I like the idea of a system where there are no levels, no classes, and no character progression. (Well, you asked us to think out of the box...)
Instead, I think EVERYTHING should come from items (possessions / implants / magic objects etc. etc.). I mean weapons, magic, armour, the works. The items that you possess shouldn't have any requirements - except perhaps the possession of other items. For example - only cast magic spells if holding a staff of good enough quality and not wielding armour.
This way you could change your class just by wielding different items. Maybe you could store different setups and switch between them (maybe limited to one switch between main archetypes per day?).
The upshot of this is that a n00b can become l33t in no time at all... if he gets the right items. And I should think the "high level" items would be few and far between, and cost a lot of money. Although if you get in a good org you might be lent stuff like that.
"Progression" would mean something different - the aquisition of items. You could concentrate on one type of item, but you don't have to. And you can change your mind later. To start with, you'd only be powerful enough (owing to the items you'd have) to do simple quests for "next-level-up" items. Later, though, you'd be able to work on the really "high level" stuff.
PvP might work based on giving items a point value. You might only be able to go up against someone whose total point value (as determined by their current inventory / equipped items) was within a certain range of their own. This would mean that players would (sort of) have a level, but only because of what they were carrying - so you could "impersonate" a much lower level toon at any time - rather than having to re-roll and reach a level for, say, a level-limited tournament. You'd have to include entire inventories in such point calculations to ensure that people didn't "hot-swap" in a much better weapon etc.
Perhaps, also, the points value of items could be something variable. When people discover ultra-powerful undervalued items they might vote to increase its point value (what I'd like to call "community-based nefing"). This could happen completely independantly of the game developers, and work in both directions. So, no more angry bulletin boards asking the developers to remove / add cost to things - that would be maintained by the players.
Anyway, this idea could be developed much further, but I've run out of steam for now. So, what do people think?
While I have been really enjoying reading this series, this latest one falls far short of thinking Outside The Box due to a surprising lack of the research that has been the hallmark of the previous 3 articles. I would bring the readers attention to three truly innovative game designs: UNDERLIGHT by Lyra Studios- one of the very earliest MMOs that has so far yet to referenced in this series. It use of mentoring system for every 5 levels of advancement is unique. Example: A player who wishes to advance from 9th level to 10th must first find a 10+ level person who is willing to take them on as a student and teach them. First, they have to locate someone of that higher level who APPROVES of them as a player character! So if you are a mean-spirited person, a 12 year with potty mouth, a griefer, etc, well then no one will train you and you never advance! What marvelous self-regulating community control!!! Having found a mentor who will take you on, he then assigns you research tasks, community service tasks, character growth tasks for you to do to satisfy him that YOU are WORTHY of advancement. Nothing within the game determines what tasks he can assign, and nothing requires him to pass you. Every promotion is laden with significance and feeling of great accomplishment. WARHAMMER FANTASY SYSTEM by Games Workshop- a PnP system from England that was based on PROFESSION advancement.. One of the great design systems of all time, Warhammer delved deep into the heart of Roleplaying guiding players through innovative and challenging professions are they worked their way toward some eventual character design of the player's choice. It was a fantastic mirror of real life. Each profession taught specific skill sets to players that carried forward to the next profession. Every young person who has tried out various summer jobs knows the reality of this. Each profession had set pre-requisites for joining, so if you wished to become a Defender of the Faith, you needed say 8 skills that had to be learned in previous professions. Hmmm...so if I take this profession here, I can learn two of them. Oh wait, I need to take this other profession first so that I can qualify for that, and oh yeah, that means I need to do these two other professions first before that one. Ah, who can forget your memorable stint as a vaunted Rat Catcher! hehehehhe A TALE IN THE DESERT by Andrew Tepper- what can one truly say about this award winning MMO that constantly breaks the mold for online gaming without a single combat in it! How this has been slighted in your series boggles the mind? Pages could be filed describing the myriad levels of soul-fulfilling activities set within the realm of ancient Egypt, in a community that is 95+% player run. -------------------------- As to other aspects of your article, while everything you said about the late much lamented SWG is very true, you did overlook the wonderful non-combat related profession of Architect. I had an absolute blast being an Architect. Not only did I build an entire player city of over 120 buildings, with landscaping, I recruited and built an Architectural firm that dominated building activates on all planets of the entire server. All that with no combat related activities ----------------- In closing I would like to pull back a little further in design perspective then you chose to do. What all of these aspects of Character Development game design suffer from is a curse embedded in the very fabric of the original D&D. It is still the bane of almost every game designer to this day: The Dreaded Middle Game. Folks have been very creative at designing front ends to MMOs. Some, such as the doomed EARTH & BEYOND had wonderfully immersive Entry levels that guided players to lvl 15, then the design came to a halt that has been likened to a car doing 120mph hitting a stone wall. And other games have spent great effort doing the End Game or High End part of the MMO, such as EQ, and WoW. But where is the Middle Game? In 99% of the games, there is NO MIDDLE GAME. What there is, is GRINDING. From a storyteller's point of view, it is like getting someone hooked on a great story like the reading of Princess Bride, then telling them after 40 pages that they can not hear the exciting actionpacked last part of the story until they wash 300 dishes. Sadly, none of the suggestions you have offered address this Dark Presence at our banquet table. He will not be dispelled until a truly innovative designer tackles and conquers this problem.
I don't want a player controlled world. I do want players to be able to influence it. The idea of players having the ability to give tasks would be cool. Not quests but tasks. Leave the quests to the developers but give tools to people to give tasks. If I am a Merchant that is needing to transport my goods over then I could put up a task that could be found in on a Tavern message board "Bodyguards wanted for trip" where I could also find on the board "Caravan master organizing Caravan to X" that I could join because is same place. Allow for Inquiry to such messages and that would take to a Negotiating window. There the people could decide on the Elements of the Task and then both sides would have to agree. I can see so many possiblities to this type of system. I would also prefer no player houses but rather player instances that someone just goes to a listing that can be broken down and even has a Favorites you can put your most common Player places on.
I do want levels in a game. I don't care if they mean much. I would like to see a skill game that had a class system like FFXI but the class/level just said how well skills could be used and also opened some skills from the masters teaching to the few that go all the way with their learning. I also like the idea of skills and not items are the power options. I prefer weapons and armor to be sort of like Guild Wars but with rare Exceptional and Legendary weapons that are not sought but happen sometimes. Such as a spawn has a 1 in 102,777,498 chance of dropping one but the same applies to something crafted or someone happen to be using something for a while that allows it to have the same chance. Have what everone wants be trophies at most but mainly just have combat for making money and becoming better adventurer of players choice. I have played more than one game where I did not have magic armor or weapon because I did not see any reason to pay for it. I like the idea of getting trophies to put up in my dwelling or sell. I also like the idea of hunting creatures for parts that people are buying for all sorts of things like spells, superstitions and such.
I really do want something that makes it hard to stay ahead in money though. I know most I have chatted with hate it when money is hard to come by but I like the idea that getting money is my main drive. I might not get much excitement but if I have to be a caravan guard for 4 long trips to have enough to fund my food, armor, and adventuring kit for a couple of adventures then I don't feel like I am in a grind but have a character I actually have to try and manage and not just run off and get killed and everything is fine and dandy. I guess I want a little too much realism for most but is what makes it seem more fun to me.
Those are the closest I can think of at the moment for out of the box. Not sure how much sense they make but is what I could think of what I want. I do know that most would not want that I have known because they have told me that it requires too much thinking and work.
Originally posted by Flatfingers First of all, I don't accept the assumption (and that's all it is so far) that players only like character advancement games. Maybe it is true, but how do we know? Where are the alternative games that would give us some evidence as to whether this assumption is correct or not? In fact, I think there are reasons to believe that character advancement games have some innate flaws, and thus that alternatives could prove to be fun, too. Designing a game to have character advancement automatically means that players spend the first part of their in-game lives levelling up just so they can get to the end game which, theoretically, is where the real fun of a game is. Instead of playing the fun part of the game, players spend weeks or months training to get to the fun. Instead of implementing the fun content, developers spend weeks and months implementing character advancement content that players feel they have to grind through. Why do we accept this state of affairs as "what players really want?"
It's something that I at least enjoy. People obviously play games for different reasons. Why is the "end game" theoretically the fun part? I enjoy the exploration of the early game and the advancement of the middle game. I think I'd be kind of disappointed to reach a cap. Most of the end games I've seen consist of large raids or RvR combat, neither of which really appeals to me all that much.
franksalbe offers an interesting system. It goes along with the suggestion in the article of giving newbie players more starting power and having slower growth. The extra dynamic of growing in skills fast enough to offset losses to stats could be interesting.
I don't like the idea of items defining the power of a character. In my mind, it reduces the advancement of the character because the character is just the items. I find many traditional item acquisition tasks tedious. Boss mobs usually require organizing extremely large groups. I like them even less when games force players to wait for spawns to fight to just get the right to fight.
Hawkwinde brought up some interesting alternative models. The UNDERLIGHT advancement system is especially intrigueing.
I don't care for the "end game" idea either. I like the middle game and would be just as happy if there wasn't any end game play. Sure, a character will reach something that appears to be, for all practical purposes, and end game status. But that doesn't mean the game play has to change to something different.
Defining the middle game is important here. Just levelling isn't what I want for this play arena. I would want something more exciting, full of adventure and surprises. To "live" in the game world, but to live with discovery and intrigue.
Speaking of Underlight, which I never even heard of , I wouldn't care for that kind of advancement system. Not as a rule of thumb. However, it could be very interesting if used in specific cases, such as a "class" like druids, where in the old D+D games there was a limited hierarchy at the top. Making special "guilds" in game, where special and secret knowledges are withheld from all but those who pass the "tests". Ninja's are a classic example.
Originally posted by Amaranthar Originally posted by lordpj I agree to rigghawk. My question is
this way do I have to kill 2000 lvl something to advans my skill or lvl as you said it gets boring after 20 ore so. Whay not make it more queste or epik deed kill 1 or 2 realy hard mobs that take the same time as killing lots of smaller mobs but requiers mor skill and strategy. This ofcorse demands that as Nathan said there is less of a diferens betvin vetts and noods. a smaller difrens whold allso leed to the bosebillity to form an adveture groupe whith say 5 vets and 10 noods and being efektiv. Allso lett this epik mobs stay dead so you have to explore to find new ones. that whold ofcorse forse the GM:s to be more creativ an constantly develop new content eaven in old areas. Way cant an army of pesents kill the dragon ass vell as the knight in shining armor.
Good questions and points. (Despite you spelling )
I'm for a skill based system because it tells me that the game is being built around freedoms, not restrictions, and around more realism as opposed to unrealistic restrictions.
Yet, there are some possitives from a class based game. The good things they offer can easily be implemented into a skill based game, and should be to make it better. But the foundation still needs to be skill based.
Dyslexia fore the win
I like skillbased as well. I think Guild Wars is a good exampel of a good skillbased sysstem.
Originally posted by karliw I like the idea of a system where there are no levels, no classes, and no character progression. (Well, you asked us to think out of the box...) Instead, I think EVERYTHING should come from items (possessions / implants / magic objects etc. etc.). I mean weapons, magic, armour, the works. The items that you possess shouldn't have any requirements - except perhaps the possession of other items. For example - only cast magic spells if holding a staff of good enough quality and not wielding armour. This way you could change your class just by wielding different items. Maybe you could store different setups and switch between them (maybe limited to one switch between main archetypes per day?). The upshot of this is that a n00b can become l33t in no time at all... if he gets the right items. And I should think the "high level" items would be few and far between, and cost a lot of money. Although if you get in a good org you might be lent stuff like that. "Progression" would mean something different - the aquisition of items. You could concentrate on one type of item, but you don't have to. And you can change your mind later. To start with, you'd only be powerful enough (owing to the items you'd have) to do simple quests for "next-level-up" items. Later, though, you'd be able to work on the really "high level" stuff. PvP might work based on giving items a point value. You might only be able to go up against someone whose total point value (as determined by their current inventory / equipped items) was within a certain range of their own. This would mean that players would (sort of) have a level, but only because of what they were carrying - so you could "impersonate" a much lower level toon at any time - rather than having to re-roll and reach a level for, say, a level-limited tournament. You'd have to include entire inventories in such point calculations to ensure that people didn't "hot-swap" in a much better weapon etc. Perhaps, also, the points value of items could be something variable. When people discover ultra-powerful undervalued items they might vote to increase its point value (what I'd like to call "community-based nefing"). This could happen completely independantly of the game developers, and work in both directions. So, no more angry bulletin boards asking the developers to remove / add cost to things - that would be maintained by the players. Anyway, this idea could be developed much further, but I've run out of steam for now. So, what do people think?
This is a good idee I can see one problem however. In this system you dont get rid of the grind sins you have to get the money to buy the equipment.
Personnally I can't think of playing a MMORPG with no levels. It don't need to be levels per say and they may be invisible to most players beside yourself, but I need them badly. I have no troubles to earn 200 AAs prior PoP and max at 545 AAs in march 2003 in old EQ
I don't need a flat rate myself, but I think you will lose many players when the curve become slower. Anyway, me as long as I am soloing/grouping, I don't consider I am grinding, 10 hours a day for 45 days at UK, sure thing, I will be there (well if work allow that is), this is our camp!
Peoples like to do more of what they enjoy...always more...always more. Level caps are necessary, but they should not be applied on the whole game, but rather on specific zones, where everyone above says level is just that level instead.
I see no problem in grouping/soloing for the next 5 years for 10 hours a day every day I can. Request me to raid once, and I quit right away. Everything is about doing actions we enjoy and entertain us or at the very least actions that we can bear (like travelling if must be done). Put 1 loot inside a raid or a PvP zone and I will turn away from that game if I feel I miss anything for my character as far as solo/grouping is concerned.
But me, I am an achiever. I did the gamer test and it is not even remotedly balanced...it give 100% achiever and 33% for all the other aspects (socialising, killing and exploring).
Creativity and diversity are always fun and welcome, they add nicely, but I would prolly not quit about that, as long as I can hoard more stats on my character. Always more stats...and that I see that I have the best path to reach the TOP (compare to non-solo/grouping activities). Reaching the top is irrelevant, as long as the only persons who are ahead of me earn it by the same activities that I enjoy, that is fine. I can respect that some folks solo/group better than me and are ahead of me. If someone is ahead of me because he PvP/Raid/Tradeskill as far as grouping/soloing uberness are concerned, I feel cheated and I quit.
If I reach the TOP, I will quit till next expension. Odds are that I will return, as long as my memories are good...if I recall doing stuff I didn't enjoy, I am less likely to come back.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
The irony of this article is it's not "the game" that dictates how character advancement is in MMOs today, it's the players. If you think for one second games like WoW and most other modern MMOs are made because that's was the dev's personal dream was, you're living in a dream world.
Character advancement in todays games is fueled by what the masses want. Crafting in a game like WoW, as an example, is made that way I would guess because the majority of people who play that game aren't really interested in hardcore crafting. Today when I talk to to ex WoW players complain is exactly what they liked about the game when they first started.
I agree with most of what the author said, but if we want games with good player economies, and polotics I think we should keep in mind that games have to comprimise to try to attract the "casual player" or the end up becoming a niche game.
So whenever you complain about the grind or how stupid crafting is.... consider what you're asking for.
Well companies that make MMORPG's generally want you to play & pay for as long as possible so they can maximise the return on each player.
Which also means they want you to not run through the content too quickly, so we get a grind where you have to spend a lot of time doing mundane things to advance.
I think a lot of MMORPG's have class systems as the previous poster noted this is what people have come to expect.
I think its easier to relate to from a Role-playing point of view as people who have never played these type of games before can still relate to the 4 arch-type classes of warrior, thief, priest and mage.
What it lacks is openness, and the ability for new players to compete (PvP) with veteran players.
So companies that make a game that has a steep learning curve - aka EVE , need to spend a lot of effort on the learning area for new players so that people arent put off when they try the game
Going to quickly derail and then get back on topic. Something was said that needs clarification but a lot of good stuff has been brought to this topic that is much more post worthy
Originally posted by Sevarus
/mesaid "The skill tree/level - there is no max level in Eve for characters. While some may appreciate this, in reality, older characters that are cared for and kept training, will always be ahead of newer players for as long as new skills keep getting added to the game."
This is the MOST REPEATED BIT of NONSENSE that keeps getting whined about on these boards.
I'll NOT repost the thread, rather link it which shows in point of fact that this is NOT true. Why isn't it true? People LEAVE THE GAME. The median average of experience points in eve is around the 5-10 million skill point mark. This 'never catch up' is a lame argument to bolster powergamer's desires to keep out those who cannot keep up because they have other commitments to fulfill in real life.
It keeps getting repeated until even those in EVE parrot it, and its enough to drive a person crazy.
EVE's skill time based training has been set up specifically with diminishing returns to AVOID this, which is yet another example of how this MMO attempts to change the "norm" of the traditional grind till you drop to get the next 'level' game.
Yeah, right guy. You bring your 10-15 mill SP toon and I'll bring my 37 mill + toon (and still training) and we'll see, first hand, what "diminishing returns" means, not in theory. Also, would this not be considered a knock against the game? That if so true, that there is little difference between a newb, newer player and veteran character, what would be the point of the skill system or even bothering to train skills beyond the very basics?
You're point is lost here...specialization was added to Eve years after game launch. While specialization is something a newer player should focus on, I did mention as a positive, Eve's real time skill progression + skill tree design allows even a brand spanking new nub toon a chance to participate in the game, and even in meaningful ways after a pretty short time. This being said, that individual noob character's gaming experience will be completely unrealatable to mine for years, even the imaginary mainline toon of 10-15 mill SP's. In fact, if you started a character today, and tomorrow the devs announced no new skills will be added to the game ever again, it would take you a bare minimum 2 years of real time, game play to catch up to where my toon is today and have that level of gameplay flexibility, not "powergaming".
Now than. There has been some really great ideas and also gaming idealogies brought to light.
The mentoring idea is really out of the box. Imagine that, having to find a next level toon in order to advance up the chain. Or even if you want to be 'a crafter', you would have to find an existing crafter to mentor under to become one. I'm guessing there would have to be some NPC's at the start and then after that, it could be pretty much a player run system. Definately tres cool idea.
The idea brought up, a straight to it MMO where it's all about the end game. That would be pretty interesting. I think the only problem with one of the ideas mentioned would be the re-design issue that CoH ran into. The thought was to have a whole wack of skills to choose from at creation and away you go. With a combination of enough skills and limitations on how many skills, you would still end up with a class system. The problem to this I see is that if it isn't thought out extremely well, you could very well end up with many gimped characters. While I can already envisage contests of who can make the most gimped toon, this would be a huuuuuge issue.
Mostly, the thing some others have mentioned. What would be the hook? Some (and I'm one of them) love the end game, a guy mentioned he digs the middle part, some like the beginning. I guess that is the real question isn't it.
For this gamer, I'd have to say the actual gameplay should be the hook. I mean, any system of toon development will really do, as long as it doesn't have the stupid tread mill, that's just not my cup of tea. But if the gameplay was solid and there was a lot to be preoccupied with, I could definately go with the all skilled up right after the character creation window. I could even wait around a couple years for my toon to be max level or at least uber boastable.
Maybe the out of the box idea is gameplay that is varied and doesn't revolve around character development. That's just something that comes along naturally as you expereince more and more of the game.
> Maybe the out of the box idea is gameplay that is varied and doesn't revolve around character development. That's just something that comes along naturally as you expereince more and more of the game.
That is exactly my point.
We've gotten to where we define "advancement" as gameplay-driven improvements to a character. Why is that the only definition? Why don't we consider player advancement what really matters?
What I wonder -- and I'm not convinced, I just wonder about it -- is whether character advancement is just one obvious mechanism for accomplishing the greater goal of player advancement. And what I further wonder is whether people are confusing the two. I wonder if we're mistaking the obvious (artificial level-based character advancement) for the subtle (player advancement in knowledge and experience).
If you could get the same feeling of improved capability without character advancement, if succesfully navigating the challenges of a complete-character game allowed you to feel that you the player are better at something, would you still insist that games have to have character advancement? Why?
I'd like to see a serious shot at a major graphical MMOG that does away with the artificial character advancement model that we've created, just to verify whether it's player advancement that people really want. If it crashes and burns, then OK; maybe I'm wrong and people really do like the level-up grind (despite spending so much time complaining about it).
...
A couple other related points:
1. Classes aren't the problem. Character levels are the problem. Having character classes isn't what makes people have to spend time grinding to earn more skills in those classes -- it's having levels that causes this effect.
It would be entirely possible to have character classes in a game without character levels. I'd be interested in seeing a game without classes, but that's more of a personal preference. For that matter, you could still have skill levels (which aren't always the same thing as character levels) in a MMOG, as long as it generally isn't possible to raise skill levels through gameplay -- otherwise you're right back into Level-Up Land.
(There's a game called "Infinity" being independently developed that actually does away with not just classes and levels, but skills as well. I dunno; that might be taking things a little too far!)
2. A game without character advancement would appear to cause players to get "stuck" with one class, or one set of skills. To change those, you'd have to change your character (assuming one character per server/shard).
But that might not be as bad as it sounds. Remember, when you don't have to spend weeks or months improving a character, losing that character (through character death or whatever) isn't nearly as painful. If creating a character in a complete-character game is easy, then when your character dies or you just get tired of him/her/it, you just roll up a new character with a new class and skills and dive right back into the game.
As to the objection about losing gear, one possible solution is to allow characters to "will" some of their gear to another character. You probably don't want to let players transfer everything, but allowing certain valued belongings to survive a character's demise takes a lot more of the sting out of switching characters.
Bottom line: in a complete-character game, permadeath starts looking like a realistic option. Just another benefit of not having to waste time levelling up -- no extra charge!
Flatfingers, are suggesting that instead of characters levelling up and gaining added to hit bonuses and greater damage, that they learn how to attack and where?
Like in, through my own experiance I learn that if I use an upper cut with my dagger against a large lizard creature, I have a better chance to hit through it's scaley hide (in this case the soft underbelly) and might even kill it with one hit?
And that since I know that, then in fighting a dragon I might try this technique? And I might even figure out that using a longer sword against the dragon is even more effective, since it's a bigger creature?
Things like that? Where the actual player experiance is where it's at, instead of some number system?
Originally posted by slapme7times i think the game creativity and diversity will come with time. back when pong first came out, games were so limited that you couldnt have a story, a character, even color =D i think that people are looking for a game that will feel real, but give them real opportunities to affect the world, unlike real life. one day, when game graphics are perfect, physics systems let you dig holes, pile dirt, make towns... then games will become open ended. we just havent reached the point where players can do everything themselves. one day, games will start with nothing, but players themselves will make them into something. make a group, chop down some trees, make a fort =D i think we just have to wait for technology to get there.
Yeah like real advanced super-technology you found in Age of Empires, Sim City, Warcraft, Starcraft and Medieval Total War.
> Flatfingers, are suggesting that instead of characters levelling up and gaining added to hit bonuses and greater damage, that [players] learn how to attack and where?
Amaranthar, yes, that's basically what I'm suggesting.
I really mean more than that -- I'm thinking more about what players learn about themselves when they accomplish something in a game. That's more what I mean by "player advancement."
But in terms of competitive gameplay, that does boil down to who knows the game's systems best. In some ways this leads to a more hardcore game. Those who've been playing longer know the game's systems better and thus are more likely to win in any competition with someone who's just getting started.
Your character can still have skills. A game without character advancement can still be a full RPG -- there have been plenty of tabletop RPGs that don't feature character advancement that are fun to play. Traveller is one good example. You, the human player, may not know how to pilot a starship, but your character can learn that skill as he's being created. If you chose to focus on that ability during character creation, you could have a superb pilot, and go on to explore the galaxy with that character in a perfectly satisfying way. There's no need to keep adding to your Piloting skill forever.
I'm just not seeing a reason why MMORPGs couldn't work similarly. "Because we're used to character advancement" doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me. And "because that's what most players like" isn't much better -- until we have good MMORPGs without character advancement, where are the alternative games that would allow players to choose which approach they prefer?
I'm not insisting that a complete-character game should be the only kind of game there is. I'm just asking some developer to try making one so we can discover if it's another kind of gameplay that players might enjoy.
Lets get rid of the levels - thats what makes it hard for new players to compete with veterans, and also makes it harder and harder for developers to provide a challenge to veterans in games like WOW.
A character class is a great way to pre-package skills for new people, or you could just select the skills you want to start with - like Morrowind and Oblivion do - prepackaged or choose.
Lets give characters other areas in the game they can advance in if they want - like in in-game political parties, trading houses, guilds.
Let people who want to fight form mercenary companies and hire them selves out to protect merchants or towns. Or they could form bandit gangs and prey on merchants. Or join the army or navy and fight in border disputes.
Let people who just want to trade join the merchants guilds and open their own shops, they can hire people to collect the crafting components they need, or hire fighters to protect them whilst they gather stuff.
Give people the ability to have their own housing etc, but then dont just give it to them, get them to hire an architect to design it, builders to build it etc. Let us go out into the wilderness, clear out the monsters and carve out a parcel of land to make a town.
Give us worthwhile goals to work towards.
On the flip side - maybe crafting a set of armour or a sword should actually take some time to justify the price charged instead of grab some components and click. Then as a fighter I could go to a smith, agree on a price, order the sword then go out to raise the money.
Comments
I like the idea of a system where there are no levels, no classes, and no character progression. (Well, you asked us to think out of the box...)
Instead, I think EVERYTHING should come from items (possessions / implants / magic objects etc. etc.). I mean weapons, magic, armour, the works. The items that you possess shouldn't have any requirements - except perhaps the possession of other items. For example - only cast magic spells if holding a staff of good enough quality and not wielding armour.
This way you could change your class just by wielding different items. Maybe you could store different setups and switch between them (maybe limited to one switch between main archetypes per day?).
The upshot of this is that a n00b can become l33t in no time at all... if he gets the right items. And I should think the "high level" items would be few and far between, and cost a lot of money. Although if you get in a good org you might be lent stuff like that.
"Progression" would mean something different - the aquisition of items. You could concentrate on one type of item, but you don't have to. And you can change your mind later. To start with, you'd only be powerful enough (owing to the items you'd have) to do simple quests for "next-level-up" items. Later, though, you'd be able to work on the really "high level" stuff.
PvP might work based on giving items a point value. You might only be able to go up against someone whose total point value (as determined by their current inventory / equipped items) was within a certain range of their own. This would mean that players would (sort of) have a level, but only because of what they were carrying - so you could "impersonate" a much lower level toon at any time - rather than having to re-roll and reach a level for, say, a level-limited tournament. You'd have to include entire inventories in such point calculations to ensure that people didn't "hot-swap" in a much better weapon etc.
Perhaps, also, the points value of items could be something variable. When people discover ultra-powerful undervalued items they might vote to increase its point value (what I'd like to call "community-based nefing"). This could happen completely independantly of the game developers, and work in both directions. So, no more angry bulletin boards asking the developers to remove / add cost to things - that would be maintained by the players.
Anyway, this idea could be developed much further, but I've run out of steam for now. So, what do people think?
While I have been really enjoying reading this series, this latest one falls far short of thinking Outside The Box due to a surprising lack of the research that has been the hallmark of the previous 3 articles.
I would bring the readers attention to three truly innovative game designs:
UNDERLIGHT by Lyra Studios- one of the very earliest MMOs that has so far yet to referenced in this series. It use of mentoring system for every 5 levels of advancement is unique. Example: A player who wishes to advance from 9th level to 10th must first find a 10+ level person who is willing to take them on as a student and teach them. First, they have to locate someone of that higher level who APPROVES of them as a player character! So if you are a mean-spirited person, a 12 year with potty mouth, a griefer, etc, well then no one will train you and you never advance! What marvelous self-regulating community control!!!
Having found a mentor who will take you on, he then assigns you research tasks, community service tasks, character growth tasks for you to do to satisfy him that YOU are WORTHY of advancement. Nothing within the game determines what tasks he can assign, and nothing requires him to pass you. Every promotion is laden with significance and feeling of great accomplishment.
WARHAMMER FANTASY SYSTEM by Games Workshop- a PnP system from England that was based on PROFESSION advancement.. One of the great design systems of all time, Warhammer delved deep into the heart of Roleplaying guiding players through innovative and challenging professions are they worked their way toward some eventual character design of the player's choice. It was a fantastic mirror of real life. Each profession taught specific skill sets to players that carried forward to the next profession. Every young person who has tried out various summer jobs knows the reality of this.
Each profession had set pre-requisites for joining, so if you wished to become a Defender of the Faith, you needed say 8 skills that had to be learned in previous professions. Hmmm...so if I take this profession here, I can learn two of them. Oh wait, I need to take this other profession first so that I can qualify for that, and oh yeah, that means I need to do these two other professions first before that one. Ah, who can forget your memorable stint as a vaunted Rat Catcher! hehehehhe
A TALE IN THE DESERT by Andrew Tepper- what can one truly say about this award winning MMO that constantly breaks the mold for online gaming without a single combat in it! How this has been slighted in your series boggles the mind? Pages could be filed describing the myriad levels of soul-fulfilling activities set within the realm of ancient Egypt, in a community that is 95+% player run.
--------------------------
As to other aspects of your article, while everything you said about the late much lamented SWG is very true, you did overlook the wonderful non-combat related profession of Architect. I had an absolute blast being an Architect. Not only did I build an entire player city of over 120 buildings, with landscaping, I recruited and built an Architectural firm that dominated building activates on all planets of the entire server. All that with no combat related activities
-----------------
In closing I would like to pull back a little further in design perspective then you chose to do. What all of these aspects of Character Development game design suffer from is a curse embedded in the very fabric of the original D&D. It is still the bane of almost every game designer to this day: The Dreaded Middle Game. Folks have been very creative at designing front ends to MMOs. Some, such as the doomed EARTH & BEYOND had wonderfully immersive Entry levels that guided players to lvl 15, then the design came to a halt that has been likened to a car doing 120mph hitting a stone wall. And other games have spent great effort doing the End Game or High End part of the MMO, such as EQ, and WoW. But where is the Middle Game? In 99% of the games, there is NO MIDDLE GAME. What there is, is GRINDING.
From a storyteller's point of view, it is like getting someone hooked on a great story like the reading of Princess Bride, then telling them after 40 pages that they can not hear the exciting actionpacked last part of the story until they wash 300 dishes.
Sadly, none of the suggestions you have offered address this Dark Presence at our banquet table. He will not be dispelled until a truly innovative designer tackles and conquers this problem.
Outside the box? I don't know if I can do that.
I don't want a player controlled world. I do want players to be able to influence it. The idea of players having the ability to give tasks would be cool. Not quests but tasks. Leave the quests to the developers but give tools to people to give tasks. If I am a Merchant that is needing to transport my goods over then I could put up a task that could be found in on a Tavern message board "Bodyguards wanted for trip" where I could also find on the board "Caravan master organizing Caravan to X" that I could join because is same place. Allow for Inquiry to such messages and that would take to a Negotiating window. There the people could decide on the Elements of the Task and then both sides would have to agree. I can see so many possiblities to this type of system. I would also prefer no player houses but rather player instances that someone just goes to a listing that can be broken down and even has a Favorites you can put your most common Player places on.
I do want levels in a game. I don't care if they mean much. I would like to see a skill game that had a class system like FFXI but the class/level just said how well skills could be used and also opened some skills from the masters teaching to the few that go all the way with their learning. I also like the idea of skills and not items are the power options. I prefer weapons and armor to be sort of like Guild Wars but with rare Exceptional and Legendary weapons that are not sought but happen sometimes. Such as a spawn has a 1 in 102,777,498 chance of dropping one but the same applies to something crafted or someone happen to be using something for a while that allows it to have the same chance. Have what everone wants be trophies at most but mainly just have combat for making money and becoming better adventurer of players choice. I have played more than one game where I did not have magic armor or weapon because I did not see any reason to pay for it. I like the idea of getting trophies to put up in my dwelling or sell. I also like the idea of hunting creatures for parts that people are buying for all sorts of things like spells, superstitions and such.
I really do want something that makes it hard to stay ahead in money though. I know most I have chatted with hate it when money is hard to come by but I like the idea that getting money is my main drive. I might not get much excitement but if I have to be a caravan guard for 4 long trips to have enough to fund my food, armor, and adventuring kit for a couple of adventures then I don't feel like I am in a grind but have a character I actually have to try and manage and not just run off and get killed and everything is fine and dandy. I guess I want a little too much realism for most but is what makes it seem more fun to me.
Those are the closest I can think of at the moment for out of the box. Not sure how much sense they make but is what I could think of what I want. I do know that most would not want that I have known because they have told me that it requires too much thinking and work.
It's something that I at least enjoy. People obviously play games for different reasons. Why is the "end game" theoretically the fun part? I enjoy the exploration of the early game and the advancement of the middle game. I think I'd be kind of disappointed to reach a cap. Most of the end games I've seen consist of large raids or RvR combat, neither of which really appeals to me all that much.
franksalbe offers an interesting system. It goes along with the suggestion in the article of giving newbie players more starting power and having slower growth. The extra dynamic of growing in skills fast enough to offset losses to stats could be interesting.
I don't like the idea of items defining the power of a character. In my mind, it reduces the advancement of the character because the character is just the items. I find many traditional item acquisition tasks tedious. Boss mobs usually require organizing extremely large groups. I like them even less when games force players to wait for spawns to fight to just get the right to fight.
Hawkwinde brought up some interesting alternative models. The UNDERLIGHT advancement system is especially intrigueing.
I don't care for the "end game" idea either. I like the middle game and would be just as happy if there wasn't any end game play. Sure, a character will reach something that appears to be, for all practical purposes, and end game status. But that doesn't mean the game play has to change to something different.
Defining the middle game is important here. Just levelling isn't what I want for this play arena. I would want something more exciting, full of adventure and surprises. To "live" in the game world, but to live with discovery and intrigue.
Speaking of Underlight, which I never even heard of
, I wouldn't care for that kind of advancement system. Not as a rule of thumb. However, it could be very interesting if used in specific cases, such as a "class" like druids, where in the old D+D games there was a limited hierarchy at the top. Making special "guilds" in game, where special and secret knowledges are withheld from all but those who pass the "tests". Ninja's are a classic example.
Once upon a time....
Good questions and points. (Despite you spelling
)
I'm for a skill based system because it tells me that the game is being built around freedoms, not restrictions, and around more realism as opposed to unrealistic restrictions.
Yet, there are some possitives from a class based game. The good things they offer can easily be implemented into a skill based game, and should be to make it better. But the foundation still needs to be skill based.
Dyslexia fore the win
I like skillbased as well. I think Guild Wars is a good exampel of a good skillbased sysstem.
i think the game creativity and diversity will come with time.
back when pong first came out, games were so limited that you couldnt have a story, a character, even color =D
i think that people are looking for a game that will feel real, but give them real opportunities to affect the world, unlike real life.
one day, when game graphics are perfect, physics systems let you dig holes, pile dirt, make towns...
then games will become open ended.
we just havent reached the point where players can do everything themselves.
one day, games will start with nothing, but players themselves will make them into something.
make a group, chop down some trees, make a fort =D
i think we just have to wait for technology to get there.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Very good article.
Personnally I can't think of playing a MMORPG with no levels. It don't need to be levels per say and they may be invisible to most players beside yourself, but I need them badly. I have no troubles to earn 200 AAs prior PoP and max at 545 AAs in march 2003 in old EQ
I don't need a flat rate myself, but I think you will lose many players when the curve become slower. Anyway, me as long as I am soloing/grouping, I don't consider I am grinding, 10 hours a day for 45 days at UK, sure thing, I will be there (well if work allow that is), this is our camp!
Peoples like to do more of what they enjoy...always more...always more. Level caps are necessary, but they should not be applied on the whole game, but rather on specific zones, where everyone above says level is just that level instead.
I see no problem in grouping/soloing for the next 5 years for 10 hours a day every day I can. Request me to raid once, and I quit right away. Everything is about doing actions we enjoy and entertain us or at the very least actions that we can bear (like travelling if must be done). Put 1 loot inside a raid or a PvP zone and I will turn away from that game if I feel I miss anything for my character as far as solo/grouping is concerned.
But me, I am an achiever. I did the gamer test and it is not even remotedly balanced...it give 100% achiever and 33% for all the other aspects (socialising, killing and exploring).
Creativity and diversity are always fun and welcome, they add nicely, but I would prolly not quit about that, as long as I can hoard more stats on my character. Always more stats...and that I see that I have the best path to reach the TOP (compare to non-solo/grouping activities). Reaching the top is irrelevant, as long as the only persons who are ahead of me earn it by the same activities that I enjoy, that is fine. I can respect that some folks solo/group better than me and are ahead of me. If someone is ahead of me because he PvP/Raid/Tradeskill as far as grouping/soloing uberness are concerned, I feel cheated and I quit.
If I reach the TOP, I will quit till next expension. Odds are that I will return, as long as my memories are good...if I recall doing stuff I didn't enjoy, I am less likely to come back.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
The irony of this article is it's not "the game" that dictates how character advancement is in MMOs today, it's the players. If you think for one second games like WoW and most other modern MMOs are made because that's was the dev's personal dream was, you're living in a dream world.
Character advancement in todays games is fueled by what the masses want. Crafting in a game like WoW, as an example, is made that way I would guess because the majority of people who play that game aren't really interested in hardcore crafting. Today when I talk to to ex WoW players complain is exactly what they liked about the game when they first started.
I agree with most of what the author said, but if we want games with good player economies, and polotics I think we should keep in mind that games have to comprimise to try to attract the "casual player" or the end up becoming a niche game.
So whenever you complain about the grind or how stupid crafting is.... consider what you're asking for.
Well companies that make MMORPG's generally want you to play & pay for as long as possible so they can maximise the return on each player.
Which also means they want you to not run through the content too quickly, so we get a grind where you have to spend a lot of time doing mundane things to advance.
I think a lot of MMORPG's have class systems as the previous poster noted this is what people have come to expect.
I think its easier to relate to from a Role-playing point of view as people who have never played these type of games before can still relate to the 4 arch-type classes of warrior, thief, priest and mage.
What it lacks is openness, and the ability for new players to compete (PvP) with veteran players.
So companies that make a game that has a steep learning curve - aka EVE , need to spend a lot of effort on the learning area for new players so that people arent put off when they try the game
Yeah, right guy. You bring your 10-15 mill SP toon and I'll bring my 37 mill + toon (and still training) and we'll see, first hand, what "diminishing returns" means, not in theory. Also, would this not be considered a knock against the game? That if so true, that there is little difference between a newb, newer player and veteran character, what would be the point of the skill system or even bothering to train skills beyond the very basics?
You're point is lost here...specialization was added to Eve years after game launch. While specialization is something a newer player should focus on, I did mention as a positive, Eve's real time skill progression + skill tree design allows even a brand spanking new nub toon a chance to participate in the game, and even in meaningful ways after a pretty short time. This being said, that individual noob character's gaming experience will be completely unrealatable to mine for years, even the imaginary mainline toon of 10-15 mill SP's. In fact, if you started a character today, and tomorrow the devs announced no new skills will be added to the game ever again, it would take you a bare minimum 2 years of real time, game play to catch up to where my toon is today and have that level of gameplay flexibility, not "powergaming".
Now than. There has been some really great ideas and also gaming idealogies brought to light.
The mentoring idea is really out of the box. Imagine that, having to find a next level toon in order to advance up the chain. Or even if you want to be 'a crafter', you would have to find an existing crafter to mentor under to become one. I'm guessing there would have to be some NPC's at the start and then after that, it could be pretty much a player run system. Definately tres cool idea.
The idea brought up, a straight to it MMO where it's all about the end game. That would be pretty interesting. I think the only problem with one of the ideas mentioned would be the re-design issue that CoH ran into. The thought was to have a whole wack of skills to choose from at creation and away you go. With a combination of enough skills and limitations on how many skills, you would still end up with a class system. The problem to this I see is that if it isn't thought out extremely well, you could very well end up with many gimped characters. While I can already envisage contests of who can make the most gimped toon, this would be a huuuuuge issue.
Mostly, the thing some others have mentioned. What would be the hook? Some (and I'm one of them) love the end game, a guy mentioned he digs the middle part, some like the beginning. I guess that is the real question isn't it.
For this gamer, I'd have to say the actual gameplay should be the hook. I mean, any system of toon development will really do, as long as it doesn't have the stupid tread mill, that's just not my cup of tea. But if the gameplay was solid and there was a lot to be preoccupied with, I could definately go with the all skilled up right after the character creation window. I could even wait around a couple years for my toon to be max level or at least uber boastable.
Maybe the out of the box idea is gameplay that is varied and doesn't revolve around character development. That's just something that comes along naturally as you expereince more and more of the game.
> Maybe the out of the box idea is gameplay that is varied and doesn't revolve around character development. That's just something that comes along naturally as you expereince more and more of the game.
That is exactly my point.
We've gotten to where we define "advancement" as gameplay-driven improvements to a character. Why is that the only definition? Why don't we consider player advancement what really matters?
What I wonder -- and I'm not convinced, I just wonder about it -- is whether character advancement is just one obvious mechanism for accomplishing the greater goal of player advancement. And what I further wonder is whether people are confusing the two. I wonder if we're mistaking the obvious (artificial level-based character advancement) for the subtle (player advancement in knowledge and experience).
If you could get the same feeling of improved capability without character advancement, if succesfully navigating the challenges of a complete-character game allowed you to feel that you the player are better at something, would you still insist that games have to have character advancement? Why?
I'd like to see a serious shot at a major graphical MMOG that does away with the artificial character advancement model that we've created, just to verify whether it's player advancement that people really want. If it crashes and burns, then OK; maybe I'm wrong and people really do like the level-up grind (despite spending so much time complaining about it).
...
A couple other related points:
1. Classes aren't the problem. Character levels are the problem. Having character classes isn't what makes people have to spend time grinding to earn more skills in those classes -- it's having levels that causes this effect.
It would be entirely possible to have character classes in a game without character levels. I'd be interested in seeing a game without classes, but that's more of a personal preference. For that matter, you could still have skill levels (which aren't always the same thing as character levels) in a MMOG, as long as it generally isn't possible to raise skill levels through gameplay -- otherwise you're right back into Level-Up Land.
(There's a game called "Infinity" being independently developed that actually does away with not just classes and levels, but skills as well. I dunno; that might be taking things a little too far!)
2. A game without character advancement would appear to cause players to get "stuck" with one class, or one set of skills. To change those, you'd have to change your character (assuming one character per server/shard).
But that might not be as bad as it sounds. Remember, when you don't have to spend weeks or months improving a character, losing that character (through character death or whatever) isn't nearly as painful. If creating a character in a complete-character game is easy, then when your character dies or you just get tired of him/her/it, you just roll up a new character with a new class and skills and dive right back into the game.
As to the objection about losing gear, one possible solution is to allow characters to "will" some of their gear to another character. You probably don't want to let players transfer everything, but allowing certain valued belongings to survive a character's demise takes a lot more of the sting out of switching characters.
Bottom line: in a complete-character game, permadeath starts looking like a realistic option. Just another benefit of not having to waste time levelling up -- no extra charge!
--Flatfingers
Flatfingers, are suggesting that instead of characters levelling up and gaining added to hit bonuses and greater damage, that they learn how to attack and where?
Like in, through my own experiance I learn that if I use an upper cut with my dagger against a large lizard creature, I have a better chance to hit through it's scaley hide (in this case the soft underbelly) and might even kill it with one hit?
And that since I know that, then in fighting a dragon I might try this technique? And I might even figure out that using a longer sword against the dragon is even more effective, since it's a bigger creature?
Things like that? Where the actual player experiance is where it's at, instead of some number system?
Once upon a time....
You cant polish a turd.
MMO-RTS is the only way to go.
-There is no grind in a RTS game, there are only bad decisions.
-Even the weakest player in a RTS game is able to inflict casualties on the strongest army in a PvP encounter.
-There are no levels in an RTS game.
-More powerful players look cooler in a RTS game (compared to RPG), considering their keeps, towers, castles and towns are much bigger then yours.
> Flatfingers, are suggesting that instead of characters levelling up and gaining added to hit bonuses and greater damage, that [players] learn how to attack and where?
Amaranthar, yes, that's basically what I'm suggesting.
I really mean more than that -- I'm thinking more about what players learn about themselves when they accomplish something in a game. That's more what I mean by "player advancement."
But in terms of competitive gameplay, that does boil down to who knows the game's systems best. In some ways this leads to a more hardcore game. Those who've been playing longer know the game's systems better and thus are more likely to win in any competition with someone who's just getting started.
Your character can still have skills. A game without character advancement can still be a full RPG -- there have been plenty of tabletop RPGs that don't feature character advancement that are fun to play. Traveller is one good example. You, the human player, may not know how to pilot a starship, but your character can learn that skill as he's being created. If you chose to focus on that ability during character creation, you could have a superb pilot, and go on to explore the galaxy with that character in a perfectly satisfying way. There's no need to keep adding to your Piloting skill forever.
I'm just not seeing a reason why MMORPGs couldn't work similarly. "Because we're used to character advancement" doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me. And "because that's what most players like" isn't much better -- until we have good MMORPGs without character advancement, where are the alternative games that would allow players to choose which approach they prefer?
I'm not insisting that a complete-character game should be the only kind of game there is. I'm just asking some developer to try making one so we can discover if it's another kind of gameplay that players might enjoy.
--Flatfingers
Lets get rid of the levels - thats what makes it hard for new players to compete with veterans, and also makes it harder and harder for developers to provide a challenge to veterans in games like WOW.
A character class is a great way to pre-package skills for new people, or you could just select the skills you want to start with - like Morrowind and Oblivion do - prepackaged or choose.
Lets give characters other areas in the game they can advance in if they want - like in in-game political parties, trading houses, guilds.
Let people who want to fight form mercenary companies and hire them selves out to protect merchants or towns. Or they could form bandit gangs and prey on merchants. Or join the army or navy and fight in border disputes.
Let people who just want to trade join the merchants guilds and open their own shops, they can hire people to collect the crafting components they need, or hire fighters to protect them whilst they gather stuff.
Give people the ability to have their own housing etc, but then dont just give it to them, get them to hire an architect to design it, builders to build it etc. Let us go out into the wilderness, clear out the monsters and carve out a parcel of land to make a town.
Give us worthwhile goals to work towards.
On the flip side - maybe crafting a set of armour or a sword should actually take some time to justify the price charged instead of grab some components and click. Then as a fighter I could go to a smith, agree on a price, order the sword then go out to raise the money.
Surely you know by now.....
one mans turd is another mans treasure.
And yes, you can polish a turd. Did you ever see those shiney jewel like rock things for sale in malls?
Anything is possible!
Once upon a time....