How do you suppose this sort of game would pan out? As you level up, you do not gain base Health or base Mana/Energy/whatever. Your abilities do not do more base damage. What you gain is variety in your abilities, allowing you more strategic options and an overall more interesting gameplay experience. Some adventuring areas could be more challenging than others, and some monsters more difficult to kill. But in no case would any monster be so powerful that a brand new character would be totally useless against it. Let us not drag classes or gear into it -- I feel the above model could be adapted to either side of such design choices quite easily.
What you describe here is how the old game of SWG used to be like (or was supposed to work like...). So it has already been tried out and it doesn't look like something similar ever will see the daylight again /cry.
Just to bad that a few arrogant people at SOE and LucasArts had to come along, and tell the fans of the old game that they now must like a spectacular crappy level based game instead of the freedom of the old game. Well, the rest is history! R.I.P. SWG!
Despite the bugs and flaws of the old SWG, it was by far the best MMO I've ever played.
I'm one of those that now have tried almost every MMO that is around, but nothing out there even come close to fill the vacuum my beloved old SWG left behind.
Originally posted by t0nyd Now i am not saying and I dont believe hex is saying, that a 34 should have to potential to kill a 60. What we are saying is that 4 34's should be able to compete with a 60 or a 34 should be able to help a 60 beat a 60 opponent...
Actually, I think a 34 should have a chance to defeat a 60. At the very least, he should be able to hit him. If the level 60 is a poor player, the lower level should probably win.
Originally posted by epf1
What you describe here is how the old game of SWG used to be like (or was supposed to work like...). So it has already been tried out and it doesn't look like something similar ever will see the daylight again /cry.
Just to bad that a few arrogant people at SOE and LucasArts had to come along, and tell the fans of the old game that they now must like a spectacular crappy level based game instead of the freedom of the old game. Well, the rest is history! R.I.P. SWG! Despite the bugs and flaws of the old SWG, it was by far the best MMO I've ever played. I'm one of those that now have tried almost every MMO that is around, but nothing out there even come close to fill the vacuum my beloved old SWG left behind.
I don't think so. I did not play SWG so maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't your base damage and/or base accuracy improve as you leveled up a skill? That is the kind of thing I'd prefer not to see.
The idea here is MORE abilities, not deadlier base abilities. Such as maybe a powerful sniper shot with a long cooldown, or a short-term buff that makes you harder to hit for a few seconds. NOT higher damage all the time. NOT god-like avoidance skills that make it impossible for a low-level to hit you, even while you sleep.
First person shooters or any other game that isn't an RPG.
Who says you have to have levels in a RPG? I think its kind of ironic that class/level based systems are thought of as more RPG-like when, in fact, theres MUCH less of an RP feel there, since you're just playing a cookie cutter character.
Besides, I could argue all day about why levels are such a horrible game mechanic...
Originally posted by GreenChaos Originally posted by Hexxeity Solution for people who hate levels
First person shooters or any other game that isn't an RPG.
I think you need to play more FPS games. We have "levels" in many of the leading shooters now. I'm Level 20+ in Lost Planet (3rd person shooter), high ranked in Rainbow 6: Vegas, high ranked in Battlefield 2142, etc. Call of Duty 4 also has a very nice progression system I read. Yes, I'm talking real Levels where we progress and unlock new skills, weapons, and armor. The difference between the two genres in FPS we don't do the senseless grinding I see in these simplistic MMOs. A newbie can fight a veteran just fine.
So my point? What makes RPG different from FPS? Read Tatum's post above. If you look up RPGs on wikipedia you can go all the way back to 1970s (LARP) where they use their personal skill in lieu of "levels" and their form of roleplay was considered very hardcore even to this day.
Originally posted by Hexxeity How do you suppose this sort of game would pan out? As you level up, you do not gain base Health or base Mana/Energy/whatever. Your abilities do not do more base damage. What you gain is variety in your abilities, allowing you more strategic options and an overall more interesting gameplay experience. Some adventuring areas could be more challenging than others, and some monsters more difficult to kill. But in no case would any monster be so powerful that a brand new character would be totally useless against it. Let us not drag classes or gear into it -- I feel the above model could be adapted to either side of such design choices quite easily.
Yeah Guild Wars is pretty much exactly this but only in respect to PVP. You can create a PVP character and from that point all progression is horizontal.
Now, if we were to expand this concept to encompass a full blown MMORPG I think it can work sure. An obvious candidate is a freeform system whereas each skill levels independantly then you will have a sandbox whereas players are not 'tactically transparent' meaning the lines are blurred between newbies and veteran, ideally. You can still have Quests and award XP but difference being the skill points will be assigned to skills directly
Skill based systems are strongly vertical however. A 100% fireball will hit much harder then a newbie's 10% fireball
So then what you might be looking for is something purely horizontal. Now you're creeping into Starport's terriority whereas newbies and veterans are pretty equal and the only difference is their armor, weapons, and items. I like this scheme as well.
I think we have gotten to this point because the early MMOs (EQ1 vein) tried to take single player RPGs to MMO. However, in single player RPG there is no great disparity between friends due to levels. In MMOs there is.
What we are more likely to see is "sidekicking" like what others mentioned. Sidekicking is okay because it allows a mentor to bring a newbie up to their standard but it fails because most teams optimize so they want a real veteran- not a newbie that is missing vital powers (level based games interesting flaw is they award powers based on a level thus sidekicking does not work too well). So, sidekicking really isn't getting us there- because who wants a healer that lacks Transfusion (CoH) or a vital power when brought up to their level? Not many teams want lowbies in this mannor
It would be better to remove the vertical progression. I wrote a blog on this which sort of links to tobold: No Progression
How do you suppose this sort of game would pan out? As you level up, you do not gain base Health or base Mana/Energy/whatever. Your abilities do not do more base damage. What you gain is variety in your abilities, allowing you more strategic options and an overall more interesting gameplay experience. Some adventuring areas could be more challenging than others, and some monsters more difficult to kill. But in no case would any monster be so powerful that a brand new character would be totally useless against it. Let us not drag classes or gear into it -- I feel the above model could be adapted to either side of such design choices quite easily.
What you describe here is how the old game of SWG used to be like (or was supposed to work like...). So it has already been tried out and it doesn't look like something similar ever will see the daylight again /cry.
Just to bad that a few arrogant people at SOE and LucasArts had to come along, and tell the fans of the old game that they now must like a spectacular crappy level based game instead of the freedom of the old game. Well, the rest is history! R.I.P. SWG!
Despite the bugs and flaws of the old SWG, it was by far the best MMO I've ever played.
I'm one of those that now have tried almost every MMO that is around, but nothing out there even come close to fill the vacuum my beloved old SWG left behind.
Yep agree about SWG. The thing about the skills in old SWG was that by trying, dropping and swapping, you could have very different game experiences. Basically there were fun non combat roles that you could try out. Unfortunately I think too many people like their levels as they show clear steps in attainment.
People pick their race and class and then think ‘right to succeed I must get my level as high as possible.’ In a skill based game you have to think ‘what can I do with my skills to make my character successful?’ That’s much harder and doesn’t appeal the average gamer who needs a very easy going MMO with simple quests that build up their levels.
But ultimately level games are flawed as developers get into the circle of concentrating on creating new content for the high level players. They then lose a lot of the casual player base who get bored with the grind and lack of changes in the game at lower levels.
Sand box games are the way forward but they need massive flexibility. Second Life but with some guidance and useful things to do in there. That’s probably the future of mainstream MMOs.
Originally posted by Tatum Originally posted by GreenChaos Originally posted by Hexxeity Solution for people who hate levels
First person shooters or any other game that isn't an RPG.
Who says you have to have levels in a RPG? I think its kind of ironic that class/level based systems are thought of as more RPG-like when, in fact, theres MUCH less of an RP feel there, since you're just playing a cookie cutter character. Besides, I could argue all day about why levels are such a horrible game mechanic...
go ahead and post it yo I'd read it. I love Levels in my single player RPGs like Mass Effect but not so much in MMOs. I wrote a long article here- Treatise on Character Advancement Systems. Damion, designer at Bioware Austin, added his input at the bottom. But as you see, I gave a lot of reasons why I dont care so much for Levels in MMORPG.
I think my best point in that article was that an interesting side effect of designing MMOs is that they must cater to newbies to provide the illusion of a well populated world where everyone has company. Thus, at each generation we are seeing our MMOs devolve into something optimized for the low denominator (general masses not familiar with RPGs)
vajuras (and a lot of other people) ... you really need to stop lumping level-based and class-based systems under the same umbrella. The two concepts, while often used together, are completely distinct. Each brings its own issues, pro and con, to the table.
Most importantly, level-based is not the opposite of skill-based. Nor is class-based for that matter. Asheron's Call, for example, is both level-based and skill-based. And though I can't think of one at the moment, a game COULD be both class-based and skill-based by letting you select and train skills as in UO, but restricting you to certain skill trees based on a class you choose at character creation.
SO ... what we have are three non-exclusive systems here, any combination of which could be used in the design of a game. Please, everyone, try to be more precise.
CLASS-BASED: Your abilities are determined by and restricted to a certain subset, grouped and balanced thematically against other classes. This may or may not be used with level-based advancement. It may also allow skill-based advancement. It may also allow skill-based advancement within a level-based framework. The system I tried to describe in my original post is class-based, but not level-based -- or at least that's what it's attempting to be. Guild Wars PvP is class-based but not level-based, but that implementation is not the only possible way to accomplish this.
LEVEL-BASED: Pretty much every RPG uses this. You go out, you do things, you gain experience, your character gets better. Even most skill-based games are usually level-based at the core. This includes UO and SWG. Just because they don't tell you a number to go with your character's power level, it does not make it any less level-based. Mathematically and logistically, it is still a level-based game. Therefore, arguing against level-based systems makes little sense unless you are bringing something radically different to the table.
SKILL-BASED: You choose which specific skills you want to improve, either by allocating points or by practicing those skills, depending on the game. This can be done within or without a system of character classes. A game that is not skill-based decides for you how your abilities improve, or how you gain new abilities. Because many class-based systems decide for you, people often think of these systems as opposites, but they are not really. You could have a game that is both, or a game that is neither. (However, in a game that is neither class- nor skill-based, all characters would be pretty much alike.)
No matter what you do to a game there is going to be some kids that call having to do anything a "grind". Look at how easy WoW is and you still have kids saying WoW is a grind which is a joke. Untill they get to the point where they remove progression all together which makes the game a first person shooter kids will say it is a grind. WoW did have grinding, anyone with a brainstem and that stepped back and looked at the whole picture could see this. Rep grind, gear grind, raid grind, pvp grind. You see... when you base everything around leveling, it shows... i think that is the point we are trying to make. Yes there will be a grind of some sort in every type of game, but theres a big difference of building a game around leveling or just building some grindish features such as skill trees (ala swg pre-cu).
I find it stupid how fast people want their online world to go by. Now is it just a online single player game to see how fast you can "beat" it, which is retarded. Everquest took a long time to level, because it was suppose to, it was a world not a game. You were part of it, and were meant to be in it a long time. Kids forget what MMORPGs are about, that is a long term experience and a social community. It is ashame, but WoW fails at community which makes it fail as a world in my opinion. It is just a popular "Halo" or "Earthworm Jim" that is all. Indeed, this is another problem with basing games around levels (in the eq, wow fashion). People just try to rush to the end to be the bast and kill others easy... this is why i believe pvp, pve, and content should be meshed, not just seperate features. About the social experience, i agree... but its starting to go downhill fast. MMOs are starting to become soloable, groups are getting irritating, the social aspect of the mmos really isn't there much any more. Theres not enough social content being added to games. Just leveling, raidi... oh you know what i mean. I do like skill based character development, but kids will call that a grind too, because it actually takes some time to do it. Listen up kids, the time you are spending is suppose to be fun, not a rush to the finish line in an online world. I personaly would like to see a game made with so many levels that are hard to obtain that it would be impossible to finish and the devs add content along the way, then no one can whine about not being the best. So? I bet 100 dollar bill most mmo vets would love to have the grind of pre-cu swg back than to play wow and not have much of a social aspect in a game. And about levels (eq, wow style).... no... they just need to be done away with... games need to evolve into more deeper meaningful mmos, not just keep rehashing the "13241 to next level yay!" Devs need to work more on sandbox freeform skill trees and explore that area more... theres much more potential, not to mention more freedom.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
First person shooters or any other game that isn't an RPG.
Who says you have to have levels in a RPG? I think its kind of ironic that class/level based systems are thought of as more RPG-like when, in fact, theres MUCH less of an RP feel there, since you're just playing a cookie cutter character.
Besides, I could argue all day about why levels are such a horrible game mechanic...
Ha! thank you! someone gets it.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
How do you suppose this sort of game would pan out? As you level up, you do not gain base Health or base Mana/Energy/whatever. Your abilities do not do more base damage. What you gain is variety in your abilities, allowing you more strategic options and an overall more interesting gameplay experience. Some adventuring areas could be more challenging than others, and some monsters more difficult to kill. But in no case would any monster be so powerful that a brand new character would be totally useless against it. Let us not drag classes or gear into it -- I feel the above model could be adapted to either side of such design choices quite easily.
This would be hard to implement into an MMORPG. I have some ideas that may possibly work...
Limited number of skills -
The idea would be that a character can gain any skills he chooses up to a specific number. This number could be determined by Intelligence or what ever stat thats suits this purpose. Personally I do not enjoy a game where everyone can have everything.
Skill progression -
Gained skills could possibly unlock other skills. Gained skills should also advance with use. The more you use a sword, the higher the skill gets, the more often you hit and do damage. This way there is some progression.
Character attributes -
In this type of set up character attributes would be super important. Your choices will affect your starting and maximum hit points, spell points, defensive abilities, etc. In most games starting attributes matter little due to equipment giving huge bonuses. Personally, im tired of equipment being everything in an MMO. Id prefer your choices determine the strengths and weaknesses of your character and not how often you raid.
What you're looking for is the original SWG.
Smedley took care of that already.
On edit: Oh, epf1 already mentioned this!
I guess I owe epf1 a refreshing fizzy beverage!
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Originally posted by Hexxeity vajuras (and a lot of other people) ... you really need to stop lumping level-based and class-based systems under the same umbrella. The two concepts, while often used together, are completely distinct. Each brings its own issues, pro and con, to the table. Most importantly, level-based is not the opposite of skill-based. Nor is class-based for that matter. Asheron's Call, for example, is both level-based and skill-based.
Like AVPMUD, AC1 was a skill-point based system in the vein of GURPS: GURPS
It would be more correct to call any game whereas you merely earn a skill-point a skill-point based system. There is no point in calling it a Level based system when the player is merely earning skill points. According to your logic so would GURPS be a Level based PnP. Sure, go ahead and call it that but too me, a true Level based system envolves vertically improving the avatar at each Level up directly. Skill point systems improves skills independantly
SO ... what we have are three non-exclusive systems here, any combination of which could be used in the design of a game. Please, everyone, try to be more precise. CLASS-BASED: Your abilities are determined by and restricted to a certain subset, grouped and balanced thematically against other classes. This may or may not be used with level-based advancement. It may also allow skill-based advancement. It may also allow skill-based advancement within a level-based framework. The system I tried to describe in my original post is class-based, but not level-based -- or at least that's what it's attempting to be. Guild Wars PvP is class-based but not level-based, but that implementation is not the only possible way to accomplish this. LEVEL-BASED: Pretty much every RPG uses this. You go out, you do things, you gain experience, your character gets better. Even most skill-based games are usually level-based at the core. This includes UO and SWG. Just because they don't tell you a number to go with your character's power level, it does not make it any less level-based. Mathematically and logistically, it is still a level-based game. Therefore, arguing against level-based systems makes little sense unless you are bringing something radically different to the table. SKILL-BASED: You choose which specific skills you want to improve, either by allocating points or by practicing those skills, depending on the game. This can be done within or without a system of character classes. A game that is not skill-based decides for you how your abilities improve, or how you gain new abilities. Because many class-based systems decide for you, people often think of these systems as opposites, but they are not really. You could have a game that is both, or a game that is neither. (However, in a game that is neither class- nor skill-based, all characters would be pretty much alike.)
There is no reason to classify CLASS BASED as it's own category. If you have atrophy or a skill point limit then you are looking at a Class at the end of the day just that it is player created. Even Crackdown, one of the most pure skill based games I've seen still results in a player generated Class. This was the very awesome thing about GURPS as well.
"Even most skill-based games are usually level-based at the core."
Being a programmer I find it perplexing you would say this. In the game engine, the implementation between the two are like night and day. Skill based systems require us to code a 'trigger' for each activity which will improve that skill. Level based systems are of course considered a bit simplier to implement because they do not require activation triggers for each skill but rather we can reward you XP directly
I think what you are trying to say the two systems are similar all because the programmer decided to show you a 'number' on the UI for the skill level. But believe me, the two systems are completely different behind-the-scenes.
vajuras (and a lot of other people) ... you really need to stop lumping level-based and class-based systems under the same umbrella. The two concepts, while often used together, are completely distinct. Each brings its own issues, pro and con, to the table. Most importantly, level-based is not the opposite of skill-based. Nor is class-based for that matter. Asheron's Call, for example, is both level-based and skill-based. And though I can't think of one at the moment, a game COULD be both class-based and skill-based by letting you select and train skills as in UO, but restricting you to certain skill trees based on a class you choose at character creation. SO ... what we have are three non-exclusive systems here, any combination of which could be used in the design of a game. Please, everyone, try to be more precise. CLASS-BASED: Your abilities are determined by and restricted to a certain subset, grouped and balanced thematically against other classes. This may or may not be used with level-based advancement. It may also allow skill-based advancement. It may also allow skill-based advancement within a level-based framework. The system I tried to describe in my original post is class-based, but not level-based -- or at least that's what it's attempting to be. Guild Wars PvP is class-based but not level-based, but that implementation is not the only possible way to accomplish this. LEVEL-BASED: Pretty much every RPG uses this. You go out, you do things, you gain experience, your character gets better. Even most skill-based games are usually level-based at the core. This includes UO and SWG. Just because they don't tell you a number to go with your character's power level, it does not make it any less level-based. Mathematically and logistically, it is still a level-based game. Therefore, arguing against level-based systems makes little sense unless you are bringing something radically different to the table. SKILL-BASED: You choose which specific skills you want to improve, either by allocating points or by practicing those skills, depending on the game. This can be done within or without a system of character classes. A game that is not skill-based decides for you how your abilities improve, or how you gain new abilities. Because many class-based systems decide for you, people often think of these systems as opposites, but they are not really. You could have a game that is both, or a game that is neither. (However, in a game that is neither class- nor skill-based, all characters would be pretty much alike.)
Sure, you could have a mix of the two (Oblivion) but thats not what many of us are looking for. As long as you have "levels" in the system you're always going to have an artficial gap between characters and you're always going to have a segmented game world. Most of your characters power in the typical class/level based MMO doesn't even come from gaining new skills, it comes from hit point, power, and hit/miss ratio adjustments that you automatically get every level. When you have a level 50 mage that can out melee (very easily) a level 5 warrior, then theres something really retarded with your system.
Yeah I call such a system "no progression" or "linear progression". No progression is when you have all your skills (aka Starport). Linear progression is growing horizontally- never getting more powerful but rather simply 'unlocking' new skills and becoming more diverse
FPS games fully utilize Linear progression / Unlock schemes. So then we are back to GreenChoas post whereas he/she said this already exists in PVP venues such as FPS. That is indeed the case but it would be interesting to see it applied to PVE
Yeah I call such a system "no progression" or "linear progression". No progression is when you have all your skills (aka Starport). Linear progression is growing horizontally- never getting more powerful but rather simply 'unlocking' new skills and becoming more diverse FPS games fully utilize Linear progression / Unlock schemes. So then we are back to GreenChoas post whereas he/she said this already exists in PVP venues such as FPS. That is indeed the case but it would be interesting to see it applied to PVE
I'd be interested in seeing any of those systems implemented. "No progression" is probably the most interesting system to me, but it's probably more realistic to expect (at best) more flat or horizontal type systems.
Yea, FPS would be the best example, but the problem is, how many FPS game have a massive, persistant world? Don't get me wrong, I've always liked FPS (just picked up BF 2142 actually) but Im most interested in persistant worlds. Really, I don't see why you can't combine the two. The MMORPG genre doen't have to be so narrow that every single MMO is a linear, class/level based game with inferior game play. Why not let things branch out a little?
When you have a level 50 mage that can out melee (very easily) a level 5 warrior, then theres something really retarded with your system.
That's the situation of WoW's (and every game it's derived from) level system.
Level is EVERYTHING, to include artificially adjusting the level of the mobs you take on to make sure that a level 40 player is assured of death if he or she wanders into a level 50 zone.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Not a bad idea but i prefer something w/o levels altogether. I still don't understand why developers keep going back to the level system. People have expressed their feelings toward levels and said that they want something new yet every game that is coming out takes the same old MMO style and adds twists to it. That is not what people mean when they say they want something different. Personally I favor the skill system. It allows for greater customization and you gain skill as you use those skills. It seems like the devs are just too lazy to create a brand new game from scratch. There is no imagination left in the MMO world and its quite disappointing. Its not like the skill system is a radical new concept. Ultima Online has proven that the skill system attracts players and works. The game that comes to mind that refutes this is WoW. WoW is the most successful MMO to date but that is not to say that everyone loves WoW. I tried it when it had just come out a few years back and I couldn't stand it. I guess I was just 'spoiled' by UO's freedom. I wasn't used to having to follow a linear quest system and I certainly didn't enjoy doing quests to level. Another thing that bugged me after I stopped playing UO was that all other MMOs have a hotbar and offer very little UI customization compared to UO. Its almost like all the devs got lazy and just wanted to release a product without actually caring about the customer. The day all this changes is the day I get excited about MMOs again...and I am not the only one that feels this way. Hopefully 2008 will be a better year but I seem to say that almost every year and it never is true.
Dont forget all who want something new, then play a classic mmo with xp and lvls are few.
becouse the ones who come to forums like this, is a very smal percentage of the mmo community specially these days with millions playing mmos.
It seems majority are happy with xp and lvls, only few who come to forums and want something new are rare and even on forums like this, not all want it to chance majority want lvls pitty but thats at moment the case.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
If you're going for a system where a skilled beginner can beat a veteran who makes a mistake then you're talking planetside. Base health and endurance never change. Armor changes a little if you've unlocked heavy armor but only from 100 to 150/200(can't remember which right now), but if you wear the heavy armor you can't drive vehicles. Players that have spent 6 months still have the same hp, stamina, and armor but they have more certification points which allow them to use a wider variety of weaponry. Still, when the max number of certification points is around 25 and a beginner starts out with 5, the beginner still has a good shot at taking down the veteran.
There is no reason to classify CLASS BASED as it's own category. If you have atrophy or a skill point limit then you are looking at a Class at the end of the day just that it is player created. Even Crackdown, one of the most pure skill based games I've seen still results in a player generated Class. This was the very awesome thing about GURPS as well. My point is, if your skill choices are restricted by the game according to a choice you make at character creation, you are playing in a class-based system. Therefore atrophy doesn't qualify, nor does a system that assigns you a class name based on the skills you've chosen. Developers choose to create class-based games because they encourage (or enforce) player interdependence. "Even most skill-based games are usually level-based at the core." Being a programmer I find it perplexing you would say this. In the game engine, the implementation between the two are like night and day. Skill based systems require us to code a 'trigger' for each activity which will improve that skill. Level based systems are of course considered a bit simplier to implement because they do not require activation triggers for each skill but rather we can reward you XP directly I think what you are trying to say the two systems are similar all because the programmer decided to show you a 'number' on the UI for the skill level. But believe me, the two systems are completely different behind-the-scenes.
What you have described is the nuts and bolts of programming a skill-based system versus a non-skill-based system, but your examples are both level-based. Not in the way that you are used to hearing and using the term "level-based," but that's my whole point. Your way of using the term is not precise enough for this discussion.
EQ is level-based (and class-based), but it has the 'triggers' you describe for various activities. You can even choose to ignore certain skills, preferring Conjuration over Evocation or 2-hand Blunt weapons over 1-hand Slashing. So EQ has a skill-based element to it. But I would not consider it a skill-based game, as it is a fairly trivial matter for any character to max out all the combat skills available to his class. (The crafting in EQ, however, is entirely skill-based.)
[quote]Originally posted by Hexxeity [b] [quote]Originally posted by vajuras
My point is, if your skill choices are restricted by the game according to a choice you make at character creation, you are playing in a class-based system. Therefore atrophy doesn't qualify, nor does a system that assigns you a class name based on the skills you've chosen. Developers choose to create class-based games because they encourage (or enforce) player interdependence. [/b][/quote]
No, whether a player is forced into a Class at character creation or not makes no difference. By your logic, even Tabula Rasa wouldn't be a Class based game. You do realize we dont pick a Class at character creation?
So then, what is the difference between a skill based system and Tabula Rasa? The key difference is in EVE Online you dynamically generate your own Class. In Tabula Rasa, you are forced into a statically defined Class.
You can't say something isn't Class based all because I'm not forced into one at character creation. There are many MMOs coming down the pipe where they delay this choice until Level X.
So then, it is futile to create a category call CLASS BASED when pretty any system you could think of would generate a 'Class' and player interdependance will pretty much automically exist when you make it impossible to have a 'Tank_Mage'. But even if you had a Tank_Mage you could still enforce player dependency through overlapping buffs/debuffs, etc like we see in City of Heroes
Comments
Just to bad that a few arrogant people at SOE and LucasArts had to come along, and tell the fans of the old game that they now must like a spectacular crappy level based game instead of the freedom of the old game. Well, the rest is history! R.I.P. SWG!
Despite the bugs and flaws of the old SWG, it was by far the best MMO I've ever played.
I'm one of those that now have tried almost every MMO that is around, but nothing out there even come close to fill the vacuum my beloved old SWG left behind.
Actually, I think a 34 should have a chance to defeat a 60. At the very least, he should be able to hit him. If the level 60 is a poor player, the lower level should probably win.
I don't think so. I did not play SWG so maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't your base damage and/or base accuracy improve as you leveled up a skill? That is the kind of thing I'd prefer not to see.The idea here is MORE abilities, not deadlier base abilities. Such as maybe a powerful sniper shot with a long cooldown, or a short-term buff that makes you harder to hit for a few seconds. NOT higher damage all the time. NOT god-like avoidance skills that make it impossible for a low-level to hit you, even while you sleep.
First person shooters or any other game that isn't an RPG.
Solution: play Ultima Online. Solved.
First person shooters or any other game that isn't an RPG.
Who says you have to have levels in a RPG? I think its kind of ironic that class/level based systems are thought of as more RPG-like when, in fact, theres MUCH less of an RP feel there, since you're just playing a cookie cutter character.
Besides, I could argue all day about why levels are such a horrible game mechanic...
I think you need to play more FPS games. We have "levels" in many of the leading shooters now. I'm Level 20+ in Lost Planet (3rd person shooter), high ranked in Rainbow 6: Vegas, high ranked in Battlefield 2142, etc. Call of Duty 4 also has a very nice progression system I read. Yes, I'm talking real Levels where we progress and unlock new skills, weapons, and armor. The difference between the two genres in FPS we don't do the senseless grinding I see in these simplistic MMOs. A newbie can fight a veteran just fine.
So my point? What makes RPG different from FPS? Read Tatum's post above. If you look up RPGs on wikipedia you can go all the way back to 1970s (LARP) where they use their personal skill in lieu of "levels" and their form of roleplay was considered very hardcore even to this day.
Yeah Guild Wars is pretty much exactly this but only in respect to PVP. You can create a PVP character and from that point all progression is horizontal.
Now, if we were to expand this concept to encompass a full blown MMORPG I think it can work sure. An obvious candidate is a freeform system whereas each skill levels independantly then you will have a sandbox whereas players are not 'tactically transparent' meaning the lines are blurred between newbies and veteran, ideally. You can still have Quests and award XP but difference being the skill points will be assigned to skills directly
Skill based systems are strongly vertical however. A 100% fireball will hit much harder then a newbie's 10% fireball
So then what you might be looking for is something purely horizontal. Now you're creeping into Starport's terriority whereas newbies and veterans are pretty equal and the only difference is their armor, weapons, and items. I like this scheme as well.
I think we have gotten to this point because the early MMOs (EQ1 vein) tried to take single player RPGs to MMO. However, in single player RPG there is no great disparity between friends due to levels. In MMOs there is.
What we are more likely to see is "sidekicking" like what others mentioned. Sidekicking is okay because it allows a mentor to bring a newbie up to their standard but it fails because most teams optimize so they want a real veteran- not a newbie that is missing vital powers (level based games interesting flaw is they award powers based on a level thus sidekicking does not work too well). So, sidekicking really isn't getting us there- because who wants a healer that lacks Transfusion (CoH) or a vital power when brought up to their level? Not many teams want lowbies in this mannor
It would be better to remove the vertical progression. I wrote a blog on this which sort of links to tobold:
No Progression
Just to bad that a few arrogant people at SOE and LucasArts had to come along, and tell the fans of the old game that they now must like a spectacular crappy level based game instead of the freedom of the old game. Well, the rest is history! R.I.P. SWG!
Despite the bugs and flaws of the old SWG, it was by far the best MMO I've ever played.
I'm one of those that now have tried almost every MMO that is around, but nothing out there even come close to fill the vacuum my beloved old SWG left behind.
Raymondo
First person shooters or any other game that isn't an RPG.
Who says you have to have levels in a RPG? I think its kind of ironic that class/level based systems are thought of as more RPG-like when, in fact, theres MUCH less of an RP feel there, since you're just playing a cookie cutter character.
Besides, I could argue all day about why levels are such a horrible game mechanic...
go ahead and post it yo I'd read it. I love Levels in my single player RPGs like Mass Effect but not so much in MMOs. I wrote a long article here- Treatise on Character Advancement Systems. Damion, designer at Bioware Austin, added his input at the bottom. But as you see, I gave a lot of reasons why I dont care so much for Levels in MMORPG.
I think my best point in that article was that an interesting side effect of designing MMOs is that they must cater to newbies to provide the illusion of a well populated world where everyone has company. Thus, at each generation we are seeing our MMOs devolve into something optimized for the low denominator (general masses not familiar with RPGs)
I KNOW!!!
wait for darkfall and stop bitching
vajuras (and a lot of other people) ... you really need to stop lumping level-based and class-based systems under the same umbrella. The two concepts, while often used together, are completely distinct. Each brings its own issues, pro and con, to the table.
Most importantly, level-based is not the opposite of skill-based. Nor is class-based for that matter. Asheron's Call, for example, is both level-based and skill-based. And though I can't think of one at the moment, a game COULD be both class-based and skill-based by letting you select and train skills as in UO, but restricting you to certain skill trees based on a class you choose at character creation.
SO ... what we have are three non-exclusive systems here, any combination of which could be used in the design of a game. Please, everyone, try to be more precise.
CLASS-BASED: Your abilities are determined by and restricted to a certain subset, grouped and balanced thematically against other classes. This may or may not be used with level-based advancement. It may also allow skill-based advancement. It may also allow skill-based advancement within a level-based framework. The system I tried to describe in my original post is class-based, but not level-based -- or at least that's what it's attempting to be. Guild Wars PvP is class-based but not level-based, but that implementation is not the only possible way to accomplish this.
LEVEL-BASED: Pretty much every RPG uses this. You go out, you do things, you gain experience, your character gets better. Even most skill-based games are usually level-based at the core. This includes UO and SWG. Just because they don't tell you a number to go with your character's power level, it does not make it any less level-based. Mathematically and logistically, it is still a level-based game. Therefore, arguing against level-based systems makes little sense unless you are bringing something radically different to the table.
SKILL-BASED: You choose which specific skills you want to improve, either by allocating points or by practicing those skills, depending on the game. This can be done within or without a system of character classes. A game that is not skill-based decides for you how your abilities improve, or how you gain new abilities. Because many class-based systems decide for you, people often think of these systems as opposites, but they are not really. You could have a game that is both, or a game that is neither. (However, in a game that is neither class- nor skill-based, all characters would be pretty much alike.)
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
I think they are talking more of the lines of swg pre-cu skill trees, just better :P
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
First person shooters or any other game that isn't an RPG.
Who says you have to have levels in a RPG? I think its kind of ironic that class/level based systems are thought of as more RPG-like when, in fact, theres MUCH less of an RP feel there, since you're just playing a cookie cutter character.
Besides, I could argue all day about why levels are such a horrible game mechanic...
Ha! thank you! someone gets it.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
This would be hard to implement into an MMORPG. I have some ideas that may possibly work...
The idea would be that a character can gain any skills he chooses up to a specific number. This number could be determined by Intelligence or what ever stat thats suits this purpose. Personally I do not enjoy a game where everyone can have everything.
Gained skills could possibly unlock other skills. Gained skills should also advance with use. The more you use a sword, the higher the skill gets, the more often you hit and do damage. This way there is some progression.
In this type of set up character attributes would be super important. Your choices will affect your starting and maximum hit points, spell points, defensive abilities, etc. In most games starting attributes matter little due to equipment giving huge bonuses. Personally, im tired of equipment being everything in an MMO. Id prefer your choices determine the strengths and weaknesses of your character and not how often you raid.
What you're looking for is the original SWG.
Smedley took care of that already.
On edit: Oh, epf1 already mentioned this!
I guess I owe epf1 a refreshing fizzy beverage!
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
Like AVPMUD, AC1 was a skill-point based system in the vein of GURPS:
GURPS
It would be more correct to call any game whereas you merely earn a skill-point a skill-point based system. There is no point in calling it a Level based system when the player is merely earning skill points. According to your logic so would GURPS be a Level based PnP. Sure, go ahead and call it that but too me, a true Level based system envolves vertically improving the avatar at each Level up directly. Skill point systems improves skills independantly
There is no reason to classify CLASS BASED as it's own category. If you have atrophy or a skill point limit then you are looking at a Class at the end of the day just that it is player created. Even Crackdown, one of the most pure skill based games I've seen still results in a player generated Class. This was the very awesome thing about GURPS as well.
"Even most skill-based games are usually level-based at the core."
Being a programmer I find it perplexing you would say this. In the game engine, the implementation between the two are like night and day. Skill based systems require us to code a 'trigger' for each activity which will improve that skill. Level based systems are of course considered a bit simplier to implement because they do not require activation triggers for each skill but rather we can reward you XP directly
I think what you are trying to say the two systems are similar all because the programmer decided to show you a 'number' on the UI for the skill level. But believe me, the two systems are completely different behind-the-scenes.
Yeah I call such a system "no progression" or "linear progression". No progression is when you have all your skills (aka Starport). Linear progression is growing horizontally- never getting more powerful but rather simply 'unlocking' new skills and becoming more diverse
FPS games fully utilize Linear progression / Unlock schemes. So then we are back to GreenChoas post whereas he/she said this already exists in PVP venues such as FPS. That is indeed the case but it would be interesting to see it applied to PVE
Yea, FPS would be the best example, but the problem is, how many FPS game have a massive, persistant world? Don't get me wrong, I've always liked FPS (just picked up BF 2142 actually) but Im most interested in persistant worlds. Really, I don't see why you can't combine the two. The MMORPG genre doen't have to be so narrow that every single MMO is a linear, class/level based game with inferior game play. Why not let things branch out a little?
Level is EVERYTHING, to include artificially adjusting the level of the mobs you take on to make sure that a level 40 player is assured of death if he or she wanders into a level 50 zone.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
becouse the ones who come to forums like this, is a very smal percentage of the mmo community specially these days with millions playing mmos.
It seems majority are happy with xp and lvls, only few who come to forums and want something new are rare and even on forums like this, not all want it to chance majority want lvls pitty but thats at moment the case.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
Darkfall have no lvls if it ever comes out hehe.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
If you're going for a system where a skilled beginner can beat a veteran who makes a mistake then you're talking planetside. Base health and endurance never change. Armor changes a little if you've unlocked heavy armor but only from 100 to 150/200(can't remember which right now), but if you wear the heavy armor you can't drive vehicles. Players that have spent 6 months still have the same hp, stamina, and armor but they have more certification points which allow them to use a wider variety of weaponry. Still, when the max number of certification points is around 25 and a beginner starts out with 5, the beginner still has a good shot at taking down the veteran.
What you have described is the nuts and bolts of programming a skill-based system versus a non-skill-based system, but your examples are both level-based. Not in the way that you are used to hearing and using the term "level-based," but that's my whole point. Your way of using the term is not precise enough for this discussion.
EQ is level-based (and class-based), but it has the 'triggers' you describe for various activities. You can even choose to ignore certain skills, preferring Conjuration over Evocation or 2-hand Blunt weapons over 1-hand Slashing. So EQ has a skill-based element to it. But I would not consider it a skill-based game, as it is a fairly trivial matter for any character to max out all the combat skills available to his class. (The crafting in EQ, however, is entirely skill-based.)
[quote]Originally posted by Hexxeity
[b]
[quote]Originally posted by vajuras
My point is, if your skill choices are restricted by the game according to a choice you make at character creation, you are playing in a class-based system. Therefore atrophy doesn't qualify, nor does a system that assigns you a class name based on the skills you've chosen.
Developers choose to create class-based games because they encourage (or enforce) player interdependence.
[/b][/quote]
No, whether a player is forced into a Class at character creation or not makes no difference. By your logic, even Tabula Rasa wouldn't be a Class based game. You do realize we dont pick a Class at character creation?
So then, what is the difference between a skill based system and Tabula Rasa? The key difference is in EVE Online you dynamically generate your own Class. In Tabula Rasa, you are forced into a statically defined Class.
You can't say something isn't Class based all because I'm not forced into one at character creation. There are many MMOs coming down the pipe where they delay this choice until Level X.
So then, it is futile to create a category call CLASS BASED when pretty any system you could think of would generate a 'Class' and player interdependance will pretty much automically exist when you make it impossible to have a 'Tank_Mage'. But even if you had a Tank_Mage you could still enforce player dependency through overlapping buffs/debuffs, etc like we see in City of Heroes