Less Impactful Progression?

eoloe

TLDR: here.

Most of us (me first) are progression addicts. We like to see those little numbers climb up.

I have seen many arguments in favor of vertical progression such as:

- the famous power-kill loop "I want be more powerful to tackle more powerful enemies and become more powerful to..." 

- the famous weakling bashing: "I want to go back to low level areas to feel my power"

- it gives a goal, a reason to play.

The power-kill loop is for instance the very basis of Monster Hunter games. Kill monster, craft better gear from its remains, go kill something more powerful, rinse and repeat. It works very well. It is enjoyable. However, when thinking about it, one can realize how artificial it is, and the fact that this loop is feeding mostly a feeling. The feeling of becoming more powerful. Which is immediately challenged by a stronger monster. Which is necessary, or the game falls down the easiness slope, and interest fades quickly away.

The result is the difficulty is never really changing or not much. Well, there could be bump in difficulty but overall the difficulty stays rather consistent. Therefore, the player sees higher numbers, but the game really keeps going by increasing the power of the enemies too. It means that the real change here is not the difference between those numbers, but in fact the type of enemies, their moves, their abilities, etc. This is really close to horizontal progression.

"But if I go to low level areas, the monsters will really suffer!

- right: the famous weakling bashing."

This is why, some of us go back to the starting areas: to really witness the progresses we made! Yes, I am guilty of this too. In Elden Ring, after finishing the game, almost at lvl 150, I went back to the first soldier camp with my blasphemous blade fully upgraded to spread death and destruction. It was fun, but not for long. After this, I quickly quit the game for good.

It makes more sense in MMOs, where you can actually help/carry people in lower level areas. Beyond this, the interest of higher numbers is... meh.

Then remains the last argument: the goal argument. I felt it strongly when I quit PSO2:NGS few weeks ago. Level cap was increased to 60. I went there, then quit. Well, I could have worked for more stuff but did not get the appeal. For me the game was done.

In summary:

- We want progression.

- We don't really want it to finish, because reaching this goal often means game over.

- Even if we FEEL that progression is meaningful, most often it is not. It is just a feeling.

Moreover, progression has some negative aspects such as:

- invalidating content (dead areas / useless items)

- removing sense of danger / interest

- segmenting player population

- unfair PvP

All of this makes me think: what would happen if a game would implement a less impactful progression system?

Let say you have 100 levels. And it takes forever to reach 100, and maybe years to reach 75. Each level would increase your efficiency by only 1%. Meaning that a level 100 player would twice as powerful as starter player, which is significant without reaching divine power! And keep in mind that level 100 would be probably impossible to reach. 

BDO does this kind of infinite experience curve already, however a few levels more than your opponent is enough to one-shot him/her. Here, the idea would be the opposite. You may be 20 levels above your opponent, but you are only 20% more efficient, which significant, which gives you a meaningful advantage, but you can not one-shot the enemy who has a real possibility to win if you are outplayed.

Also in GW1, everybody was capped at level 20, and we had to fight monsters level 28 in elite areas. That worked very well. We did not need to benefit from a level cap increase. Of course, that was not easy.

AlBQuirky

Interesting thought exercise

I also enjoy "progression", but more than the "fight-kill-progress-kill more" treadmill. When I reach that part of an MMO, I will start a new character if the game is interesting enough for me to do so. MMOs today I find uninteresting enough because everyone can do everything so alts have no new discoveries.

eoloe said:

I have seen many arguments in favor of vertical progression such as:

- the famous power-kill loop "I want be more powerful to tackle more powerful enemies and become more powerful to..." 

- the famous weakling bashing: "I want to go back to low level areas to feel my power"

- it gives a goal, a reason to play.

The first (Power Kill Loop) I enjoy for while. It will get boring easily for me, though.

Weakling I partake in, too. This also gets boring quite fast for me.

Goals can be good and I use them often throughout an MMOs experience. Goals are usually when I solo with my head in a "me space" where I block out all of the other players as they just get in the way of my goals. Dungeons are a different story, of course

Goals also cover "non-combat" activities for me. They may be for "crafting" or "exploration." I wish "treasure hunting" was not glued to combat, though.

You bring up a good question about how to handle "progression." I really don't know. So many aspects in an MMORPG can "progress" and some don't center around combat, but most do. I'd like to take breaks from the constant fighting from time to time, but many MMOs have very little in the way of activities that I also enjoy aside from crafting and exploration is usually "locked" behind leveling, or the new fad of "level adjusting."

I know many players want a world where everyone is equal, but that no sense to me. A day 1 player should NOT be "equal" to a 1 year player nor have the same access. How many players "need" to be "onscreen" for players to feel like they're in an MMO?

I have no answers, but I look forward to a lively discussion

cameltosis

First up, good post eoloe, its always good to take a deeper look at game systems. Even if it is unlikely to influence developers or other gamers, I find it worth taking a deep dive for no other reason than to figure out exactly what it is you personally enjoy.

eoloe said:

The result is the difficulty is never really changing or not much. Well, there could be bump in difficulty but overall the difficulty stays rather consistent. Therefore, the player sees higher numbers, but the game really keeps going by increasing the power of the enemies too. It means that the real change here is not the difference between those numbers, but in fact the type of enemies, their moves, their abilities, etc. This is really close to horizontal progression.

This is the only part I really disagreed with (well, and your proposed solution). What you've described in the quoted part above is what I consider "false progression".

Your numbers go up - giving you a sense of progression - but the enemies numbers also go up, making your progression pointless. That's not even remotely close to horizontal progression.

The progression that means the most to players is not this sort of false progression, it is the progression that changes the way the game plays. Unlocking a new skill, for example, is often pretty great......assuming the skill is useful and not just bloat. Unlocking a new armour set with set bonuses that open up new and exciting builds.

That sort of progression helps keep the gameplay fresh and exciting, but more importantly, that sort of progression gives the players options. Giving players choices is empowering, especially when those choices are meaningful.

And that is what horizontal progression is about: giving players choices.

The new choices you unlock via horizontal progression shouldn't be more or less powerful than what you already have, they should just be different. Unlocking a burst-dps build when you can currently only do sustained. Unlocking skills that allow you to build a DoT spec. Acquiring new gear with awesome mitigations, but low health.

Horizontal progression is all about those choices. Unlocking options, then allowing the player to make choices.

[NB I also realise that horizontal progression has it's problems, the main one being that with so many options, you might end up having to carry/store lots and lots of different gear for all your different specs. But, solving the issue of multiple gear sets is way easier to do than solving the issue of invalidating content, segregating the player base etc.]

OldKingLog

You've just eloquently pointed out the scourge of MMORPGs, RPGs, and even table top games. If all there is to do is focus on gaining bigger numbers then the game quickly becomes a never ending mobius strip of whack-a-mole. There has to be something to give the experience meaning. A good story, alternative activities, heck even just a fun zone to play digital cosplay with like minded individuals. Sadly the near two decades of theme park gaming with their bog standard systems of quests, dungeons, and raids, has all but killed the joy of playing these games. And as the MMORPG sphere implodes we are left with even shallower gaming experiences. For many content has stopped being something to be enjoyed and instead feels like a chore that's best bashed through as quickly as possible. For the very reason said content is just a carbon copy of every other game you've ever played. No matter what lore setting you never really progress beyond "go over there and kill ten rats, rinse repeat." While the old classics might have had some glaring issues, at least they all felt unique.

Kyleran

Geez, you guys...

Every time I put EVE behind me I read a thread like this which reminds me why I loved it more than any other MMORPG.

The progression mattered!  Even better, it never got obsolete, nor could I fall behind after reaching a certain point.

I last played in Dec 2016, yet if I return tomorrow all of my ISK, pilot skill training and ships in their hangers are all still equally as useful today as they were over 5 1/2 years ago.

Is there any other MMORPG out there which can claim the same?  UO maybe?

Hey, even my kill boards are still around....err,  oh snap, too bad those can't be erased, not exactly anything to boast about.

I know, I'll tell people I just bought these characters....legal to do so in EVE.

Shoot, I just know I'm going back one day....

eoloe

cameltosis said:

Your numbers go up - giving you a sense of progression - but the enemies numbers also go up, making your progression pointless. That's not even remotely close to horizontal progression.

Yes, indeed. This was what I was trying to point out. Vertical progression is more a feeling than a real progression unless you play god-mode in the starting areas.

This is somehow a false progression, well not exactly but I indeed overall agree.

However, this "false" vertical progression is remotely close to the horizontal one. In horizontal progression your new skills are gated behind some kind of content (buy them / kill a boss / quest / whatever). In vertical progression, your new skills are gated behind your levels. That is very similar to me. Both allow choices, builds, etc, if they are well designed. The best vertical progression games also make sure that your old beginner skills are prevalent later on.

Let's also consider a real industry example:

GW1 to GW2

GW1 was an horizontal progression game. Yes, there were levels, but only 20. And with the second expansion it was simply possible to reach level cap in 3 hours. For real.

Same for the gear. It was very standardized, and max ugly gear was easy to get.

One of the main appeal of GW1 was to collect skills (~1300) and making builds (8 skills in the skill bar). The endgame goals were to confront these builds in PvP or solving the high end PvE (and cosmetics).

IMO, GW1 was a great game, one of the best playing experience I had. It was like League of Legends and Magic the Gathering had a baby (for the PvP experience).

But when GW1 was popular, WOW was the elephant in the room gathering most of players. Despite the quality of their game, ArenaNet realized the potential of making a true MMORPG with, not only the massive side, but especially with the infamous............ vertical progression! Indeed, it was one of the main complaint of GW1 PvE players.

As a result, players like me who enjoyed GW1 for what it was got really disappointed by GW2. However, it needs to be frankly acknowledged that GW2 is probably is greater success than GW1. Some could argue this is thanks to organic events revolutionary at the times or other features. But I am convinced that a lot of players stayed there for the grind to level 80 and then several achievements such as the legendary weapons/armors.

It is hard nowadays to escape vertical progression. This is in fact so prevalent, that now you see it also in some pure PvP games (e.g MWO). Like I mentioned at the top of my post, most players are vertical progression addicts (and it helps also to sell exp boosters in the cash shop).

cameltosis

I've not played GW1 so can't really comment on the specifics. With only 3 hours to reach "endgame", it sounds like vertical progression for the tutorial 3 hours (something I agree with, u don't want to overwhelm new players) and then potentially horizontal at endgame.

It would all depend on all those new skills you unlock. If those new skills are more powerful than what you've already got, then it would still be vertical progression, but if they are roughly the same sort of power, then it sounds like it's horizontal.

Your comments about people being addicted to vertical progression, I'm not so sure on. I don't think it's an addiction, or even necessarily a preference. I just don't think the majority of gamers have even experienced horizontal progression, or didn't recognise it when they did see it. Multiplayer shooters are pretty much the only genre that regularly uses horizontal progression.

So, I'm of the opinion that it'll only take one "blockbuster" RPG based on horizontal progression to open the general publics minds. It'll remain really difficult to change anyone's opinion without a concrete example to point to.

NB Camelot Unchained is supposed to be based on horizontal progression. I know it won't be a blockbuster hit, but this is one of the reasons I remain excited for it. Whether it'll still be horizontal by the time it releases is another matter.....

Kyleran

cameltosis said:

I've not played GW1 so can't really comment on the specifics. With only 3 hours to reach "endgame", it sounds like vertical progression for the tutorial 3 hours (something I agree with, u don't want to overwhelm new players) and then potentially horizontal at endgame.

It would all depend on all those new skills you unlock. If those new skills are more powerful than what you've already got, then it would still be vertical progression, but if they are roughly the same sort of power, then it sounds like it's horizontal.

Your comments about people being addicted to vertical progression, I'm not so sure on. I don't think it's an addiction, or even necessarily a preference. I just don't think the majority of gamers have even experienced horizontal progression, or didn't recognise it when they did see it. Multiplayer shooters are pretty much the only genre that regularly uses horizontal progression.

So, I'm of the opinion that it'll only take one "blockbuster" RPG based on horizontal progression to open the general publics minds. It'll remain really difficult to change anyone's opinion without a concrete example to point to.

NB Camelot Unchained is supposed to be based on horizontal progression. I know it won't be a blockbuster hit, but this is one of the reasons I remain excited for it. Whether it'll still be horizontal by the time it releases is another matter.....

It's usually easier to bury the dead horizontally, the holes aren't nearly so deep.

Dattelis

Dont ESO and GW2 (and even FFXIV to an extent) already have systems like these though? Sure, new content is added to ESO and GW2 but a lot of the time it doesn't really invalidate older content or make it less empty. Admittedly, I dont actively play either but I think that's kind of why games like those only really have 'spikes' in population, instead of a 'steadily' increasing number. So there are games like that for people already on the market, its just people choose not to engage in them as much.

KnightFalz

Dattelis said:

Dont ESO and GW2 (and even FFXIV to an extent) already have systems like these though? Sure, new content is added to ESO and GW2 but a lot of the time it doesn't really invalidate older content or make it less empty. Admittedly, I dont actively play either but I think that's kind of why games like those only really have 'spikes' in population, instead of a 'steadily' increasing number. So there are games like that for people already on the market, its just people choose not to engage in them as much.

ESO and GW2 both have impactful progression. There is a dramatic increase in capability from starting characters to those at max level. What they don't have is the perpetual numerical escalation of characters surrounded by a world with numerically static regions that become increasingly trivialized as one's character levels.