One thing were not taking into consideration is technical limitations. For example take call of duty, i have played the game a lot as a more casual passtime. i have found that i have reached a certain skill level that me and thousands of others are at now.....we dont seem to be able to get any better! why is this? well for one the technical limitations only let my controller respond at a certain rate......i can't get any faster on the firing trigger without using a mod...which is ...well it's cheating!
This works ok in a game where we start from the same spot every time we log in, but how would that work in a progression game...which essentially mmo's mostly are?
This genre is still so young that nothing is really set I'n stone. So no levels aren't required, nothing is. Once more developers realize this the better the entire genre will be.
A good example is the older version of SWG. Pre-NGE SWG used to have a Skillpoint / Template System to build your character.
There were several professions that the player could dabble in. You had 250 skillpoints to use in acquiring skillboxes for different stats & equipment certifications within the professions. It was up to you to decide how much of a profession to get (some skills or mastering it).
Successful actions would generate XPs for the profession the action belonged to. If you killed a bunch of stuff with your Blaster Pistol, you got Pistol XPs. Rifles? Rifle XPs. Etc. Even crafting had XP subdivisions within it to count for progression.
The beauty of the Skillpoint / Template System was that it granted the player alot of freedom to build their character, provided you stayed within the constraints of the max of 250 skillpoints.
When playing with other players in Pre-NGE SWG, there was no such thing as level requirements. Just as long as your character had some sort of skill that can be of use to the group. I could be part of a group of max templated player characters and we can take along some newbie pistol / doctor player, who is not so good with a pistol so far but has a decently developed set of medical skills. Or we could take on a Rifleman / Ranger who maxed out Rifles but wants to level up his Ranger skills with us. Groups in that game was usually a good mix of developed and in-progress character builds. There were places you wouldn't go alone, especially with a toon that wasn't fully templated, but otherwise, you were pretty free with where you wanted to go and adventure in.
Edit to add: Forgot to mention something. If you wanted to change to a different build altogether, it was no problem. You could have used the same character. All you had to do was remove skillboxes you spent skillpoints to acquire and return those points to the pool. You then worked towards the proper XPs for the new set of skills / build you wanted. There wasn't as much of a pressing need to roll an alt just to try something new. You could use the same character you've gotten attached to.
Heh, miss those days of MMORPGs...
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
First off, great sig quote... reminds me of one of my favorite quotes of all times:
"They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an
enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can't get away from us now!"
Now to the point of this thread. I first off would like to thank everyone for their opinions, while ALL opinions suck in various ways it is good to get them all out on the floor as only that is the direction towards an informed decision. I humbly post my opinions and observations as follows.
I have only played PnP (A)D&D up through, over the years, the third edition rules. Furthermore, I beta tested and subsequently played the release of UO (had a subscription for about 2 years I believe). Life got quite busy and only allowed me to live vicariously through others in subsequent MMO(RPG) games until the wife and I started playing DAOC. I have since played WoW, Guild Wars, and (currently) LOTRO.
My observations include:
1. Level based systems vary in their usage of 'levels' from full skill systems with unobservable (but internally calculated... think: color systems of other players and baddies) to very strict level systems that along with what seems to be a subsequent class based system (restricted likewise) form a very rigid and predictable character development and playing system.
2. Level systems seem to be the most popular and I have heard they are they easiest to code, balance, and play (at least initially by newbies).
3. following on #2, a business investor can easily argue that a strict level system is thus a win:win in that you have a greater chance of market penetration and perhaps dominance but yet without all that expensive R&D time of innovating a new (or adapting an older but less popular, or perhaps just a PnP system) system, this appeals obviously to any business decision maker
4. Due I suppose to a combination of said market's ease of entrance (learning curve flattening) and adoption, plus that oh so frustrating lack of folks voting with their feet, then it seems obvious as to why strict level based systems are all over the place (that sadly exposes a real problem in free markets today, that of a lack of consumer discipline and restraint)
5. Various differing minor variations exist to overcome the weaknesses of strict level (and strict class) based systems exist (don't get offended... all systems have strengths and weaknesses)
6. Following on #5, if you will let me focus on LOTRO exclusively since I play that currently, there seems to be a "gentlemen's agreement (of silence)" that the market players seem to want to get around the restrictions of strict level and class systems by introducing uber-level monsters. In LOTRO, examples are 'elite', 'signature', 'rare elite' and such that are basically overpowered monsters that are level X. (e.g. 2 - 10 times the hit points plus massive bonuses to offensive and defensive capabilities)
7. My opinion, based on this observation and lurking over the years on game-dev forums, is that the players in this industry are not arguing that a strict level system 'sucks more' than other systems, but can not or will not innovate beyond that.
Oh how I distrust that word, 'Innovate', because it can so easily be thrown out by lawyers and marketers regardless of its actual merit of use.
I don't want to see more games that want to please everyone. I want to see different systems for different tastes and play styles but this will only happen when consumers like us stop being immature and start voting with our dollar/feet. Cookie cutter games will continue to be pumped out with only the story and theme (nouns) being the difference (and of course graphics and other goodies that newer hardware and API's allow).
If makers of ice cream adopted the MMO market's approach to business then we would have about 4 different flavors of ice cream... and yet the market would just blindly accept this.
I DO NOT want a system that tries to please everyone and/or does a whole lot in a sucky way as opposed to doing a few things very well (and that integrate well into larger systems... this is a poor, but common summation of the UNIX system of tools and development strategy btw)
I want each group to have their own game system to play with and real innovation to happen with each new game pumped out. I hear great things about SW:TOR but only time will tell for sure.
----------------
For the record, I am in favor of skill based systems and furthermore enjoy systems without classes. I really don't care if said system has meta-classes and meta-levels. Outside of Ultima, my favorite RPGs of all times are of the Morrowind series by Bethesda, namely 3 and 4. I have NO idea how difficult that would be to implement as an MMO, much less the market that would support such a system, but I can dream!
I operate my own small business and understand the vast risk of innovating and focusing on nich markets as opposed to creating more cookie cutter clones. Yet! I would also be a fool to say... try and build a Facebook competitor unless I have a massively compelling (to investors AND users) reason to do so.
I enjoy a great background 'universe' and story/plot system. Arguably, there is great variance and innovation now and will be to come... and yes I admit most of this is just simply due to legal requirements. LOTRO gets my vote alone for the LOTR 'universe'... Turbine won big with their win-over of the Tolkien family and other IP owners to be able to build on top of this. Sadly, I feel that they put all their 'win' into this and not by focusing on creating and innovative game and gaming experience. YMMV.
If you have read this far, I apologize for punishing you with this dissertation. Please please please... realize that these forums are great, but to really enact change (if you so desire it) or rather just support a market full of differing approaches (systems) where you can pick freely that (those) that which fits your taste... you MUST vote with your feet. The decision makers on design of MMOs care little about opinions unless those opinions translate into $$$. Until we all vote with our feet, then expect more 'please them all' cookie cutter systems that are basically the least common denominator.
A skillbased one is a different route. Where successful performance of certain abilities nets you XPs for that kind of skillset.
Let's say your built character is still working on combat skills but during the course of adventuring and with groups, you had medical skills that you got to respectable levels.
There are (were?) games where a lower, over all skilled character can venture with more built up player characters because he/she has useful skills outside of combat. Naturally, it was up to the tougher player characters to keep the heat off the lower skilled healer, and in return, he kept them topped off.
That's just one example.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
MMO's and Levels are not incompatible, i think its only when you get certain aspects that it becomes a problem, PVP orientated games for instance, don't handle levels well at all, as it introduces ludicrous imbalances that make open world PVP overly complicated and often.. one sided. which means you have to limit it to 'instanced' combat that 'over controls' the experience, and makes the point of PVP .. imo at least, totally pointless. I think it really depends on what kind of game play you prefer, i just know that i don't bother with PVP in games with levels.. as its too disapointing.
The simple fact of the matter is that in RL, people have differing levels of training, skill and innate ability, the question is how can you mirror that in an mmo without having some form of progressive system?
Most people think in terms of combat, in this case it's pretty clear that the two most obvious systems are twitch mechanics and tactical turn-based mechanics. Players have the same base 'stats', the one wth the greater reactions and/or the greater tactical nuance is the most likely victor. To me both are perfectly viable but both do have their downsides. The former leads to bunny hopping and double jumping et al which can look ridiculous in certain settings, whilst the latter can lead to a too slow combat speed for certain games/players.
In terms of non-combat skills then, again there really is not set need for progression/levelling be it based around set levels or skill points. You could simply earn qualifications/certificates by demonstrating skill at a task in game as you would IRL. The more skilled you are the better quals you get and as such you get access to better equipment/ships/whatever. The issue here is that those naturally capable at the game would also have access to the better gear, but then thats pretty mucht eh case in most mmos anyway.
Whilst it's clear we don't need progression systems (infact to my mind it would be better if we had none), it's clear they are needed if you want people who don't have any skill to compete in an mmo. Currently someone who isn't anygood at tactics or twitch can still grind there way up to endgame and essential out point/gear npcs and certain similar ability players. In a non progression, true player skill game they wouldn't have a chance.
This soup (Combat) is too hot (Fast), this soup is too cold (Slow), this one is just right.
Is it possible to create a combat system which is in between where the combat is like a river, steadily rushing down the mountain yet it never really gives you the chance to pause?
Twitch based combat moves takes place within a second, turn based is as long as the player desires (5 minutes to think maybe), how do fights in real life play out? do we handle our iron weapons swiftly within a second like it was a cotton stick?, it takes quite a while for us to be able to lift it and then try to swing that gigantic piece of a weapon.
As for progression, we humans are creatures of love, greed, exploration, thought, but above all of these traits we are an entity that WORKS, we play, we build, we kill, we sweat, but why? We want to move FORWARD, why do we exist?, to become bigger, wiser, faster.
Progression defines us as humans, we feed on it, we breathe it and we even take the lives of our brethen in its name (Sadly).
Progression is needed, levels are needed. But not necessarily in "stats", lets go back to the original definition of level:
Aposition or plane in a graded scale of values; status; rank. An extent, measure, or degree of intensity, achievement.
A level can be the next challenge, not necessarily the number above your head but the puzzle you'll face next, the new villain's lair that you must destroy, some games portray levels as places rather than the power of the individual character (The announcer shouting "Level One Complete...Level Two, Start!").
Progression is POWERFUL, levels (Like in WoW) are merely but one possibility of expressing it.
As "deep" and psuedo-intellectual this thread will become, I do not believe that levels are a "neccessity"..
Progression is one of the biggest reasons we play these games, but that progression does not HAVE to be in levels.. I, for one, HATE tiers in MMO's.. It is basically making the game a "stage" based rail ride (point A to point .. Games where each "tier" has a seperate dedicated map is very immersion breaking for me.. its supposed to be a "WORLD", but each map is basically only inhabitable by certain level players? Levels in no form should be used, it should be stats and/or skills.
No, stats don't always have to require levels to raise. I'm not talking about adding a stat point every certain increment of Xp gained. I'm talking gaining stat through usage of a skill thats tied to a certain stat. it doesn't even have to be number based. it could be a description. You could start off being described (and looking) very wimpy and weak, but enough hacks into a tree with that heavy axe (a random % of improvement for each swing) and eventually you will be described as strong and hearty (not even tied to a hidden number or a certain amount of uses. Could be a progress bar that has min/max thresholds for each "description" all the way up to 100% which could be "God Like Strength")
I may sound confusing but all i'm saying is that I wish companies would get past the tiers and levels.. Making parts of the "world" bacially inaccessible simply because their level isnt high enough is silly. Weapons and armor shouldnt be "level" based but based on your body qualifications (like upper body strength, fatigue and endurance to weild and use.. They should have weight and even help you get stronger through usage if they are heavier than your strength threshold.
MMO's have to take a look at sports. yeah, we see the "good" teams win most of the time BUT is that to say that each team or athelete has a "level"? They have a combination of skills, that when used together and in the right ways, make them really good at what they do. Any athelete or team can be beaten with the right strategy and skill usage. Same should be able to be said with that big mighty level 100 dragon.
Since the OP suggests a level-based system, I guess the real question isn't whether levels are necessary (to which the answer is, "No, but it's the simplest way of describing progression possible, and therefore a well-designed label.")
Is Progression necessary? No, but it's really damn popular. In almost every case, people enjoy the sense that their actions have accumulated permanent value. Having the game verify progression with a formalized system
And of course if the progression system gives you a better sense of actual progression (like, say, if you can't fight monsters in tougher zones) then that drives home the fact further. Which is why most RPGs are designed that way.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well, in the most general view all MMOs have progression, not exclusively levels or skills but could be money, because it is a persistant realm and you continue to aquire more "stuff" as the virtual existance continues.
This thread is full of good ideas/input esp. the info from 7seeker... so I hope nobdy minds if I adapt it to some of my concepts.
The way I see it, levels are only needed if they are the method of progression. Other progressions are possible, for example gear, where "stronger" characters are only so because of what they wear, not their primary class level.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
I think its necessary to start, and get into the game- a bit like Guild Wars they start with an easily attainable level 20 cap. However after that, Everquest had a successful model of 'alternate advancement', and people at the end cap continued playing for alternate advancements which is aka skills pretty much. Of course they add levels ever so often- reason for this is because of the spells, and an excuse for new content. Though perhaps that could be got around.
Progression does not have to be "permanently aquired inidividual physical strenght", even if you do become god, so will others (Players) and you will be back to square 1 only now that the NPCs are smaller and weaker.
Progression in real life isn't aquiring the strenght of 10 men.
Once a player hits a cap of how godly he can really become, progression can also be reflected in the changes that happen in the world according to his actions.
Progression is hard, but if executed correctly it can work in any way you choose.
Comments
Been thinking more about this while at work.
One thing were not taking into consideration is technical limitations. For example take call of duty, i have played the game a lot as a more casual passtime. i have found that i have reached a certain skill level that me and thousands of others are at now.....we dont seem to be able to get any better! why is this? well for one the technical limitations only let my controller respond at a certain rate......i can't get any faster on the firing trigger without using a mod...which is ...well it's cheating!
This works ok in a game where we start from the same spot every time we log in, but how would that work in a progression game...which essentially mmo's mostly are?
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Levels aren't necessary in an MMORPG.
A good example is the older version of SWG. Pre-NGE SWG used to have a Skillpoint / Template System to build your character.
There were several professions that the player could dabble in. You had 250 skillpoints to use in acquiring skillboxes for different stats & equipment certifications within the professions. It was up to you to decide how much of a profession to get (some skills or mastering it).
Successful actions would generate XPs for the profession the action belonged to. If you killed a bunch of stuff with your Blaster Pistol, you got Pistol XPs. Rifles? Rifle XPs. Etc. Even crafting had XP subdivisions within it to count for progression.
The beauty of the Skillpoint / Template System was that it granted the player alot of freedom to build their character, provided you stayed within the constraints of the max of 250 skillpoints.
When playing with other players in Pre-NGE SWG, there was no such thing as level requirements. Just as long as your character had some sort of skill that can be of use to the group. I could be part of a group of max templated player characters and we can take along some newbie pistol / doctor player, who is not so good with a pistol so far but has a decently developed set of medical skills. Or we could take on a Rifleman / Ranger who maxed out Rifles but wants to level up his Ranger skills with us. Groups in that game was usually a good mix of developed and in-progress character builds. There were places you wouldn't go alone, especially with a toon that wasn't fully templated, but otherwise, you were pretty free with where you wanted to go and adventure in.
Edit to add: Forgot to mention something. If you wanted to change to a different build altogether, it was no problem. You could have used the same character. All you had to do was remove skillboxes you spent skillpoints to acquire and return those points to the pool. You then worked towards the proper XPs for the new set of skills / build you wanted. There wasn't as much of a pressing need to roll an alt just to try something new. You could use the same character you've gotten attached to.
Heh, miss those days of MMORPGs...
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
First off, great sig quote... reminds me of one of my favorite quotes of all times:
"They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an
enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can't get away from us now!"
Now to the point of this thread. I first off would like to thank everyone for their opinions, while ALL opinions suck in various ways it is good to get them all out on the floor as only that is the direction towards an informed decision. I humbly post my opinions and observations as follows.
I have only played PnP (A)D&D up through, over the years, the third edition rules. Furthermore, I beta tested and subsequently played the release of UO (had a subscription for about 2 years I believe). Life got quite busy and only allowed me to live vicariously through others in subsequent MMO(RPG) games until the wife and I started playing DAOC. I have since played WoW, Guild Wars, and (currently) LOTRO.
My observations include:
1. Level based systems vary in their usage of 'levels' from full skill systems with unobservable (but internally calculated... think: color systems of other players and baddies) to very strict level systems that along with what seems to be a subsequent class based system (restricted likewise) form a very rigid and predictable character development and playing system.
2. Level systems seem to be the most popular and I have heard they are they easiest to code, balance, and play (at least initially by newbies).
3. following on #2, a business investor can easily argue that a strict level system is thus a win:win in that you have a greater chance of market penetration and perhaps dominance but yet without all that expensive R&D time of innovating a new (or adapting an older but less popular, or perhaps just a PnP system) system, this appeals obviously to any business decision maker
4. Due I suppose to a combination of said market's ease of entrance (learning curve flattening) and adoption, plus that oh so frustrating lack of folks voting with their feet, then it seems obvious as to why strict level based systems are all over the place (that sadly exposes a real problem in free markets today, that of a lack of consumer discipline and restraint)
5. Various differing minor variations exist to overcome the weaknesses of strict level (and strict class) based systems exist (don't get offended... all systems have strengths and weaknesses)
6. Following on #5, if you will let me focus on LOTRO exclusively since I play that currently, there seems to be a "gentlemen's agreement (of silence)" that the market players seem to want to get around the restrictions of strict level and class systems by introducing uber-level monsters. In LOTRO, examples are 'elite', 'signature', 'rare elite' and such that are basically overpowered monsters that are level X. (e.g. 2 - 10 times the hit points plus massive bonuses to offensive and defensive capabilities)
7. My opinion, based on this observation and lurking over the years on game-dev forums, is that the players in this industry are not arguing that a strict level system 'sucks more' than other systems, but can not or will not innovate beyond that.
Oh how I distrust that word, 'Innovate', because it can so easily be thrown out by lawyers and marketers regardless of its actual merit of use.
I don't want to see more games that want to please everyone. I want to see different systems for different tastes and play styles but this will only happen when consumers like us stop being immature and start voting with our dollar/feet. Cookie cutter games will continue to be pumped out with only the story and theme (nouns) being the difference (and of course graphics and other goodies that newer hardware and API's allow).
If makers of ice cream adopted the MMO market's approach to business then we would have about 4 different flavors of ice cream... and yet the market would just blindly accept this.
I DO NOT want a system that tries to please everyone and/or does a whole lot in a sucky way as opposed to doing a few things very well (and that integrate well into larger systems... this is a poor, but common summation of the UNIX system of tools and development strategy btw)
I want each group to have their own game system to play with and real innovation to happen with each new game pumped out. I hear great things about SW:TOR but only time will tell for sure.
----------------
For the record, I am in favor of skill based systems and furthermore enjoy systems without classes. I really don't care if said system has meta-classes and meta-levels. Outside of Ultima, my favorite RPGs of all times are of the Morrowind series by Bethesda, namely 3 and 4. I have NO idea how difficult that would be to implement as an MMO, much less the market that would support such a system, but I can dream!
I operate my own small business and understand the vast risk of innovating and focusing on nich markets as opposed to creating more cookie cutter clones. Yet! I would also be a fool to say... try and build a Facebook competitor unless I have a massively compelling (to investors AND users) reason to do so.
I enjoy a great background 'universe' and story/plot system. Arguably, there is great variance and innovation now and will be to come... and yes I admit most of this is just simply due to legal requirements. LOTRO gets my vote alone for the LOTR 'universe'... Turbine won big with their win-over of the Tolkien family and other IP owners to be able to build on top of this. Sadly, I feel that they put all their 'win' into this and not by focusing on creating and innovative game and gaming experience. YMMV.
If you have read this far, I apologize for punishing you with this dissertation. Please please please... realize that these forums are great, but to really enact change (if you so desire it) or rather just support a market full of differing approaches (systems) where you can pick freely that (those) that which fits your taste... you MUST vote with your feet. The decision makers on design of MMOs care little about opinions unless those opinions translate into $$$. Until we all vote with our feet, then expect more 'please them all' cookie cutter systems that are basically the least common denominator.
Again, this is all my humble opinion!
Levels aren't necessary for an MMORPG.
A skillbased one is a different route. Where successful performance of certain abilities nets you XPs for that kind of skillset.
Let's say your built character is still working on combat skills but during the course of adventuring and with groups, you had medical skills that you got to respectable levels.
There are (were?) games where a lower, over all skilled character can venture with more built up player characters because he/she has useful skills outside of combat. Naturally, it was up to the tougher player characters to keep the heat off the lower skilled healer, and in return, he kept them topped off.
That's just one example.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
MMO's and Levels are not incompatible, i think its only when you get certain aspects that it becomes a problem, PVP orientated games for instance, don't handle levels well at all, as it introduces ludicrous imbalances that make open world PVP overly complicated and often.. one sided. which means you have to limit it to 'instanced' combat that 'over controls' the experience, and makes the point of PVP .. imo at least, totally pointless. I think it really depends on what kind of game play you prefer, i just know that i don't bother with PVP in games with levels.. as its too disapointing.
This soup (Combat) is too hot (Fast), this soup is too cold (Slow), this one is just right.
Is it possible to create a combat system which is in between where the combat is like a river, steadily rushing down the mountain yet it never really gives you the chance to pause?
Twitch based combat moves takes place within a second, turn based is as long as the player desires (5 minutes to think maybe), how do fights in real life play out? do we handle our iron weapons swiftly within a second like it was a cotton stick?, it takes quite a while for us to be able to lift it and then try to swing that gigantic piece of a weapon.
As for progression, we humans are creatures of love, greed, exploration, thought, but above all of these traits we are an entity that WORKS, we play, we build, we kill, we sweat, but why? We want to move FORWARD, why do we exist?, to become bigger, wiser, faster.
Progression defines us as humans, we feed on it, we breathe it and we even take the lives of our brethen in its name (Sadly).
Progression is needed, levels are needed. But not necessarily in "stats", lets go back to the original definition of level:
Aposition or plane in a graded scale of values; status; rank. An extent, measure, or degree of intensity, achievement.
A level can be the next challenge, not necessarily the number above your head but the puzzle you'll face next, the new villain's lair that you must destroy, some games portray levels as places rather than the power of the individual character (The announcer shouting "Level One Complete...Level Two, Start!").
Progression is POWERFUL, levels (Like in WoW) are merely but one possibility of expressing it.
As "deep" and psuedo-intellectual this thread will become, I do not believe that levels are a "neccessity"..
Progression is one of the biggest reasons we play these games, but that progression does not HAVE to be in levels.. I, for one, HATE tiers in MMO's.. It is basically making the game a "stage" based rail ride (point A to point
.. Games where each "tier" has a seperate dedicated map is very immersion breaking for me.. its supposed to be a "WORLD", but each map is basically only inhabitable by certain level players? Levels in no form should be used, it should be stats and/or skills.
No, stats don't always have to require levels to raise. I'm not talking about adding a stat point every certain increment of Xp gained. I'm talking gaining stat through usage of a skill thats tied to a certain stat. it doesn't even have to be number based. it could be a description. You could start off being described (and looking) very wimpy and weak, but enough hacks into a tree with that heavy axe (a random % of improvement for each swing) and eventually you will be described as strong and hearty (not even tied to a hidden number or a certain amount of uses. Could be a progress bar that has min/max thresholds for each "description" all the way up to 100% which could be "God Like Strength")
I may sound confusing but all i'm saying is that I wish companies would get past the tiers and levels.. Making parts of the "world" bacially inaccessible simply because their level isnt high enough is silly. Weapons and armor shouldnt be "level" based but based on your body qualifications (like upper body strength, fatigue and endurance to weild and use.. They should have weight and even help you get stronger through usage if they are heavier than your strength threshold.
MMO's have to take a look at sports. yeah, we see the "good" teams win most of the time BUT is that to say that each team or athelete has a "level"? They have a combination of skills, that when used together and in the right ways, make them really good at what they do. Any athelete or team can be beaten with the right strategy and skill usage. Same should be able to be said with that big mighty level 100 dragon.
Since the OP suggests a level-based system, I guess the real question isn't whether levels are necessary (to which the answer is, "No, but it's the simplest way of describing progression possible, and therefore a well-designed label.")
Is Progression necessary? No, but it's really damn popular. In almost every case, people enjoy the sense that their actions have accumulated permanent value. Having the game verify progression with a formalized system
And of course if the progression system gives you a better sense of actual progression (like, say, if you can't fight monsters in tougher zones) then that drives home the fact further. Which is why most RPGs are designed that way.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well, in the most general view all MMOs have progression, not exclusively levels or skills but could be money, because it is a persistant realm and you continue to aquire more "stuff" as the virtual existance continues.
This thread is full of good ideas/input esp. the info from 7seeker... so I hope nobdy minds if I adapt it to some of my concepts.
The way I see it, levels are only needed if they are the method of progression. Other progressions are possible, for example gear, where "stronger" characters are only so because of what they wear, not their primary class level.
I think its necessary to start, and get into the game- a bit like Guild Wars they start with an easily attainable level 20 cap. However after that, Everquest had a successful model of 'alternate advancement', and people at the end cap continued playing for alternate advancements which is aka skills pretty much. Of course they add levels ever so often- reason for this is because of the spells, and an excuse for new content. Though perhaps that could be got around.
Progression does not have to be "permanently aquired inidividual physical strenght", even if you do become god, so will others (Players) and you will be back to square 1 only now that the NPCs are smaller and weaker.
Progression in real life isn't aquiring the strenght of 10 men.
Once a player hits a cap of how godly he can really become, progression can also be reflected in the changes that happen in the world according to his actions.
Progression is hard, but if executed correctly it can work in any way you choose.