I couldn't care ;less is an idea "works"i care about the type of game i seek and if the developer has accomplished in delivering said game. I would need to go to the extreme analogy to make the point more clear....So if a mmorpg has purple cows flying through the air and it works,that is ok?Not in my books.
Levels or a Themepark type design is NOT a Role playing design,it is a totally different game.So it is not a matter of weather i want a Themepark,it is a matter of what type of game i want and that changes from day to day ,person to person.Point being ,if some developer is selling me a mmorpg,THAT is what i want and NOT some game that has levels and some question marks to follow around.
I honest;ly couldn't care less if 500 million people "accept" that type of design as being a "mmorpg" design because it is NOT.I couldn't even care less if ALL the big developers use that same design,it is still not a mmorpg. Without fully explaining and designing a game for all these half wit developers,i'll make it simple.A role play is to play the role of a character in what is suppose to be a living world,yes even though it is obviously just computer code and commands,we are still suppose to perceive it as a living world.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
There really isn't much in the risk factor these days. Players complain about consequences and devs responded. That isn't to say there aren't people asking for better rewards for "higher risk" (::wink wink::). Most of these are min-maxers who aren't actually taking more risk but are schemers trying to get more stuff for no extra cost.
I agree with you. Outlevel and outgear content does not a good player make. But a hard server should have better loot then an easy one in either way, it is clearly harder to play in one, most of the people will use the same tactics in the easy server as well.
To fix your problem you need to drop the powergap a lot...
You realize that has nothing itself to do with the progression model and entirely to do with the way the content is implemented to offer challenge or not, right?
As per your own example just now, a vertical progression game that auto-scales it's content offers only one flat level of challenge. However there are other games like STO which offer scaling content with a difficulty option which lets you make the content easier or harder alongside that scaling.
This is also where horizontal type games can just as easily provide differentiated scales in challenge. Even if you say no difficulty slider, you still have the ability to do things like make different mob groupings that are inherently harder than others, or even plunk down entire zones, dungeons, or other places full of units which are more challenging to beat.
The difficulty of these models and challenge they provide is not inherently different, that only comes from how a designer wishes to implement challenge into their game beyond a baseline.
Of course it has to do with the progression model!
What does vertical progression mean? It means both the player and their enemies have many power levels. So you might have level 1-100 players and level 1-100 mobs. So a level 10 player can choose to attack mobs of any of those levels. So allowing for increased challenge is literally built into the progression model.
A "vertical progression" game that auto-scales all its content wouldn't be a vertical progression game, it'd be horizontal progression. WOW doesn't go that far, but in the place where it is horizontal (100-110 leveling) it incurs the problem I've described: the inability to seek a harder challenge by fighting higher-level mobs. It's not like that deprives the player of all ability to dynamically adjust challenge (in a quest to kill 10 mobs you can pull them all at once and you'll have a tougher challenge as well as a faster completion if you can do it successfully) but it definitely eliminates one of the larger controls the player has over difficulty. Which is why your point of STO having its own separate ability to adjust challenge is pretty irrelevant.
So the truth is that vertical progression provides more control over challenge than horizontal progression. That's the mathematical truth created by the game rules that the words "vertical progression" stand for. Your opinion can either match that truth, or you can be wrong. Why would you choose to be wrong after the truth has been spelled out to you so clearly?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think the question "which is harder" is being skimmed.
Your character is level 10 vs level 10 mob Your character is level 110 vs a level 110 mob
Which is more challenging depends on the nature of the mob, not the level, ASSUMING YOU ARE AN EQUAL LEVEL AS THE MOB.
Yes, if you are level 9 and the mob is level 10, it should be harder assuming stat scaling. That type of challenge I like as well.
But I also like challenges that a challenging because of the nature of skills, attacks, positioning, etc that you have to deal with. These need not be mutually exclusive.
You're just not paying attention to the conversation is all. It stemmed with a claim that horizontal progression fixed the lack of challenge and my response that "Horizontal progression is a step backwards in challenge management, actually."
This remains true.
In a horizontal progression game literally every single fight is the balanced match-up you're describing.
In a vertical progression game, you have the option to fight easier or harder fights (depending on the level difference of the mobs you choose to engage).
Objectively, vertical progression provides more control over your challenges.
Now you're caught up. Want to try your response again?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think the question "which is harder" is being skimmed.
Your character is level 10 vs level 10 mob Your character is level 110 vs a level 110 mob
Which is more challenging depends on the nature of the mob, not the level, ASSUMING YOU ARE AN EQUAL LEVEL AS THE MOB.
Yes, if you are level 9 and the mob is level 10, it should be harder assuming stat scaling. That type of challenge I like as well.
But I also like challenges that a challenging because of the nature of skills, attacks, positioning, etc that you have to deal with. These need not be mutually exclusive.
You're just not paying attention to the conversation is all. It stemmed with a claim that horizontal progression fixed the lack of challenge and my response that "Horizontal progression is a step backwards in challenge management, actually."
This remains true.
In a horizontal progression game literally every single fight is the balanced match-up you're describing.
In a vertical progression game, you have the option to fight easier or harder fights (depending on the level difference of the mobs you choose to engage).
Objectively, vertical progression provides more control over your challenges.
Now you're caught up. Want to try your response again?
IEven though I quoted you, it was just for the train of that argument.
To respond again, I like both.
However, all levels do in vertical progression is add stats to a target. A level 10 mob compared to a level 9 mob will have more hit points, agility, INT, etc, etc.
Guess what? In horizontal games, you can add those stats without a level, or with every mob being the same level. You can still pick easier or harder targets in a horizontal game.
The only true thing that levels does is make it easy to see, and to put a number on something so you can gate it by level (cannot equip until level X, may not enter until Y, will no longer be able to hit the boss until Z). You dont need levels to have both vertical and horizontal play.
You realize that has nothing itself to do with the progression model and entirely to do with the way the content is implemented to offer challenge or not, right?
As per your own example just now, a vertical progression game that auto-scales it's content offers only one flat level of challenge. However there are other games like STO which offer scaling content with a difficulty option which lets you make the content easier or harder alongside that scaling.
This is also where horizontal type games can just as easily provide differentiated scales in challenge. Even if you say no difficulty slider, you still have the ability to do things like make different mob groupings that are inherently harder than others, or even plunk down entire zones, dungeons, or other places full of units which are more challenging to beat.
The difficulty of these models and challenge they provide is not inherently different, that only comes from how a designer wishes to implement challenge into their game beyond a baseline.
Of course it has to do with the progression model!
What does vertical progression mean? It means both the player and their enemies have many power levels. So you might have level 1-100 players and level 1-100 mobs. So a level 10 player can choose to attack mobs of any of those levels. So allowing for increased challenge is literally built into the progression model.
A "vertical progression" game that auto-scales all its content wouldn't be a vertical progression game, it'd be horizontal progression. WOW doesn't go that far, but in the place where it is horizontal (100-110 leveling) it incurs the problem I've described: the inability to seek a harder challenge by fighting higher-level mobs. It's not like that deprives the player of all ability to dynamically adjust challenge (in a quest to kill 10 mobs you can pull them all at once and you'll have a tougher challenge as well as a faster completion if you can do it successfully) but it definitely eliminates one of the larger controls the player has over difficulty. Which is why your point of STO having its own separate ability to adjust challenge is pretty irrelevant.
So the truth is that vertical progression provides more control over challenge than horizontal progression. That's the mathematical truth created by the game rules that the words "vertical progression" stand for. Your opinion can either match that truth, or you can be wrong. Why would you choose to be wrong after the truth has been spelled out to you so clearly?
Not really. You're misapplying and skewing several things in the process of making this argument.
The example of WoW maintaining a level relative to the player for their 100-110 content is not horizontal progression, it's still vertical progression.
This is also present in plenty of other games with lots of vertical progression like in Oblivion where mobs groups swapped out across the world as you leveled higher. Also as the example I gave earlier with STO.
Horizontal progression as a mechanic is an aside from that, as you're talking about minimal stat progression and power scaling over the course of play (which is not characteristic of WoW's 100-110 progression). That is itself a core difference and part of the reason it can be said truthfully that the challenge of such a system is not inherent to the system itself, but the means in which the challenge in the game is approached as a secondary subject.
Where you just made a mistake (aside from mistaking horizontal and vertical progression) is in the assumptions you made of what vertical progression mandates, which is already illustrated by the point made with STO and Oblivion. To assume what kind of power gap is present in a game's leveling and to assume what kind of challenge is provided by different tiers in a game is a very subjective thing to do because game balance and details of design is not universal. The difficulty of fighting a mob five levels above you in one game can be vastly different from another in the likes of a vertical progression system and that can spell the difference between a challenging engagement and an impossible one.
Much the same, a horizontal system is not beholden to homogeneity. As already explained you can build variety into the difficulty of mobs and seed those into the world all the same as you would see in any vertical system using levels to define such stratification. That means on a factual level players could seek out and find the same variety of difficulty options in a horizontal game as they could find in any vertical one. It all just comes down to the implementation of the content.
Lol the vertical progression difficulty is irrelevant. You have NPCS that are impossible to beat due to lack of content being done. That means it is gated.
You could layout a horizontal progression basically the same way. You havd gear designed for each area reducing the challenge as you get the gear that helps with area. For example as you collect fire resistant gear the harder hitting fire attacks reduce. You could set the "difficulty" along the same path as a questhub in vertical progression game.
At the end of the day it's all a numbers game. Either the NPC is weaker than you, around the same strength, stronger than you challenge, need a group, need multiple groups or impossible. A level 20 or 100 are the same difficulty to a level 10... impossible. Which means its gated content.
IEven though I quoted you, it was just for the train of that argument.
To respond again, I like both.
However, all levels do in vertical progression is add stats to a target. A level 10 mob compared to a level 9 mob will have more hit points, agility, INT, etc, etc.
Guess what? In horizontal games, you can add those stats without a level, or with every mob being the same level. You can still pick easier or harder targets in a horizontal game.
The only true thing that levels does is make it easy to see, and to put a number on something so you can gate it by level (cannot equip until level X, may not enter until Y, will no longer be able to hit the boss until Z). You dont need levels to have both vertical and horizontal play.
Please use logic...
A scooter is accelerated by an engine. It would move slower without one.
A scooter can also be accelerated by pushing with your legs.
If I point out that removing the engine removes the potential for speed, that's a true statement.
If you point out that you could still move by pushing with your legs, that's unrelated and a bizarre point to make.
So the fact stands that switching from a system that adds challenge (vertical progression) to one that doesn't (horizontal progression) reduces the ability for players to control the challenge they face. Your unrelated comment doesn't matter, because it applies equally to either situation.
Why are people struggling so hard to disagree with a statement that's so obviously true? What's the breakdown in logic or understanding? Where do you fail to understand that one set of rules produces a greater potential for challenge than the other?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Lol the vertical progression difficulty is irrelevant. You have NPCS that are impossible to beat due to lack of content being done. That means it is gated.
You could layout a horizontal progression basically the same way. You havd gear designed for each area reducing the challenge as you get the gear that helps with area. For example as you collect fire resistant gear the harder hitting fire attacks reduce. You could set the "difficulty" along the same path as a questhub in vertical progression game.
At the end of the day it's all a numbers game. Either the NPC is weaker than you, around the same strength, stronger than you challenge, need a group, need multiple groups or impossible. A level 20 or 100 are the same difficulty to a level 10... impossible. Which means its gated content.
So you feel it's impossible to beat a level 21 mob when you're level 20?
(Keeping my responses short since you have proven incapable of understanding more complicated concepts.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Lol the vertical progression difficulty is irrelevant. You have NPCS that are impossible to beat due to lack of content being done. That means it is gated.
You could layout a horizontal progression basically the same way. You havd gear designed for each area reducing the challenge as you get the gear that helps with area. For example as you collect fire resistant gear the harder hitting fire attacks reduce. You could set the "difficulty" along the same path as a questhub in vertical progression game.
At the end of the day it's all a numbers game. Either the NPC is weaker than you, around the same strength, stronger than you challenge, need a group, need multiple groups or impossible. A level 20 or 100 are the same difficulty to a level 10... impossible. Which means its gated content.
So you feel it's impossible to beat a level 21 mob when you're level 20?
(Keeping my responses short since you have proven incapable of understanding more complicated concepts.)
That depends on the game. In AC for example you could be dramatically stronger or weaker. In games like EQ it depended on class and NPC type. In game like WoW there is little difference. As in last night I leveled a hunter up to 9. I killed NPCS a couple levels above me with little to no change.
You are having trouble understanding concepts. You are the only one in this thread it seems to have your viewpoint. Lets make it simple.
General challege rating you see in RPG.
1. Trivial challenge that you kill in one hit. Special NPC or NPC below of your level or gear range.
2. Weaker than you but enough to allow you to do rotations and take on more than one. Typical challenge you run into with NPC your desired level range and content.
3. NPC that are hard. You are taking on NPC that are above your level or gear range or just hard. You will risk death fighting them.
4. NPC that require a group.
5. NPC that require multiple groups.
6. Impossible to beat which is locked or gated content.
You can find this in any RPG regardless of the game. You are essentially calling gated content a challenge. No you just don't have access because the developer makes it that way. This can be found in horizontal progression as well. That's why I said it was irrelevant.
Thats not challenge. That is gated content. Challege means you are challenged. Not impossible.
Answer the question. What is easier: the level 10 mob or the level 110?
This was a good thing about Asheron's call.
There were level 70 monsters that would give a level 90 melee guy trouble that a level 30 mage could take on and level 70 monsters that a level 90 mage would get trounced by which a level 30 melee guy could handle.
Modern games tend to have artificial boosts at +levels such that say a +5 monster is impossible to kill and/or gives no loot. The latter was something I disliked in Aion on a tank. You could kill +6 mobs but you wouldn't get any loot from them.
What is themepark difficulty ? Can a mmorpg be "difficult" if half the game is the player being led through premade adventures and you just follow the hero-path without any real choice or consequence ? We all want different things and for some not having to think too much is fun, for others it is choice freedom challenge that equals fun, and others again want to fight other players.
Do "people" want a "hard" "themepark" ? there are three variables in that sentence, and any answer to that is correct. Define x number of "people hard themepark" subsets and I am sure there will be players who want that.
Mmorpgs have become too costly to make (because they are too content/story driven), and so they need to target broadly to succeed financially, but that does not mean there are not players who want other types of mmorpgs, and a developer who can avoid the content trap and instead offer well designed reusable systems and player driven content (pvp, coop, open ended, virtual world not themepark) should be financially viable even with a lower number of players (because they don't need to produce the same amount of story content).
IEven though I quoted you, it was just for the train of that argument.
To respond again, I like both.
However, all levels do in vertical progression is add stats to a target. A level 10 mob compared to a level 9 mob will have more hit points, agility, INT, etc, etc.
Guess what? In horizontal games, you can add those stats without a level, or with every mob being the same level. You can still pick easier or harder targets in a horizontal game.
The only true thing that levels does is make it easy to see, and to put a number on something so you can gate it by level (cannot equip until level X, may not enter until Y, will no longer be able to hit the boss until Z). You dont need levels to have both vertical and horizontal play.
Please use logic...
A scooter is accelerated by an engine. It would move slower without one.
A scooter can also be accelerated by pushing with your legs.
If I point out that removing the engine removes the potential for speed, that's a true statement.
If you point out that you could still move by pushing with your legs, that's unrelated and a bizarre point to make.
So the fact stands that switching from a system that adds challenge (vertical progression) to one that doesn't (horizontal progression) reduces the ability for players to control the challenge they face. Your unrelated comment doesn't matter, because it applies equally to either situation.
Why are people struggling so hard to disagree with a statement that's so obviously true? What's the breakdown in logic or understanding? Where do you fail to understand that one set of rules produces a greater potential for challenge than the other?
The only one struggling is you, amigo.
You keep laying the scenario out implying that levels make it more like level 10 vs level 110. In actuality encounters are designed as on par.
I'd be happy to explain more if you would simply give answers to the points I made... your scooter analogy again means you arent comparing even levels of player and mob, which is exactly the point. Fact is, Level is ultimately a number that allows Devs to tie it to a gate or grind.
You can find this in any RPG regardless of the game. You are essentially calling gated content a challenge. No you just don't have access because the developer makes it that way. This can be found in horizontal progression as well. That's why I said it was irrelevant.
It is also heavily dependent on the type of challenge. There are endless games in which I can find substantial challenge; of the twitch variety.
Popular online games these these days have pigeon-holed themselves into difficult twitch action at the top end. Swotor, WoW, Lotro perhaps, etc.
The exceptions, Wildstar or Eve for example, have had quirks; higher than necessary difficulty in Wildstar's case, and nonconsensual PVP in Eve's.
If we were to see a game with a nominal level of twitch challenge throughout and no serious oddities, I suspect we'd see another WoW, or as close as feasible given market changes
If we were to see a game which offered challenge NOT of the twitch variety, I suspect it would be relegated to a niche, as Pantheon has been. And rightfully so; Youngsters often prefer outright imbalance in their favor, having not yet distinguished between victory over their environment and victory over themselves.
Thats not challenge. That is gated content. Challege means you are challenged. Not impossible.
Answer the question. What is easier: the level 10 mob or the level 110?
This was a good thing about Asheron's call.
There were level 70 monsters that would give a level 90 melee guy trouble that a level 30 mage could take on and level 70 monsters that a level 90 mage would get trounced by which a level 30 melee guy could handle.
Modern games tend to have artificial boosts at +levels such that say a +5 monster is impossible to kill and/or gives no loot. The latter was something I disliked in Aion on a tank. You could kill +6 mobs but you wouldn't get any loot from them.
Interesting comment about Aion. My son and I played casters and we found at ÷5 our spells would do zero damage to npcs, which was highly annoying.
With two of us attacking we should have been crushing it. Same was true when fighting other players when it got really stupid.
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
Thats not challenge. That is gated content. Challege means you are challenged. Not impossible.
Answer the question. What is easier: the level 10 mob or the level 110?
This was a good thing about Asheron's call.
There were level 70 monsters that would give a level 90 melee guy trouble that a level 30 mage could take on and level 70 monsters that a level 90 mage would get trounced by which a level 30 melee guy could handle.
Modern games tend to have artificial boosts at +levels such that say a +5 monster is impossible to kill and/or gives no loot. The latter was something I disliked in Aion on a tank. You could kill +6 mobs but you wouldn't get any loot from them.
Interesting comment about Aion. My son and I played casters and we found at ÷5 our spells would do zero damage to npcs, which was highly annoying.
With two of us attacking we should have been crushing it. Same was true when fighting other players when it got really stupid.
Yeah, for Aion they took it way too far. Everyone had something like +20 or whatever items (maybe more)...which was the most grindtastic grind in any MMO I can think of. But, because of that, after a while your character got too weak. That wasn't a challenge, that was complete tedious and completely unbalanced as people in PvP with +20 or whatever would own the game. I know I've posted about balance issues with themeparks, but Aion is a prime example of that.
Asheron's Call was never really like that though. It did have powerful people, but they could still be taken down. It was a lot more balanced than Aion was.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
There were level 70 monsters that would give a level 90 melee guy trouble that a level 30 mage could take on and level 70 monsters that a level 90 mage would get trounced by which a level 30 melee guy could handle.
Modern games tend to have artificial boosts at +levels such that say a +5 monster is impossible to kill and/or gives no loot. The latter was something I disliked in Aion on a tank. You could kill +6 mobs but you wouldn't get any loot from them.
Well that does contain some implication that players in a vertical progression game are able to control their challenge level better than in horizontal progression.
But in the interest of fairness, since I called out elite mobs as a separate factor from the progression model, I have also point out that mobs which are stronger or weaker against different classes (mage/melee) are also a separate factor. (ie it's not the progression model that's responsible for that form of difficulty management.)
All the factors matter, including the one you mention. They're all important ways for players to manage the challenge they face, and because all factors matter that's why the removal of vertical progression is a step backwards in challenge management.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You keep laying the scenario out implying that levels make it more like level 10 vs level 110. In actuality encounters are designed as on par.
I'd be happy to explain more if you would simply give answers to the points I made... your scooter analogy again means you arent comparing even levels of player and mob, which is exactly the point. Fact is, Level is ultimately a number that allows Devs to tie it to a gate or grind.
Why would you bother posting if you were just going to be objectively wrong?
You're level 10.
In a game with all level 10 mobs, there is exactly one level of challenge: 0 (mobs who are neither above or below your level).
In a game with level 1-100 mobs, there are exactly 100 levels of challenge: -9 to +90 (mobs who are up to 9 levels below you or up to 90 levels above)
With the objective, mathematical reality posted, you and I both know you're objectively wrong. I'm sure that won't stop you from continuing to make bravado-filled posts where you pretend 2 + 2 = 5. But you and I both know you're wrong on this.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That depends on the game. In AC for example you could be dramatically stronger or weaker. In games like EQ it depended on class and NPC type. In game like WoW there is little difference. As in last night I leveled a hunter up to 9. I killed NPCS a couple levels above me with little to no change.
You are having trouble understanding concepts. You are the only one in this thread it seems to have your viewpoint. Lets make it simple.
General challege rating you see in RPG.
1. Trivial challenge that you kill in one hit. Special NPC or NPC below of your level or gear range.
2. Weaker than you but enough to allow you to do rotations and take on more than one. Typical challenge you run into with NPC your desired level range and content.
3. NPC that are hard. You are taking on NPC that are above your level or gear range or just hard. You will risk death fighting them.
4. NPC that require a group.
5. NPC that require multiple groups.
6. Impossible to beat which is locked or gated content.
You can find this in any RPG regardless of the game. You are essentially calling gated content a challenge. No you just don't have access because the developer makes it that way. This can be found in horizontal progression as well. That's why I said it was irrelevant.
Did you find it impossible to kill a level 21 mob when you were level 20 in Asheron's Call specifically? Did you find it impossible to kill a level 21 mob while 20 in ANY specific MMORPG?
No? Then drop this nonsensical fantasy.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That depends on the game. In AC for example you could be dramatically stronger or weaker. In games like EQ it depended on class and NPC type. In game like WoW there is little difference. As in last night I leveled a hunter up to 9. I killed NPCS a couple levels above me with little to no change.
You are having trouble understanding concepts. You are the only one in this thread it seems to have your viewpoint. Lets make it simple.
General challege rating you see in RPG.
1. Trivial challenge that you kill in one hit. Special NPC or NPC below of your level or gear range.
2. Weaker than you but enough to allow you to do rotations and take on more than one. Typical challenge you run into with NPC your desired level range and content.
3. NPC that are hard. You are taking on NPC that are above your level or gear range or just hard. You will risk death fighting them.
4. NPC that require a group.
5. NPC that require multiple groups.
6. Impossible to beat which is locked or gated content.
You can find this in any RPG regardless of the game. You are essentially calling gated content a challenge. No you just don't have access because the developer makes it that way. This can be found in horizontal progression as well. That's why I said it was irrelevant.
Did you find it impossible to kill a level 21 mob when you were level 20 in Asheron's Call specifically? Did you find it impossible to kill a level 21 mob while 20 in ANY specific MMORPG?
No? Then drop this nonsensical fantasy.
You are missing the point. And if I speced incorrectly you could be killed by a 21 and it be impossible. AC didn't have power platforms. It was more to track your progress not a modifer. I explained this in a previous post. I know specifically I was slain merciless by lower level fire breathing mountain rats.
You aren't even arguing the point anymore. Fighting characters a few levels stronger than you is neligible to hard difficulty range or 2-3 on my difficulty chart. It's not hard to follow. Higher level than that you may need a group difficulty 4. Higher than that you might need multiple groups of your level 5. At a certain point characters higher level than you in most level based games it's impossible meaning you are gated out of the content.
Even before that most people aren't gathering multiple groups to kill small to no loot orexperience giving NPC. NPC you can't even accept quest for because your gated out of quest as well. Claiming that there 100s of levels of difficulty to a level 10 is just... uh. After a certain point it's just impossible whether it's +5 or +10 it's simply gated. The challenge is the same for a level 50 vs.a 10 as level 100 vs. a 10, impossible and it's gated.
To make this simpler again. Think of a boulder. One in your desired range strength you will be move movable. One heavier you might struggle with. One heavier than that it will take a group. One heavier than that it may take multiple groups. One so big it's impossible to move. One impossible to move rock isn't anymore challenging than next impossible to move rock even if its 8 times as big. It's just more imposing.
ill say it one more time for you: Power from levels can easily be made up by stat increases in a horizontal progression system. We both know you will continue to dodge this point, but. I can't say I didn't give you the extra effort to help you add it all together to get 4 .
Most themepark games have no change in challenge because the enemies are scaled towards you so the lowest common denominator can progress. A very small percentage of content has any challenge like raids.
Horizontal progression is no different than vertical progression in how you design challenge. You just don't scale for each level.
So If i created an area with elite mobs it will be hard vertical or horizontal progression. With horizontal it will remain hard to older players even after an expansion. In a vertical progression MMORPG you will out level "difficult" content. At the same time it is accessible to newer characters in a horizontal game. It's an advantage of not having power plateaus.
What are you even trying to say with that opening line?
Some games definitely are harder than others.
A game where you are level 5 fighting level 10 offers objectively more challenge than a game where EVERYTHING is level 5. (The former game being vertical progression; the latter being horizontal.)
It's only when you ditch the topic of horizontal/vertical progression and basically say "you add challenge by adding challenge" that you start to make sense. Yes, when you add challenge you add challenge. But when it comes to horizontal progression, that's a reduction in the amount of hard challenges that can exist in a game.
The thing with vertical progression is that it is not challenging. Lets frame it like this. Which is a more challenging profession:
A. Brain surgeon for 10 hours a week. B. Grocery bagger for 90 hours a week.
Obviously A is the more challenging job. The brain surgeon is doing a job that requires an insane amount of both skill and knowledge. The brain surgeon is almost certainly capable of bagging groceries for 90 hours a week, it's simply more tedious and frankly not worth their time.
While grinding advocates like to think of themselves as A in that they've invested the time to "earn" the better content, the fact is that getting super high level and insanely good gear is no more challenging than loading the groceries into the bag.
It's not about learning, it's not about bettering yourself, it's about repeating the same mind numbingly simple tasks over and over as the levels go "ding" "ding" "ding".
It reminds me of a scene in an old humourous video series (PurePwnage) where a hardcore RTS player talks about playing WoW. In the RTS he betters himself. He has to work on his skills. His strategies. His knowledge of the game. In WoW he betters his character and HE is ultimately left with nothing. Delete the character and everything he has worked for goes away.
So back to your original question. At level 5 fighting a level 10 character is more challenging than fighting a level 5. At level 20, it's easier to fight the 10 than fighting the 5 when you were level 5. Personally I'd love to play an MMO where player strength is pretty constant but NPC strength varies from stupid easy to ALMOST impossible. I would get so much more of a rush building MYSELF up to the level that I can take on insanely hard content through practice, strategy, and knowledge then building my CHARACTER up to that point by running through rotations on trash mobs and running from point A to point B to finish quests.
Creating the need for me to level creates no challenge. It only creates tedium.
Comments
I would need to go to the extreme analogy to make the point more clear....So if a mmorpg has purple cows flying through the air and it works,that is ok?Not in my books.
Levels or a Themepark type design is NOT a Role playing design,it is a totally different game.So it is not a matter of weather i want a Themepark,it is a matter of what type of game i want and that changes from day to day ,person to person.Point being ,if some developer is selling me a mmorpg,THAT is what i want and NOT some game that has levels and some question marks to follow around.
I honest;ly couldn't care less if 500 million people "accept" that type of design as being a "mmorpg" design because it is NOT.I couldn't even care less if ALL the big developers use that same design,it is still not a mmorpg.
Without fully explaining and designing a game for all these half wit developers,i'll make it simple.A role play is to play the role of a character in what is suppose to be a living world,yes even though it is obviously just computer code and commands,we are still suppose to perceive it as a living world.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
To fix your problem you need to drop the powergap a lot...
What does vertical progression mean? It means both the player and their enemies have many power levels. So you might have level 1-100 players and level 1-100 mobs. So a level 10 player can choose to attack mobs of any of those levels. So allowing for increased challenge is literally built into the progression model.
A "vertical progression" game that auto-scales all its content wouldn't be a vertical progression game, it'd be horizontal progression. WOW doesn't go that far, but in the place where it is horizontal (100-110 leveling) it incurs the problem I've described: the inability to seek a harder challenge by fighting higher-level mobs. It's not like that deprives the player of all ability to dynamically adjust challenge (in a quest to kill 10 mobs you can pull them all at once and you'll have a tougher challenge as well as a faster completion if you can do it successfully) but it definitely eliminates one of the larger controls the player has over difficulty. Which is why your point of STO having its own separate ability to adjust challenge is pretty irrelevant.
So the truth is that vertical progression provides more control over challenge than horizontal progression. That's the mathematical truth created by the game rules that the words "vertical progression" stand for. Your opinion can either match that truth, or you can be wrong. Why would you choose to be wrong after the truth has been spelled out to you so clearly?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This remains true.
In a horizontal progression game literally every single fight is the balanced match-up you're describing.
In a vertical progression game, you have the option to fight easier or harder fights (depending on the level difference of the mobs you choose to engage).
Objectively, vertical progression provides more control over your challenges.
Now you're caught up. Want to try your response again?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To respond again, I like both.
However, all levels do in vertical progression is add stats to a target. A level 10 mob compared to a level 9 mob will have more hit points, agility, INT, etc, etc.
Guess what? In horizontal games, you can add those stats without a level, or with every mob being the same level. You can still pick easier or harder targets in a horizontal game.
The only true thing that levels does is make it easy to see, and to put a number on something so you can gate it by level (cannot equip until level X, may not enter until Y, will no longer be able to hit the boss until Z). You dont need levels to have both vertical and horizontal play.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
The example of WoW maintaining a level relative to the player for their 100-110 content is not horizontal progression, it's still vertical progression.
This is also present in plenty of other games with lots of vertical progression like in Oblivion where mobs groups swapped out across the world as you leveled higher. Also as the example I gave earlier with STO.
Horizontal progression as a mechanic is an aside from that, as you're talking about minimal stat progression and power scaling over the course of play (which is not characteristic of WoW's 100-110 progression). That is itself a core difference and part of the reason it can be said truthfully that the challenge of such a system is not inherent to the system itself, but the means in which the challenge in the game is approached as a secondary subject.
Where you just made a mistake (aside from mistaking horizontal and vertical progression) is in the assumptions you made of what vertical progression mandates, which is already illustrated by the point made with STO and Oblivion. To assume what kind of power gap is present in a game's leveling and to assume what kind of challenge is provided by different tiers in a game is a very subjective thing to do because game balance and details of design is not universal. The difficulty of fighting a mob five levels above you in one game can be vastly different from another in the likes of a vertical progression system and that can spell the difference between a challenging engagement and an impossible one.
Much the same, a horizontal system is not beholden to homogeneity. As already explained you can build variety into the difficulty of mobs and seed those into the world all the same as you would see in any vertical system using levels to define such stratification. That means on a factual level players could seek out and find the same variety of difficulty options in a horizontal game as they could find in any vertical one. It all just comes down to the implementation of the content.
You could layout a horizontal progression basically the same way. You havd gear designed for each area reducing the challenge as you get the gear that helps with area. For example as you collect fire resistant gear the harder hitting fire attacks reduce. You could set the "difficulty" along the same path as a questhub in vertical progression game.
At the end of the day it's all a numbers game. Either the NPC is weaker than you, around the same strength, stronger than you challenge, need a group, need multiple groups or impossible. A level 20 or 100 are the same difficulty to a level 10... impossible. Which means its gated content.
- A scooter is accelerated by an engine. It would move slower without one.
- A scooter can also be accelerated by pushing with your legs.
- If I point out that removing the engine removes the potential for speed, that's a true statement.
- If you point out that you could still move by pushing with your legs, that's unrelated and a bizarre point to make.
So the fact stands that switching from a system that adds challenge (vertical progression) to one that doesn't (horizontal progression) reduces the ability for players to control the challenge they face. Your unrelated comment doesn't matter, because it applies equally to either situation.Why are people struggling so hard to disagree with a statement that's so obviously true? What's the breakdown in logic or understanding? Where do you fail to understand that one set of rules produces a greater potential for challenge than the other?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
(Keeping my responses short since you have proven incapable of understanding more complicated concepts.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You are having trouble understanding concepts. You are the only one in this thread it seems to have your viewpoint. Lets make it simple.
General challege rating you see in RPG.
1. Trivial challenge that you kill in one hit. Special NPC or NPC below of your level or gear range.
2. Weaker than you but enough to allow you to do rotations and take on more than one. Typical challenge you run into with NPC your desired level range and content.
3. NPC that are hard. You are taking on NPC that are above your level or gear range or just hard. You will risk death fighting them.
4. NPC that require a group.
5. NPC that require multiple groups.
6. Impossible to beat which is locked or gated content.
You can find this in any RPG regardless of the game. You are essentially calling gated content a challenge. No you just don't have access because the developer makes it that way. This can be found in horizontal progression as well. That's why I said it was irrelevant.
There were level 70 monsters that would give a level 90 melee guy trouble that a level 30 mage could take on and level 70 monsters that a level 90 mage would get trounced by which a level 30 melee guy could handle.
Modern games tend to have artificial boosts at +levels such that say a +5 monster is impossible to kill and/or gives no loot. The latter was something I disliked in Aion on a tank. You could kill +6 mobs but you wouldn't get any loot from them.
We all want different things and for some not having to think too much is fun, for others it is choice freedom challenge that equals fun, and others again want to fight other players.
Do "people" want a "hard" "themepark" ? there are three variables in that sentence, and any answer to that is correct. Define x number of "people hard themepark" subsets and I am sure there will be players who want that.
Mmorpgs have become too costly to make (because they are too content/story driven), and so they need to target broadly to succeed financially, but that does not mean there are not players who want other types of mmorpgs, and a developer who can avoid the content trap and instead offer well designed reusable systems and player driven content (pvp, coop, open ended, virtual world not themepark) should be financially viable even with a lower number of players (because they don't need to produce the same amount of story content).
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
You keep laying the scenario out implying that levels make it more like level 10 vs level 110. In actuality encounters are designed as on par.
I'd be happy to explain more if you would simply give answers to the points I made... your scooter analogy again means you arent comparing even levels of player and mob, which is exactly the point. Fact is, Level is ultimately a number that allows Devs to tie it to a gate or grind.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Popular online games these these days have pigeon-holed themselves into difficult twitch action at the top end. Swotor, WoW, Lotro perhaps, etc.
The exceptions, Wildstar or Eve for example, have had quirks; higher than necessary difficulty in Wildstar's case, and nonconsensual PVP in Eve's.
If we were to see a game with a nominal level of twitch challenge throughout and no serious oddities, I suspect we'd see another WoW, or as close as feasible given market changes
If we were to see a game which offered challenge NOT of the twitch variety, I suspect it would be relegated to a niche, as Pantheon has been. And rightfully so; Youngsters often prefer outright imbalance in their favor, having not yet distinguished between victory over their environment and victory over themselves.
MMO's these days are split among so many IPs that making a new one just isn't economically sound. Especially if it's a brand new IP.
With two of us attacking we should have been crushing it. Same was true when fighting other players when it got really stupid.
"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
Asheron's Call was never really like that though. It did have powerful people, but they could still be taken down. It was a lot more balanced than Aion was.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
But in the interest of fairness, since I called out elite mobs as a separate factor from the progression model, I have also point out that mobs which are stronger or weaker against different classes (mage/melee) are also a separate factor. (ie it's not the progression model that's responsible for that form of difficulty management.)
All the factors matter, including the one you mention. They're all important ways for players to manage the challenge they face, and because all factors matter that's why the removal of vertical progression is a step backwards in challenge management.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
- You're level 10.
- In a game with all level 10 mobs, there is exactly one level of challenge: 0 (mobs who are neither above or below your level).
- In a game with level 1-100 mobs, there are exactly 100 levels of challenge: -9 to +90 (mobs who are up to 9 levels below you or up to 90 levels above)
With the objective, mathematical reality posted, you and I both know you're objectively wrong. I'm sure that won't stop you from continuing to make bravado-filled posts where you pretend 2 + 2 = 5. But you and I both know you're wrong on this."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
- Albert Einstein
Did you find it impossible to kill a level 21 mob while 20 in ANY specific MMORPG?
No? Then drop this nonsensical fantasy.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You aren't even arguing the point anymore. Fighting characters a few levels stronger than you is neligible to hard difficulty range or 2-3 on my difficulty chart. It's not hard to follow. Higher level than that you may need a group difficulty 4. Higher than that you might need multiple groups of your level 5. At a certain point characters higher level than you in most level based games it's impossible meaning you are gated out of the content.
Even before that most people aren't gathering multiple groups to kill small to no loot orexperience giving NPC. NPC you can't even accept quest for because your gated out of quest as well. Claiming that there 100s of levels of difficulty to a level 10 is just... uh. After a certain point it's just impossible whether it's +5 or +10 it's simply gated. The challenge is the same for a level 50 vs.a 10 as level 100 vs. a 10, impossible and it's gated.
To make this simpler again. Think of a boulder. One in your desired range strength you will be move movable. One heavier you might struggle with. One heavier than that it will take a group. One heavier than that it may take multiple groups. One so big it's impossible to move. One impossible to move rock isn't anymore challenging than next impossible to move rock even if its 8 times as big. It's just more imposing.
ill say it one more time for you: Power from levels can easily be made up by stat increases in a horizontal progression system. We both know you will continue to dodge this point, but. I can't say I didn't give you the extra effort to help you add it all together to get 4 .
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
The thing with vertical progression is that it is not challenging. Lets frame it like this. Which is a more challenging profession:
A. Brain surgeon for 10 hours a week.
B. Grocery bagger for 90 hours a week.
Obviously A is the more challenging job. The brain surgeon is doing a job that requires an insane amount of both skill and knowledge. The brain surgeon is almost certainly capable of bagging groceries for 90 hours a week, it's simply more tedious and frankly not worth their time.
While grinding advocates like to think of themselves as A in that they've invested the time to "earn" the better content, the fact is that getting super high level and insanely good gear is no more challenging than loading the groceries into the bag.
It's not about learning, it's not about bettering yourself, it's about repeating the same mind numbingly simple tasks over and over as the levels go "ding" "ding" "ding".
It reminds me of a scene in an old humourous video series (PurePwnage) where a hardcore RTS player talks about playing WoW. In the RTS he betters himself. He has to work on his skills. His strategies. His knowledge of the game. In WoW he betters his character and HE is ultimately left with nothing. Delete the character and everything he has worked for goes away.
So back to your original question. At level 5 fighting a level 10 character is more challenging than fighting a level 5. At level 20, it's easier to fight the 10 than fighting the 5 when you were level 5. Personally I'd love to play an MMO where player strength is pretty constant but NPC strength varies from stupid easy to ALMOST impossible. I would get so much more of a rush building MYSELF up to the level that I can take on insanely hard content through practice, strategy, and knowledge then building my CHARACTER up to that point by running through rotations on trash mobs and running from point A to point B to finish quests.
Creating the need for me to level creates no challenge. It only creates tedium.