs and the community who offer ideas in forums where the Devs look.That being said I do agree with you on leveling with friends of different levels, having some sort of feature that could accomplish this without disrupting your progression, would be a cool feature and more MMOS should look into it.
Mmorpgs might all seem similar but each is its own package with different features unless of course the game is a clone than not so much. I think that is what is wrong with modern mmos as they have become watered down single player games except for a few dungeons, trying to be the next WOW. I think the genre needs something new mixed with some old school, but now im getting off topic. I have a feeling after this drought this genre will give us something that we havent played yet and it wont be a Wow clone.
All that is doing is negating levels. If you have to negate levels to make level do what you want why have them?
I immediately thought of Firefall as well. As I remember it (correct me if I'm wrong), the addition of gear degradation actually pushed away many of its players, which in a way is an example that negates the OPs assumption that this would "fix the problem".
Like leveling or not, it doesn't change the fact that without it or some other motivations implemented to strive for, any game would struggle to hold the "massive population" the OP is looking for. Most people like purpose and progression in their games, and a need to hold on to what they achieved, or else no game would ever need a "save" function.
Indeed.
It is weird how something so simple, and I would even say obvious, is so difficult to comprehend for some...
The problem with no levels is the lack of framework for content. Players need progression. They need to build to something bigger and better. When you remove levels and relegate all progress to items, you introduce a massive way to circumvent the progression necessary to keep people playing the game (as can be seen in just about every sandbox mmo that incorporated it - ever).
Eve is an exception. In a game like Eve where the economy and the means for progression are kept in balance by massive gold sinks (ships and destruction), you can govern progression. Unfortunately, that system hasn't worked very well for anyone else. Not everyone wants that kind of loss in their MMO, and the kind of "content" available in Eve doesn't necessarily work in other games.
Not really. Themeparks in my opinion would be better if they lacked levels. There can still be shallow progression and a world with difficulty zones for example easy, intermediate, hard, group required.
Throw away content and world is just impractical unless your Blizzard who can pump millions into making expansions. Even their expansions are small and a few weeks worth content before you have your players stuck repeating the same dungeons and dailies.
So its OK for a player on day 1 to immediately go do the hardest content in the game? Does that really sound practical and like a game that will last very long? Because that is the result without any form of leveling system.
The only way to prevent such a thing is to create a massive death penalty / gold sink, and that isn't something most people want to deal with.
Content gating is just a necessary thing in games if they are to have any sense of reward attached. Levels and time devotion are just the easiest way to achieve that.
Some of the most interesting quests in WoW were the class quests which by completing you gained a skill imo.
Even without levels this kind of gameplay could still be made valid and interesting. Do stuff(complete quests, wear armor, use sword) in the world to gain skills = become stronger, no levels needed. Content gated.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
what is mainstream doesn't define what is a mmo(rpg) or not. ok, let's assume that leveling/grinding/endgame is atm the winning/selling solution for the market.
still, it doesn't say that ALL mmorpgs have to be same.
the OP and many of us simply want a different one. not "the majority of games" or "the best selling strategy"
it's just a matter of taste. really don't understand why want to force someone to like what he clearly doesn't.
anyways..any trace of a mmo with openworld, freeroaming, horizontal progression (no levels or increasing numbers, but just jump in and play with others)?
yep. it resembles much of a recent survival game with sp and lobby based mp...but still looking for a mmo.
and who is forcing you not to play them ? or flaming in a post with different ideas? the point of the 3d is that op would like to play a different kind of mmo. and then? it's his right to express his feelings. I highly doubt that it will hurt your gaming experience. ah ok, it's just usual trolls.
back in topic. op I know yout pain, as it's so difficult to find this features in a mmo. gw1 was quite similar to what you ask for, still it's abandoned and lowpopulation. probably we should try survivals or corpg/sandbox indies, as mainstream market has taken a totally opposite direction than what need some players.
Steelhelm said: gain skills = become stronger, no levels needed.
That is levels.
Actually there is a difference. Gaining a power is not the same as gaining a multipliers and modifiers that take you out of range of play. I get tired of logic that they're the same thing. Its like saying in a MOBA when you gain a power you're suddenly untouchable by the people who don't.
Unless that power grants that sort of power its more shallow or horizontal progression. A level 10 in most games are untouchable to a level 1. Gaining fireball giving you AE over fireblast a single target isn't giving typical level like gains.
No wonder because the logic behind that statement is sound.
Its not the same thing. Levels in which are being discussed that are used in MMORPG are not the same a gaining an ability.
Literally definition of gaining a level means the developer gives you a level. So its not gaining a level unless the developer specifically gives you a level.
Technically gaining a level in the way its discussed here (not superficial levels) you gain stats and gain artificial power platform. Meaning the more levels you become more untouchable to lower levels. You do no automatically gain a power plathform or stats from gaining ability. I get glimmer who's effect is to make look like a troll for 5 minutes and changes nothing is not a new power platform. Gaining a new power may give strength but it will not place you on an artificial power platform where a level 20 wizard can out melee a level 15 fighter.
It is not the same thing mechanically, it is the same thing principally.
He does say: "gain skills = become stronger".
If "stronger" is supposed to mean more power, it is the same.
If "stronger" is supposed to mean more abilities that do not result in more power, then "stronger" is inappropriate term.
Imo that is a bad design anyway. It means you do not start just weak but "gimped".
It is not the same thing mechanically, it is the same thing principally.
He does say: "gain skills = become stronger".
If "stronger" is supposed to mean more power, it is the same.
If "stronger" is supposed to mean more abilities that do not result in more power, then "stronger" is inappropriate term.
Imo that is a bad design anyway. It means you do not start just weak but "gimped".
Its not the same thing in principle unless its the same thing in principle and this is not the same thing in principle.
is it the vertical vs horizontal progression dilemma? lots of flames have been done in gw2 before heart of thorns release.
levels usually imply stat boost, unlock better gear...so it's definitely becoming stronger.
skills..it's not so a linear relationship with power. if there are much stronger skills than those available as a fresh char, in that case it's obv vertical progression. if it becomes just a matter of widening choices and party roles-specs, it's horizontal progression.
seemingly, OP doesn't like both skills or levels, if it causes fresh chars to have a handicap vs "veteran" chars (not veteran players. just about artificial advantages outside players experience). it makes coop (and also pvp) gaming a unfair challenge, just a matter of time and grind.
and yes, it is the reason that caused mobas to be developed and to be so played nowadays.
but still, I love to think that soon or later the same principle of allowing people to jump in and enjoy a game since the first minute from login, without handicap even in pve, just to enjoy the pleasure of a fully populated, persistent world, will be applied in a mmo.
Comments
Throw away content and world is just impractical unless your Blizzard who can pump millions into making expansions. Even their expansions are small and a few weeks worth content before you have your players stuck repeating the same dungeons and dailies.
The data. (Click 'All')
Like WOW it's in the 'long-tail' phase of its life (while the decline of the last ~4 months looks particularly brutal, I'd guess that the decline will slow somewhat as usually the last dregs of a playerbase take a VERY long time to filter out).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Economics is the study of how we use limited resources. One of those limited resources is time and labor. Everything that you do, absolutely everything, costs you lost opportunity.
So whatever method you use to acquire anything, it's costing you lost opportunity. This is the concept I learned in middle school. I could mine the ore, smelt the ore, and smith the finished product myself... or I could focus on learning which of those steps generated the most money the fastest, do that step, and let someone else do the other steps.
In other words you focus on earning money, generally by doing something you have a competitive advantage in, and then use that money to purchase the other resources and services you need.
So the origin of the loot does not matter to me AT ALL. Only it's cost does. Regardless of it's origin I'm going to identify a market opportunity or my competitive advantage and focus on using that to make money, then buy the gear.
1) Item Loss - I have, and always will think of ships, suits of gear etc. that I make in item loss games in terms of "What is the value of this?" "How long long will it take me to earn the money to replace this?" "What is the risk of losing this based on what I'm using it for?" "What are the potential rewards for winning and consequences for losing?" That allows me to determine the value of the equipment I'm willing to put on the line in any given situation. The source changes NOTHING other than potentially the value, which allows me to adjust my calculations up or down for it accordingly. The only way this Item Loss calculation could significantly change is if they either change the nature of gear loss, or make items soulbound. I'm still going to make a decision on what I'm willing to lose that best fits my need, purchase that equipment, and go risk it. And everyone else opposing me (if smart) will run the same calculations based on their ability to generate income and tolerance for risk.
2) Mass Production- I never took part in production and EVE. I would mine if I was doing something else in the background, ice-mine if I was REALLY not paying attention to the game whatsoever (For instance I sometimes mined ice and played Dust 514 at the same time) and run missions or go ratting in null-sec if I was on and really had time to pay attention to the game. I also had various more passive income sources like R&D and Planetary crap. I then took the isk I got from these income sources and used it to purchase whatever I need. If the economy has moved toward a loot based economy? Cool. Missions and ratting just got more profitable I guess. I'm still going to do the same things and use the money for what I need.
So again I don't see your point. Items are loot based now so I won't risk them? Yes I will unless there is no longer good money to be had in null sec and suicide ganking isn't a thing. You risk your items every time you leave the dock, like it or not "Don't undock it if you aren't willing to lose it" is still a thing. If loot based items are prohibitively expensive to risk in PvP then I can expect my opponents won't use them very much either. I guarantee you that if I go back to EVE I'm still going to find people blowing each other up in null sec. Loot based or manufacturing based.
EVE was released in May of 2003. To put that in perspective WoW and Anarchy Online came out in 2001, the original Planetside was also released May 2003, and LoTRO was released in 2007.
So it's going pretty strong for it's age. I think the only MMOs comparable in age still going as strong as EVE are WoW and Runescape.
The only way to prevent such a thing is to create a massive death penalty / gold sink, and that isn't something most people want to deal with.
Content gating is just a necessary thing in games if they are to have any sense of reward attached. Levels and time devotion are just the easiest way to achieve that.
A simple 'have to complete content x before y unlocks' is one simple solution, atleast if we are talking about dungeons or such, if it's openworld it's a bit harder.
Then there's also something like gw2's mastery system, where you can progress to say gain resistance to certain stuff in specific content that without you'll probably just die but doesn't give any advantage in other pve content or pvp.
However beyond the possibility of some storyline quests I don't see a great need to gate the vast majority content.
No, its not read above.
Content gating can be done more creative than funneling people through the game in levels. How practical is it to have 95% of your game's content being outleveled in a mature game? Having zones based on difficulty instead of levels allows for "hard" content to remain relevant no matter how many expansions come out and you can even encorporated that into those zones without changing the balance of the game or leveling path.
As for pvp, GW2 and ESO have a feature to where when you join the paticular battleground, campaign or what have you... you are all the same level..however seasoned toons still have an advantage but atleast your not level 10 fighting a end game toon.
The features added to a mmo is really up to the Devs and the community who offer ideas in forums where the Devs look.That being said I do agree with you on leveling with friends of different levels, having some sort of feature that could accomplish this without disrupting your progression, would be a cool feature and more MMOS should look into it.
Mmorpgs might all seem similar but each is its own package with different features unless of course the game is a clone than not so much. I think that is what is wrong with modern mmos as they have become watered down single player games except for a few dungeons, trying to be the next WOW. I think the genre needs something new mixed with some old school, but now im getting off topic. I have a feeling after this drought this genre will give us something that we havent played yet and it wont be a Wow clone.
If at first you dont succeed, call it version 1.0
Like leveling or not, it doesn't change the fact that without it or some other motivations implemented to strive for, any game would struggle to hold the "massive population" the OP is looking for. Most people like purpose and progression in their games, and a need to hold on to what they achieved, or else no game would ever need a "save" function.
It is weird how something so simple, and I would even say obvious, is so difficult to comprehend for some...
Even without levels this kind of gameplay could still be made valid and interesting. Do stuff(complete quests, wear armor, use sword) in the world to gain skills = become stronger, no levels needed. Content gated.
ok, let's assume that leveling/grinding/endgame is atm the winning/selling solution for the market.
still, it doesn't say that ALL mmorpgs have to be same.
the OP and many of us simply want a different one. not "the majority of games" or "the best selling strategy"
it's just a matter of taste. really don't understand why want to force someone to like what he clearly doesn't.
anyways..any trace of a mmo with openworld, freeroaming, horizontal progression (no levels or increasing numbers, but just jump in and play with others)?
yep. it resembles much of a recent survival game with sp and lobby based mp...but still looking for a mmo.
the point of the 3d is that op would like to play a different kind of mmo. and then? it's his right to express his feelings. I highly doubt that it will hurt your gaming experience. ah ok, it's just usual trolls.
back in topic.
op I know yout pain, as it's so difficult to find this features in a mmo.
gw1 was quite similar to what you ask for, still it's abandoned and lowpopulation.
probably we should try survivals or corpg/sandbox indies, as mainstream market has taken a totally opposite direction than what need some players.
Unless that power grants that sort of power its more shallow or horizontal progression. A level 10 in most games are untouchable to a level 1. Gaining fireball giving you AE over fireblast a single target isn't giving typical level like gains.
Literally definition of gaining a level means the developer gives you a level. So its not gaining a level unless the developer specifically gives you a level.
Technically gaining a level in the way its discussed here (not superficial levels) you gain stats and gain artificial power platform. Meaning the more levels you become more untouchable to lower levels. You do no automatically gain a power plathform or stats from gaining ability. I get glimmer who's effect is to make look like a troll for 5 minutes and changes nothing is not a new power platform. Gaining a new power may give strength but it will not place you on an artificial power platform where a level 20 wizard can out melee a level 15 fighter.
He does say: "gain skills = become stronger".
If "stronger" is supposed to mean more power, it is the same.
If "stronger" is supposed to mean more abilities that do not result in more power, then "stronger" is inappropriate term.
Imo that is a bad design anyway. It means you do not start just weak but "gimped".
levels usually imply stat boost, unlock better gear...so it's definitely becoming stronger.
skills..it's not so a linear relationship with power.
if there are much stronger skills than those available as a fresh char, in that case it's obv vertical progression.
if it becomes just a matter of widening choices and party roles-specs, it's horizontal progression.
seemingly, OP doesn't like both skills or levels, if it causes fresh chars to have a handicap vs "veteran" chars (not veteran players. just about artificial advantages outside players experience).
it makes coop (and also pvp) gaming a unfair challenge, just a matter of time and grind.
and yes, it is the reason that caused mobas to be developed and to be so played nowadays.
but still, I love to think that soon or later the same principle of allowing people to jump in and enjoy a game since the first minute from login, without handicap even in pve, just to enjoy the pleasure of a fully populated, persistent world, will be applied in a mmo.