@Mtibbs1989 - You have a severe case of confirmation bias thats apparently blinded you to every opinion that disagrees with yours. Plenty of people have been agreeing with me in this topic right here on MMORPG.com if you read back through the topic.
Even with this industry having run off a lot of people who think the way I do to FPS and MOBA titles there are plenty left around who can see the problem.
I have just seen this post because I haven't gamed or spent much time on gaming for years. I completely agree with the OP you posted, Eldurian. The boredom of the levelling rat race and all the crazy attempts to address the obvious problems while ignoring the obvious answer has made my interest in games very low.
I have dreamed of a game world that's freed from the confines of the level structures. Where resources are directed at worldly interaction and AI that defies prediction, and where what's over the next hill can be different at any time, based on what is happening in a live world.
Clearly you will have to wait until 2045 to be a part of OASIS.
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
HP for example could be 100hp for a beginner and 150hp at max instead of 100hp > 10000hp.
As said earlier, TSW... 1500 HP at start, 2050 HP at the end (I think, it was more than a year ago when I last played... HP was around 2000, that's sure), and everything else was from gear. You could boost only the damage output (glass cannon), or go tanky (beyond 10k HP) with less damage, but usually mix and match was the best, like the good old 10/20/70 for solo.
And of course gear was in your hands as well, not behind grind or RNG drops. You could assemble any gear (or consumables) for yourself, with any stats your deck needed.
Interestly enough you bring up a game who many feel its greatest weakness was a flawed combat model. Perhaps flawed progression was part of the problem?
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
Its ok to have some kind of stat progression but does it have to be that big? Rather slow and small preventing such big gaps we have now.
Additionally think of all the resources that go into creating leveling content just to be rushed through by most of the gamers. This would lead to: 1. Endgame can be started earlier for non min-maxing groups. Less waste of resources for leveling content as people could take newbies into high lvl dungeons without being totally useless. 2. Players being more together, being more mixed inside zones (low lvl with good gear equal higher level with normal gear) With high lvl players doing that zone/dungeon to get the max. Items there (which should take time to get) while lower ones try to get the standard gear from the zone. 3. In PvP a player still has some advantage, but cannot one shot and also may lose if he doesn't pay attention, or if he is fighting against several lowbies but they are coordinated.
There are so many ways to reward people for lvl ups it doesn't have to be a big power increase all the time as long as the character gets stronger on long term.
But we have face the true that they can't sell P2W shit if the design is balanced and friendly . They logic are make the gap bigger and throw the gamble in so they can milk more money .
10s of 21st century game industry are shady as hell and full of lies , making casinos for rich instead of create fun park for everyone .
Sadly that's the truth. But ESO stopped the power creep at CP160 and is running pretty good with it. And we'll have to see what Camelot Unchained will achieve with very low vertical progression and a sub fee.
I don't know why people defend this system which we have for years now and which lead to people rushing through 3/4 of the content because everything that matters is endgame.
Getting rid of it would please everyone imho. You don't have to rush through leveling content and start endgame pretty early if you want to. People who like to level still have the content but can also participate in endgame content very early. Hardcore gamers could still get their hard content, where having more skills and that 3% more damage gives you an advantage, while casuals may also do that content and succeed if they play good instead of much.
Progressing through skills and visuals still let's you progress. And you even progress in stats but not that much that it depends on time instead of skill when it comes to who can participate in what or who has a chance in PvP.
The only people who will be upset are those that rely on playing much and have better gear to compensate their lack of skill.
People who play much and better will still be better. But people who play much but bad will be on equal foot with people who play less but better.
@Mtibbs1989 - You have a severe case of confirmation bias thats apparently blinded you to every opinion that disagrees with yours. Plenty of people have been agreeing with me in this topic right here on MMORPG.com if you read back through the topic.
Even with this industry having run off a lot of people who think the way I do to FPS and MOBA titles there are plenty left around who can see the problem.
Yet apparently few MMORPG developers agree with your assertion, even most indies are sticking with progression heavy designs, likely because that's what sells in the genre
MOBA devs are targeting a different audience, with different tastes and yes, they are the majority but in MMORPG space, progression, grind, unbalance are all pillars of why we play.
Unlike you, I don't need to win, heck I couldn't if I wanted to, just could never put in the effort to perfect my "skills", nor the time to grind for them nor the money to buy power.
I only ask one thing of a MMORPG, that character progression, or at least the illusion of it never end, for as soon as I feel it has, I'm gone.
BTW, despite all that, I loath gear grinding, that is just a really cheap cop out to developing actual character progression systems, say such as EVE.
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
@Mtibbs1989 - The MMO genre is something that changes slowly given the years it takes to develop an MMO. But based on the fact AAA titles have nearly pulled out of the industry entirely these days and which kickstarter projects are getting the most funding I think I'm actually closer to the future target market of this industry than you are.
@Eldurian Sorry, but grind, level progression, and gear progression will never leave gaming regardless of genre. I hope you come to realize and accept this sooner rather than later because it's in almost every game now-a-days.
Games that lack progression and/or power curve often become stagnant and have low replay-ability.
Anyways, I'm bored of the fact that you refuse to realize this, going to sleep, enjoy stewing in the fact that games aren't developed for you.
Jumping back in here.
First, I agree wholeheartedly with Eldurian. I hate vertical progression in persistent online games. It's absolutely ridiculous and I personally believe it is what is causing the genre to stagnate. The focus on ever increasing stats (which is a hangover from single player games) causes massive segregation in our communities and ignores the only unique selling point of the genre: being massively multiplayer.
Second, from reading your posts, you don't seem to comprehend the concept of horizontal progression. It sounds to me like you've never played a game with horizontal progression and have never taken the time to consider what it means. This is evidenced by you repeatedly saying "games with no progression fail". Eldurian is not calling for no progression, that is your observational bias. Eldurian (and myself and others in this thread) is simply asking for there to be no stat / power gaps. You are employing a typical strawman argument by arguing against a position which nobody here actually holds.
Third, grinding, level progression and gear progression (any type of progression you can think of) are all still possible without the progression increasing your overall power. Just because we want to remove power gaps, doesn't mean we want to remove progression.
Fourth, take some time and use your imagination for once. How would you design an MMORPG if you couldn't increase a player's power? If you can't think of anything, it means you've lived a sheltered gaming life and you need to expand your limits. Increasing stats / power is the most basic, uninspired method of progression!
Fifth, if you really can't think of anything, go and take a long look at Camelot Unchained. Read through their documentation on the website. CU is going to have horizontal progression. Mark Jacobs has stated his intent to have less than 10% power difference between a newbie and a vet, yet there is a ton of progression in the game. See what he is intending to do, as well as the other things they are doing to make the game interesting. Sure, it's a very niche game aimed at people who enjoy RvR, but it is a good example of one way to implement horizontal progression. Also, just because there will be no power gaps, doesn't mean a vet won't own a newbie. The game is going to have deep combat requiring a great deal of player skill to master, so a vet should still beat a newbie but they'll be doing it because they are a better player, not because they have more stats.
Finally, recognise that just because you lack the comprehension of horizontal progression, it doesn't mean it's not possible or not enjoyable. Personally, having horizontal progression is a key requirement for me in an MMO and I refuse to play MMOs with vertical progression. I've seen it ruin every single MMO I've played and I won't go through it again. BUT, I enjoy vertical progression in single player RPGs. In a single player game it works fine, I'm the only person there and I'm playing through a story so my power level going up is fine as everything is tuned to my power level. I don't need to care about being too powerful for old zones because I never go back. I don't need to care about power levels of other people im grouping with, because there is no-one to group with.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Fifth, if you really can't think of anything, go and take a long look at Camelot Unchained. Read through their documentation on the website. CU is going to have horizontal progression. Mark Jacobs has stated his intent to have less than 10% power difference between a newbie and a vet, yet there is a ton of progression in the game. See what he is intending to do, as well as the other things they are doing to make the game interesting. Sure, it's a very niche game aimed at people who enjoy RvR, but it is a good example of one way to implement horizontal progression. Also, just because there will be no power gaps, doesn't mean a vet won't own a newbie. The game is going to have deep combat requiring a great deal of player skill to master, so a vet should still beat a newbie but they'll be doing it because they are a better player, not because they have more stats.
Huh... neat. When I was referring to the most major kickstarter MMOs having far small gear gaps I was referring to Crowfall and Star Citizen. Crowfall promising a smaller gap with EVE style skill progression and each campaign resetting player's foothold in the world back to nothing at the start.
Star Citizen having very skill intensive combat where a smaller well piloted ship can tear a larger / more expensive one to shreds easily and completely abolishing the concept of character levels / grinding for experience.
Both seem like they may fit my bill of "little" stat gap (A single vet player not being more than 5 times stronger than a newb before factoring in the skill of the players.)
Sounds like CU is really going all the way and nearly entirely abolishing stat gap. 10% is nothing.
While the title doesn't matter to me a great deal there are two problems I have with saying it's not an RPG.
1. Leveling is actually not a qualifying element for a game to be an RPG or not. It's just a very common element of RPGs.
2. The key words in RPG are "Roleplay". Part of the reason I want a smaller stat gap is because they've become so large they break immersion and become the dominant element of the game, actually taking over focus from things like defining your role in the world, stopping to enjoy lore / story elements etc. as the focus shifts to power leveling.
I'd agree with whoever it was that said earlier that MMORPG has come to mean "Regular Progression Game" more than "Roleplaying Game."
@ikcin - Interesting. So what you are saying is you feel vertical progression was an intentional feature of early MMOs so players weren't all in the same zone at the same time crashing the game. The segregation was good in the sense that it kept the player base spread throughout the world. But now we've moved beyond those technical limitations.
That would also jive with the fact that Guild Wars 1 (The biggest early example of horizontal progression in an MMO-like format) was not a true MMO but instead had instanced world segments with the towns being the only place you could randomly encounter other players, and the towns themselves were separated into multiple instances if too many players were in one.
Never really looked at vertical progression as a technical issue but that actually makes sense.
It absolutely is a technical issue. Calculating a hit, miss, or crit based on predetermined stats doesn't involve the network in a way that aiming skill shots does.
The more you rely on skill, the more you can rest assured you will be paying for it elsewhere, including not being able to engage in combat with more than a handful of players to having deal with last-gen graphics. The idea that you could take, say, WoW combat and simply convert the skills into skill shots would result in a shit show of latency in even battleground settings.
I would call this sort of game an MMO Adventure Game. I do not see any reason why it would not work.
I personally consider vertical character progression to be the core element of RPGs. Therefore, what you describe would not classify as an MMORPG in my book. I personally would not be interested in playing this sort of game, but I am sure there are millions of people who would.
I've never found a good definition for RPG, but I wouldn't consider vertical progression a core element of RPG games.
The only thing that I would consider essential for being classified an RPG is the ability to select/create/define your role and for that role to have a meaningful effect on the way the game is played.
That is enough to separate something like Assassins Creed (action/adventure) from The Witcher (RPG). Despite the fact that AC has strong story, you are playing a role, it has progression, you cannot sufficiently define your own role within the game. In the Witcher series, your choices when you progress do sufficiently change/define your role which then has a big effect on gameplay.
That said, I do understand people's desire to keep vertical progression. Getting bigger numbers is cool. Doing 10,000 damage per hit is better than doing 100 damage per hit. It is a very easy thing to measure and going up makes us feel good. It requires no thinking on our part which makes it very accessible to the average player. It is also the mechanic that's been used in single player games and a lot of tabletop games for decades, so the familiarity is comforting.
The problem is it doesn't work well in an MMO.
This is based on the assumption that the game wants to take advantage of it's one unique selling point: massively multiplayer. If you actually want to bring together large amounts of players within the same virtual environment and have them interact in meaningful ways and form a strong, long term community, then you should ditch vertical progression and go horizontal.
If the game doesn't care about that or you as a player don't care about that then may as well stick with vertical progression as it is a lot easier to develop.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
The argument - it is good because it is there, is not an argument. Vertical progression is not popular because it is amazing for the players. Like many things in the games it is made due technical issues. The first video games had only vertical progression. Later in the MMORPGs it made possible zones with less players in open worlds. Even now if a thousand of players go into one zone the game literally stops. And a thousand of players are not much. EVE includes horizontal progression and unique, but more expensive server structure. So it is not made for the players. It is a technical and a financial issue. But if you look at the gameplay - every good multiplayer game has horizontal, but not vertical progression.
An interesting idea, @ikcin. I'm not so sure that the original developers of MMORPGs were thinking about that rather than simply following the basic "that's how D&D did it" rule of thumb. No one has really tried to think of new systems, D&D had levels and vertical progression, so the new form had levels and vertical progression. It just happened that the nature of these elements worked to segregate the population enough that the technical issues were only problems for the very beginning of the game.
So, I'd say that it was more serendipitous than a conscious design decision. But the idea merits more thought.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The argument - it is good because it is there, is not an argument. Vertical progression is not popular because it is amazing for the players. Like many things in the games it is made due technical issues. The first video games had only vertical progression. Later in the MMORPGs it made possible zones with less players in open worlds. Even now if a thousand of players go into one zone the game literally stops. And a thousand of players are not much. EVE includes horizontal progression and unique, but more expensive server structure. So it is not made for the players. It is a technical and a financial issue. But if you look at the gameplay - every good multiplayer game has horizontal, but not vertical progression.
An interesting idea, @ikcin. I'm not so sure that the original developers of MMORPGs were thinking about that rather than simply following the basic "that's how D&D did it" rule of thumb. No one has really tried to think of new systems, D&D had levels and vertical progression, so the new form had levels and vertical progression. It just happened that the nature of these elements worked to segregate the population enough that the technical issues were only problems for the very beginning of the game.
So, I'd say that it was more serendipitous than a conscious design decision. But the idea merits more thought.
I agree.
I think vertical progression in MMOs is simply because thats what was there in single player RPGs, which in turn is simply because that's what was there in the majority of pen and paper RPGs.
I think a developer that really takes the time to consider horizontal progression properly and implement it in a mainstream AAA game will be onto a real winner. I think the indie's in development at the moment (CU, CF etc) are laying the groundwork, hopefully a mainstream developer will see the ideas in action and then use it in their next big title.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I've mentioned to before but I believe the reason AAA titles are pulling out of the MMO industry is they've seen that WoW clones no longer work, and they don't want to take the risk that developing a new model involves.
Indie developers seem more motivated to develop the games they want to play than maximum profit. And so all kinds of wild ideas are coming out of the crowdfunding movement. Most of which will probably fail but at least 1 or 2 of which are likely to resonate with players.
I think what AAA developers are going to do is sit back and watch to see what resonates with players and then come in with a multi hundred million dollar budget to create a more refined clone of it.
That's exactly what WoW did with EQ. I think the crowdfunding movement is a race to see who can make the next EQ, and the next WoW will follow several years later.
@ikcin - Interesting. So what you are saying is you feel vertical progression was an intentional feature of early MMOs so players weren't all in the same zone at the same time crashing the game. The segregation was good in the sense that it kept the player base spread throughout the world. But now we've moved beyond those technical limitations.
That would also jive with the fact that Guild Wars 1 (The biggest early example of horizontal progression in an MMO-like format) was not a true MMO but instead had instanced world segments with the towns being the only place you could randomly encounter other players, and the towns themselves were separated into multiple instances if too many players were in one.
Never really looked at vertical progression as a technical issue but that actually makes sense.
Also explains why CCP was able to successfully create a more horizontal progression system, except for trade hub systems and large fleet fights players are widely distributed around the universe.
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
The argument - it is good because it is there, is not an argument. Vertical progression is not popular because it is amazing for the players. Like many things in the games it is made due technical issues. The first video games had only vertical progression. Later in the MMORPGs it made possible zones with less players in open worlds. Even now if a thousand of players go into one zone the game literally stops. And a thousand of players are not much. EVE includes horizontal progression and unique, but more expensive server structure. So it is not made for the players. It is a technical and a financial issue. But if you look at the gameplay - every good multiplayer game has horizontal, but not vertical progression.
An interesting idea, @ikcin. I'm not so sure that the original developers of MMORPGs were thinking about that rather than simply following the basic "that's how D&D did it" rule of thumb. No one has really tried to think of new systems, D&D had levels and vertical progression, so the new form had levels and vertical progression. It just happened that the nature of these elements worked to segregate the population enough that the technical issues were only problems for the very beginning of the game.
So, I'd say that it was more serendipitous than a conscious design decision. But the idea merits more thought.
I agree.
I think vertical progression in MMOs is simply because thats what was there in single player RPGs, which in turn is simply because that's what was there in the majority of pen and paper RPGs.
I think a developer that really takes the time to consider horizontal progression properly and implement it in a mainstream AAA game will be onto a real winner. I think the indie's in development at the moment (CU, CF etc) are laying the groundwork, hopefully a mainstream developer will see the ideas in action and then use it in their next big title.
It's not the idea itself that's the issue, it's implementing it.
Taking away stat disparities pushes PvP towards skill-based systems. Include counters like Eldurian described early in the thread, and latency becomes super important. In that case, kiss anything massive about your PvP goodbye.
Fifth, if you really can't think of anything, go and take a long look at Camelot Unchained. Read through their documentation on the website. CU is going to have horizontal progression. Mark Jacobs has stated his intent to have less than 10% power difference between a newbie and a vet, yet there is a ton of progression in the game. See what he is intending to do, as well as the other things they are doing to make the game interesting. Sure, it's a very niche game aimed at people who enjoy RvR, but it is a good example of one way to implement horizontal progression. Also, just because there will be no power gaps, doesn't mean a vet won't own a newbie. The game is going to have deep combat requiring a great deal of player skill to master, so a vet should still beat a newbie but they'll be doing it because they are a better player, not because they have more stats.
Huh... neat. When I was referring to the most major kickstarter MMOs having far small gear gaps I was referring to Crowfall and Star Citizen. Crowfall promising a smaller gap with EVE style skill progression and each campaign resetting player's foothold in the world back to nothing at the start.
Star Citizen having very skill intensive combat where a smaller well piloted ship can tear a larger / more expensive one to shreds easily and completely abolishing the concept of character levels / grinding for experience.
Both seem like they may fit my bill of "little" stat gap (A single vet player not being more than 5 times stronger than a newb before factoring in the skill of the players.)
Sounds like CU is really going all the way and nearly entirely abolishing stat gap. 10% is nothing.
Great point, and I'm very interested to see how all 3 titles will fare with the focus on a much flatter progression curve
Could be the start of a new trend which may drive MMORPG development for years to come.
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
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
It absolutely is a technical issue. Calculating a hit, miss, or crit based on predetermined stats doesn't involve the network in a way that aiming skill shots does.
The more you rely on skill, the more you can rest assured you will be paying for it elsewhere, including not being able to engage in combat with more than a handful of players to having deal with last-gen graphics. The idea that you could take, say, WoW combat and simply convert the skills into skill shots would result in a shit show of latency in even battleground settings.
Well Guild Wars 1 is a great example of a tab-target based system made to be more skill based as opposed to grind based. I think those technical limitations are why most MMOs focus on CC/CC breaks as the main skill based factor as opposed to manual aim. But the idea of too many players in one area crashing the game even with such a system does make sense as to why they would want to keep player-segregation in the game.
I think we've largely moved beyond the need for both of those technical limitations though.
Many years ago I was playing the original Planetside with like 50+ people on the field and manual aim working fairly well. That actually ran pretty smooth for me. I also took part in Darkfall sieges that took at least 100 people and pitted them against each other with manual aim many years ago. Those did not run so well for me but they did function.
I don't think we're at the point that we can see EVE scale battles in a game that's as graphically impressive as Star Citizen with a full-manual aim combat system but I think we could see games as visually impressive as ArcheAge with low stat gap smart-targeting systems. (Smart targeting being a mostly manual aim system with a bit of aim assist to make the game more forgiving to low-ping players. A good example of a smart-target game with heavy aim-assist is Mass Effect.)
I play D&D every Saturday so I think I have a clue about RPGs.
The major difference between a game like Battlefield and an RPG isn't stats, it's persistence and world building.
Your typical match based PvP game drops you into a match with little no backstory as to why you are there, pits you in a match of skill against other players, and then it's over and done with. The next time you play that same battlefield it will be reset to the same status it was at the start of last match.
The game doesn't really set you up to define a role in the game world. It sets you up to blast everything in front of your face and not ask questions.
In a Dungeons or Dragons campaign or video game RPG you are dropped into a world with a rich pre-existing history. Throughout the game you delve deeper into the mysteries of that world, define who your character is within it, and either explore the scripted story or create your own.
There are mediums of storytelling where the player's real life skills and abilities don't matter. They are called books and movies. But even within a pen and paper RPG the player very much matters. The player's skills and decisions mattering is a nearly universal aspect of every game.
A DM doesn't say "Roll me an intelligence check and a wisdom check." "Oh good rolls, you decide to not go with the full frontal assault and sneak in the back way instead." "Roll me an intelligence check. Oooooh nat 1. You prepare every single spell as magic missile today!"
The player's decisions matter. There is such a thing as good and bad D&D players. And yet D&D is not any less an RPG. And if you were to start the campaign at level 20 and end the campaign at level 20, or start the campaign at level 1 and end the campaign at level 1 it would still be an RPG.
Just like an MMO that establishes a world, builds up a lot of rich lore, and allows the player to explore and create their own role within it is an RPG regardless of how big the stat-gap is.
@coretex666 - If I were to include a living room and a kitchen into my vehicle one might describe it as having "Elements of a home." But if all my home has is a bedroom, a closet, and a bathroom is it not a home? Leveling is an element commonly associated with RPGs but that doesn't make it a requirement to be one.
Another point. If the difference between an RPG and FPS were stats instead of persistence and world building, that would make League of Legends and SMITE RPGs. They have stats and temporary character development, but not persistence and world building.
What's fun about progression is when you get a cool new ability that changes the way you play, finding a sword with a special ability, equipping a poleaxe instead of a spear or getting a curse that weakens your enemy.
The boring part about progressions is when you kill 500 monsters, do 15 quests, get a level just so you can kill 500+X monsters and do 15+Y quests to get level N+1 doing the exact same thing with the exact same abilities that now do Z more damage on the mob that has a health increase with a percentage.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
What's fun about progression is when you get a cool new ability that changes the way you play, finding a sword with a special ability, equipping a poleaxe instead of a spear or getting a curse that weakens your enemy.
The boring part about progressions is when you kill 500 monsters, do 15 quests, get a level just so you can kill 500+X monsters and do 15+Y quests to get level N+1 doing the exact same thing with the exact same abilities that now do Z more damage on the mob that has a health increase with a percentage.
That's why I like horizontal progression games. It offers all the former without any of the latter.
The question is does this actually make the game more fun to play. Being more fun to play is really just a chemical reaction inside our bodies. Just playing a game with a slightly different mechanic won't necessarily create that reaction. It seems most developers have already maxed out on creating that addictive chemical reaction or people are generally aware of the different causes and are trying to prevent the addictive elements from being inside of games. This is why I don't understand how people sit and talk about things like alternative ways to level and other game mechanics in such depth. On top of that everything is monetized. I wish changing the way you level in a game would make it more exciting for me, but I could easily say a scantily clad woman or goofy dialogue would cause a bigger reaction. Both are more addictive as they cause chemical dopamine release that makes you feel good for a while. I think leveling may have done that for me at one point in my life when I was competing against others in early games, but it doesn't work anymore regardless of the scheme it uses.
The question is does this actually make the game more fun to play. Being more fun to play is really just a chemical reaction inside our bodies. Just playing a game with a slightly different mechanic won't necessarily create that reaction. It seems most developers have already maxed out on creating that addictive chemical reaction or people are generally aware of the different causes and are trying to prevent the addictive elements from being inside of games. This is why I don't understand how people sit and talk about things like alternative ways to level and other game mechanics in such depth. On top of that everything is monetized. I wish changing the way you level in a game would make it more exciting for me, but I could easily say a scantily clad woman or goofy dialogue would cause a bigger reaction. Both are more addictive as they cause chemical dopamine release that makes you feel good for a while. I think leveling may have done that for me at one point in my life when I was competing against others in early games, but it doesn't work anymore regardless of the scheme it uses.
It's not about changing a system to get the same or similar results. It's about the radical implications those changes have on how the game would be played.
As you pointed out, the dopamine releases you get for leveling just aren't doing it for you anymore. That's the same with me. The first leveling based game I played was Dungeon Siege back when I was in middle school. At the time pushing a level or getting a cool gear drop was like "WOW! THIS IS SO AMAZING!" Skip forward 16 years and I barely give a damn anymore.
At this point what holds me into games is the social aspects and competitive aspects. I like MMOs because they offer a unique social experience. Lower the stat gap and I'll spend more time playing with friends of dissimilar levels. Lower the stat gap and I'll spend more time PvPing and less time grinding to get stronger stronger so I can enjoy PvP.
The question is does this actually make the game more fun to play. Being more fun to play is really just a chemical reaction inside our bodies. Just playing a game with a slightly different mechanic won't necessarily create that reaction. It seems most developers have already maxed out on creating that addictive chemical reaction or people are generally aware of the different causes and are trying to prevent the addictive elements from being inside of games. This is why I don't understand how people sit and talk about things like alternative ways to level and other game mechanics in such depth. On top of that everything is monetized. I wish changing the way you level in a game would make it more exciting for me, but I could easily say a scantily clad woman or goofy dialogue would cause a bigger reaction. Both are more addictive as they cause chemical dopamine release that makes you feel good for a while. I think leveling may have done that for me at one point in my life when I was competing against others in early games, but it doesn't work anymore regardless of the scheme it uses.
It's not about changing a system to get the same or similar results. It's about the radical implications those changes have on how the game would be played.
As you pointed out, the dopamine releases you get for leveling just aren't doing it for you anymore. That's the same with me. The first leveling based game I played was Dungeon Siege back when I was in middle school. At the time pushing a level or getting a cool gear drop was like "WOW! THIS IS SO AMAZING!" Skip forward 16 years and I barely give a damn anymore.
At this point what holds me into games is the social aspects and competitive aspects. I like MMOs because they offer a unique social experience. Lower the stat gap and I'll spend more time playing with friends of dissimilar levels. Lower the stat gap and I'll spend more time PvPing and less time grinding to get stronger stronger so I can enjoy PvP.
And there are my dopamine releases.
Good points.
I would also point out that music is something that can be used to provoke feelings and is often underutilized in modern games. There is both the visual and audio stimuli. I don't feel this generation is that attune to these things. They seem more interested in logic and statistics.
Comments
"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
"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
But ESO stopped the power creep at CP160 and is running pretty good with it.
And we'll have to see what Camelot Unchained will achieve with very low vertical progression and a sub fee.
I don't know why people defend this system which we have for years now and which lead to people rushing through 3/4 of the content because everything that matters is endgame.
Getting rid of it would please everyone imho. You don't have to rush through leveling content and start endgame pretty early if you want to.
People who like to level still have the content but can also participate in endgame content very early.
Hardcore gamers could still get their hard content, where having more skills and that 3% more damage gives you an advantage, while casuals may also do that content and succeed if they play good instead of much.
Progressing through skills and visuals still let's you progress. And you even progress in stats but not that much that it depends on time instead of skill when it comes to who can participate in what or who has a chance in PvP.
The only people who will be upset are those that rely on playing much and have better gear to compensate their lack of skill.
People who play much and better will still be better.
But people who play much but bad will be on equal foot with people who play less but better.
1997 Meridian 59 'til 2019 ESO
Waiting for Camelot Unchained & Pantheon
MOBA devs are targeting a different audience, with different tastes and yes, they are the majority but in MMORPG space, progression, grind, unbalance are all pillars of why we play.
Unlike you, I don't need to win, heck I couldn't if I wanted to, just could never put in the effort to perfect my "skills", nor the time to grind for them nor the money to buy power.
I only ask one thing of a MMORPG, that character progression, or at least the illusion of it never end, for as soon as I feel it has, I'm gone.
BTW, despite all that, I loath gear grinding, that is just a really cheap cop out to developing actual character progression systems, say such as EVE.
"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
First, I agree wholeheartedly with Eldurian. I hate vertical progression in persistent online games. It's absolutely ridiculous and I personally believe it is what is causing the genre to stagnate. The focus on ever increasing stats (which is a hangover from single player games) causes massive segregation in our communities and ignores the only unique selling point of the genre: being massively multiplayer.
Second, from reading your posts, you don't seem to comprehend the concept of horizontal progression. It sounds to me like you've never played a game with horizontal progression and have never taken the time to consider what it means. This is evidenced by you repeatedly saying "games with no progression fail". Eldurian is not calling for no progression, that is your observational bias. Eldurian (and myself and others in this thread) is simply asking for there to be no stat / power gaps. You are employing a typical strawman argument by arguing against a position which nobody here actually holds.
Third, grinding, level progression and gear progression (any type of progression you can think of) are all still possible without the progression increasing your overall power. Just because we want to remove power gaps, doesn't mean we want to remove progression.
Fourth, take some time and use your imagination for once. How would you design an MMORPG if you couldn't increase a player's power? If you can't think of anything, it means you've lived a sheltered gaming life and you need to expand your limits. Increasing stats / power is the most basic, uninspired method of progression!
Fifth, if you really can't think of anything, go and take a long look at Camelot Unchained. Read through their documentation on the website. CU is going to have horizontal progression. Mark Jacobs has stated his intent to have less than 10% power difference between a newbie and a vet, yet there is a ton of progression in the game. See what he is intending to do, as well as the other things they are doing to make the game interesting. Sure, it's a very niche game aimed at people who enjoy RvR, but it is a good example of one way to implement horizontal progression. Also, just because there will be no power gaps, doesn't mean a vet won't own a newbie. The game is going to have deep combat requiring a great deal of player skill to master, so a vet should still beat a newbie but they'll be doing it because they are a better player, not because they have more stats.
Finally, recognise that just because you lack the comprehension of horizontal progression, it doesn't mean it's not possible or not enjoyable. Personally, having horizontal progression is a key requirement for me in an MMO and I refuse to play MMOs with vertical progression. I've seen it ruin every single MMO I've played and I won't go through it again. BUT, I enjoy vertical progression in single player RPGs. In a single player game it works fine, I'm the only person there and I'm playing through a story so my power level going up is fine as everything is tuned to my power level. I don't need to care about being too powerful for old zones because I never go back. I don't need to care about power levels of other people im grouping with, because there is no-one to group with.
Star Citizen having very skill intensive combat where a smaller well piloted ship can tear a larger / more expensive one to shreds easily and completely abolishing the concept of character levels / grinding for experience.
Both seem like they may fit my bill of "little" stat gap (A single vet player not being more than 5 times stronger than a newb before factoring in the skill of the players.)
Sounds like CU is really going all the way and nearly entirely abolishing stat gap. 10% is nothing.
1. Leveling is actually not a qualifying element for a game to be an RPG or not. It's just a very common element of RPGs.
2. The key words in RPG are "Roleplay". Part of the reason I want a smaller stat gap is because they've become so large they break immersion and become the dominant element of the game, actually taking over focus from things like defining your role in the world, stopping to enjoy lore / story elements etc. as the focus shifts to power leveling.
I'd agree with whoever it was that said earlier that MMORPG has come to mean "Regular Progression Game" more than "Roleplaying Game."
That would also jive with the fact that Guild Wars 1 (The biggest early example of horizontal progression in an MMO-like format) was not a true MMO but instead had instanced world segments with the towns being the only place you could randomly encounter other players, and the towns themselves were separated into multiple instances if too many players were in one.
Never really looked at vertical progression as a technical issue but that actually makes sense.
The more you rely on skill, the more you can rest assured you will be paying for it elsewhere, including not being able to engage in combat with more than a handful of players to having deal with last-gen graphics. The idea that you could take, say, WoW combat and simply convert the skills into skill shots would result in a shit show of latency in even battleground settings.
The only thing that I would consider essential for being classified an RPG is the ability to select/create/define your role and for that role to have a meaningful effect on the way the game is played.
That is enough to separate something like Assassins Creed (action/adventure) from The Witcher (RPG). Despite the fact that AC has strong story, you are playing a role, it has progression, you cannot sufficiently define your own role within the game. In the Witcher series, your choices when you progress do sufficiently change/define your role which then has a big effect on gameplay.
That said, I do understand people's desire to keep vertical progression. Getting bigger numbers is cool. Doing 10,000 damage per hit is better than doing 100 damage per hit. It is a very easy thing to measure and going up makes us feel good. It requires no thinking on our part which makes it very accessible to the average player. It is also the mechanic that's been used in single player games and a lot of tabletop games for decades, so the familiarity is comforting.
The problem is it doesn't work well in an MMO.
This is based on the assumption that the game wants to take advantage of it's one unique selling point: massively multiplayer. If you actually want to bring together large amounts of players within the same virtual environment and have them interact in meaningful ways and form a strong, long term community, then you should ditch vertical progression and go horizontal.
If the game doesn't care about that or you as a player don't care about that then may as well stick with vertical progression as it is a lot easier to develop.
So, I'd say that it was more serendipitous than a conscious design decision. But the idea merits more thought.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I think vertical progression in MMOs is simply because thats what was there in single player RPGs, which in turn is simply because that's what was there in the majority of pen and paper RPGs.
I think a developer that really takes the time to consider horizontal progression properly and implement it in a mainstream AAA game will be onto a real winner. I think the indie's in development at the moment (CU, CF etc) are laying the groundwork, hopefully a mainstream developer will see the ideas in action and then use it in their next big title.
Indie developers seem more motivated to develop the games they want to play than maximum profit. And so all kinds of wild ideas are coming out of the crowdfunding movement. Most of which will probably fail but at least 1 or 2 of which are likely to resonate with players.
I think what AAA developers are going to do is sit back and watch to see what resonates with players and then come in with a multi hundred million dollar budget to create a more refined clone of it.
That's exactly what WoW did with EQ. I think the crowdfunding movement is a race to see who can make the next EQ, and the next WoW will follow several years later.
"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
Taking away stat disparities pushes PvP towards skill-based systems. Include counters like Eldurian described early in the thread, and latency becomes super important. In that case, kiss anything massive about your PvP goodbye.
Could be the start of a new trend which may drive MMORPG development for years to come.
Can't be any worse than the last 10 years.
"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
By failing to acknowledge this thread one might also assume Tim doesn't actually visit these forums regularly......
https://www.mmorpg.com/mobile/features.cfm?read=12651&game=926&ismb=1
"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
I think we've largely moved beyond the need for both of those technical limitations though.
Many years ago I was playing the original Planetside with like 50+ people on the field and manual aim working fairly well. That actually ran pretty smooth for me. I also took part in Darkfall sieges that took at least 100 people and pitted them against each other with manual aim many years ago. Those did not run so well for me but they did function.
I don't think we're at the point that we can see EVE scale battles in a game that's as graphically impressive as Star Citizen with a full-manual aim combat system but I think we could see games as visually impressive as ArcheAge with low stat gap smart-targeting systems. (Smart targeting being a mostly manual aim system with a bit of aim assist to make the game more forgiving to low-ping players. A good example of a smart-target game with heavy aim-assist is Mass Effect.)
The major difference between a game like Battlefield and an RPG isn't stats, it's persistence and world building.
Your typical match based PvP game drops you into a match with little no backstory as to why you are there, pits you in a match of skill against other players, and then it's over and done with. The next time you play that same battlefield it will be reset to the same status it was at the start of last match.
The game doesn't really set you up to define a role in the game world. It sets you up to blast everything in front of your face and not ask questions.
In a Dungeons or Dragons campaign or video game RPG you are dropped into a world with a rich pre-existing history. Throughout the game you delve deeper into the mysteries of that world, define who your character is within it, and either explore the scripted story or create your own.
There are mediums of storytelling where the player's real life skills and abilities don't matter. They are called books and movies. But even within a pen and paper RPG the player very much matters. The player's skills and decisions mattering is a nearly universal aspect of every game.
A DM doesn't say "Roll me an intelligence check and a wisdom check." "Oh good rolls, you decide to not go with the full frontal assault and sneak in the back way instead." "Roll me an intelligence check. Oooooh nat 1. You prepare every single spell as magic missile today!"
The player's decisions matter. There is such a thing as good and bad D&D players. And yet D&D is not any less an RPG. And if you were to start the campaign at level 20 and end the campaign at level 20, or start the campaign at level 1 and end the campaign at level 1 it would still be an RPG.
Just like an MMO that establishes a world, builds up a lot of rich lore, and allows the player to explore and create their own role within it is an RPG regardless of how big the stat-gap is.
@coretex666 - If I were to include a living room and a kitchen into my vehicle one might describe it as having "Elements of a home." But if all my home has is a bedroom, a closet, and a bathroom is it not a home? Leveling is an element commonly associated with RPGs but that doesn't make it a requirement to be one.
The boring part about progressions is when you kill 500 monsters, do 15 quests, get a level just so you can kill 500+X monsters and do 15+Y quests to get level N+1 doing the exact same thing with the exact same abilities that now do Z more damage on the mob that has a health increase with a percentage.
As you pointed out, the dopamine releases you get for leveling just aren't doing it for you anymore. That's the same with me. The first leveling based game I played was Dungeon Siege back when I was in middle school. At the time pushing a level or getting a cool gear drop was like "WOW! THIS IS SO AMAZING!" Skip forward 16 years and I barely give a damn anymore.
At this point what holds me into games is the social aspects and competitive aspects. I like MMOs because they offer a unique social experience. Lower the stat gap and I'll spend more time playing with friends of dissimilar levels. Lower the stat gap and I'll spend more time PvPing and less time grinding to get stronger stronger so I can enjoy PvP.
And there are my dopamine releases.
I would also point out that music is something that can be used to provoke feelings and is often underutilized in modern games. There is both the visual and audio stimuli. I don't feel this generation is that attune to these things. They seem more interested in logic and statistics.