Content has to scale to your level to make it challenging and to allow you wander wherever you want to go.
Each player or group would have to have their own instanced world to play in for this to work.
Content doesn't in itself needs to scale to make a game challenging, that's the easy/common route to design. But it's done as games usually revolve by some progression means to feel like it's progression. EvE doesn't have levels, it uses skills as a measure of progression. Just like a crafting MMO can use titles as a means to show progression (e.g., Apprentice>Journeyman>Expert>Master>Grandmaster).
Games that still use environment gating via levels are behind the times, because challenge can also be more than creature/NPC levels. It can be skill based; feat based; attunement; even a rare key find, to open an area of exploration that's walled off. I love adventuring in the very dangerous zones as a lowbie to find the highest mountains to climb (I bypassed the story lines in Skyrim, to just do that as fun), not wait for the highest level so the mobs would scale to my level. That's not fun to me, nor a challenge.
The whole concept of horizontal progression is an illusion that's been perpetuated so much since GW2 that I'm sick of hearing about it.
Progression, as a concept, means you get BETTER - you EVOLVE. That doesn't happen with horizontal progression.
Telling people that they're progressing when they are, in fact, stagnating - is only going to work for a limited time.
Oh, there will always be a few people who might spend years realising this simple truth - but the majority will eventually realise that horizontal progression isn't that much fun - and that they've been duped into believing that evolution without evolution can actually happen.
GW2 doesn't have horizontal progression. It has vertical progression. The skills you use don't even matter. All that matters are the stats that make the skills stronger. And that's progressed through your gear. You can throw a million skills in a system and call it horizontal all you want. But if the skills only respond to the fact that you have larger stats that grow over time for one reason or another.... that's a vertical progression system.
This is D&D all over again. The only difference is that the base power is in your stats that you control, and not the gear or the spell. The spell is powerless without the stat. The attack is powerless without the stat. In MMO's, the developer controls the stats with the gear, instead of putting the option in your own hands. This is for balance purposes. It's the same thing all day long, and this is exactly what GW2 does.
Horizontal progression gives you the ability to choose between left, right, up, and down, instead of being made to go left. It gives you an even more sense of option than a predefined pattern of vertical progression - which REQUIRES an illusion to work in the first place.
Plenty of great games have been made with a horizontal progression system. The Legend of Zelda is one of them. Both are great systems to build a game with. But I think an MMO would prosper better with a horizontal progression approach. And just because ArenaNet says they have horizontal progression... doesn't mean they actually do. In fact... I don't even know how that is even a factor.
Are you agreeing with me on purpose, or is it that you have to be the "smart" one?
Any kind of actual progression is vertical - and there's no way to provide balanced "horizontally oriented" skills without making them identical. This means that one skill WILL be better than another for a specific purpose. So, a new skill is going to be vertical. Up for better and down for worse. There is no "the same" - it's an illusion.
However, GW2 provides a ton of what developers call horizontal progression - which includes weapon and armor skins.
Now, I wouldn't call that progression - because it's not - but they managed to sell the players on the concept.
The entire concept is an illusion - or a dream if you prefer.
It might work in theory - but since math is driving everything in the end, it can never work in practice.
Okay, let's look at this like we're 5th graders.
In a standard grid - you have an X axis and a Y axis. They are both numbered 1-5.
If you start at zero and move up one spot - that is called vertical progression. You are now at 1. If you move again, you would be at 2. This is called progression.
If you go back to zero, and move to the right one spot - that is called horizontal progression. Hey, look at that - you're at 1 again. If you go one more spot, you're at 2. This is called progression.
What do you know? Progression exists in both axes. The difference is in what these measurements provide value for. You need to think more abstractly in order to understand horizontal progression. Yeah, yeah, I know - an illusion. The difference is abstract things become realities all the time. Everything starts as an abstract - an idea. All things that exist were first an idea. This is no different.
You're problem is that your looking at the MMO as it currently is, and attributing those qualities it presents, as if they translate exactly the same way in a horizontal progression game.
The whole design would have to change to accommodate the progression system. What - did you think leveling up existed in a vacuum - that it really didn't affect every design decision about the game? MANY games have gone under ENORMOUS amounts of redesign based on this one thing alone: How does the player "level up"?
Legend of Zelda lets you level up by finding new relics to use in the world. Chrono Trigger gives you stat progression and powers affect by it. Both are great games. Both are gaming classics. No one is arguing that vertical progression sucks. All I'm saying is horizontal progression, which exists whether you can understand it or not, would be better suited for an MMO.
Yes, I know there's a horizontal direction on a grid, but that's not power progression. Progression is about power, nothing more, nothing less.
You know I'm right.
Whether you attain that power by finding a relic or gaining a level, it's still power progression.
That's what people want - that's what's fun.
People don't want to stagnate in terms of power. It's human nature to grow and evolve - and there's absolutely no way around it.
Saying horizontal progression exists is not enough, you have to prove that it exists - and you can't, because progression is vertical by nature. It can never be horizontal.
I'm sorry, but that's really all there is to it.
Unfortunate? No, not really. I don't mind vertical progression. I mind the grind, the repetition, the tedium. But I enjoy evolving in my roleplaying games. I enjoy progression.
There's nothing wrong with it.
Lol.. dude... I never said anything was wrong with it in the first place.
Explain to me how learning to draw, and then learning to write, and then learning to sing, and then learning to play basketball, and then learning to swim, and then learning to speak to an audience, and then learning to do back flips, and then learning to climb a mountain, and then learning to climb a mountain without ropes, and then learning to fly a plane, and then learning to play the piano, and then learning to build a computer, and then learning to program it, and then learning to ride a bike, and then learning to play chess, and then learning to sell cars, and then learning to do a million other things that are different but in some respect equally valuable in some manner or another is stagnating in life? Even if you suck at all of it... you still have that experience of doing it - and that's a great experience to have!
No one ever said vertical progression was bad and pointless. You aren't listening. But on that, I would never argue that people only want to be better at one thing all the time - constant vertical progression. People who are like that are very closed-minded people who typically have only one care in the world - themselves. Which... kind of explains why you think you're absolutely correct about this. And no... you aren't.
Variety is the spice of life. You don't get variety through vertical power. Is it awesome to achieve a master status in one thing? Absolutely. But its also awesome to experience all this other stuff in one life time? You better believe it is. If you don't agree... well, you simply haven't lived, my friend.
The problem with MMO's is the vertical progression far outweighs the horizontal progression... and people are bored with that. The playing field needs to be leveled more, and I argue that it needs more horizontal progression than vertical progression. An MMO will always have a peak level of power you can achieve. For an MMO, this is bad, because it means end-game. But, it could literally have an infinite number of things to achieve it in. THAT's what people want.
Levels are a balance gate, so you can control when power is unlocked, otherwise why would you ever get a lesser skill might as well always get the best.
From what i see your player has 50 levels, but everything else also levels to 50, so there is a lot you can do even after you cap out. Which is basically how the every elder scrolls game works.
As for the zone levels..no elder scrolls has this feature, in single player elder scrolls game everything just levels with you.
Actually, Daggerfall and Morrowind were static leveled games. Oblivion was completely dynamic leveled, and there were no zones (until you modded it with what were considered -essential- overhauls.) Skyrim introduced and solidified the system of Encounter Zones that were developed with Fallout 3. Most NPCs leveled with you, but Encounter Zones did have minimum levels, and occasionally maximum levels. A shitty system, if I do say so myself. It's not a coincidence most people consider Morrowind to have the best gameplay of the series.
The whole concept of horizontal progression is an illusion that's been perpetuated so much since GW2 that I'm sick of hearing about it.
Progression, as a concept, means you get BETTER - you EVOLVE. That doesn't happen with horizontal progression.
Telling people that they're progressing when they are, in fact, stagnating - is only going to work for a limited time.
Oh, there will always be a few people who might spend years realising this simple truth - but the majority will eventually realise that horizontal progression isn't that much fun - and that they've been duped into believing that evolution without evolution can actually happen.
GW2 doesn't have horizontal progression. It has vertical progression. The skills you use don't even matter. All that matters are the stats that make the skills stronger. And that's progressed through your gear. You can throw a million skills in a system and call it horizontal all you want. But if the skills only respond to the fact that you have larger stats that grow over time for one reason or another.... that's a vertical progression system.
This is D&D all over again. The only difference is that the base power is in your stats that you control, and not the gear or the spell. The spell is powerless without the stat. The attack is powerless without the stat. In MMO's, the developer controls the stats with the gear, instead of putting the option in your own hands. This is for balance purposes. It's the same thing all day long, and this is exactly what GW2 does.
Horizontal progression gives you the ability to choose between left, right, up, and down, instead of being made to go left. It gives you an even more sense of option than a predefined pattern of vertical progression - which REQUIRES an illusion to work in the first place.
Plenty of great games have been made with a horizontal progression system. The Legend of Zelda is one of them. Both are great systems to build a game with. But I think an MMO would prosper better with a horizontal progression approach. And just because ArenaNet says they have horizontal progression... doesn't mean they actually do. In fact... I don't even know how that is even a factor.
Are you agreeing with me on purpose, or is it that you have to be the "smart" one?
Any kind of actual progression is vertical - and there's no way to provide balanced "horizontally oriented" skills without making them identical. This means that one skill WILL be better than another for a specific purpose. So, a new skill is going to be vertical. Up for better and down for worse. There is no "the same" - it's an illusion.
However, GW2 provides a ton of what developers call horizontal progression - which includes weapon and armor skins.
Now, I wouldn't call that progression - because it's not - but they managed to sell the players on the concept.
The entire concept is an illusion - or a dream if you prefer.
It might work in theory - but since math is driving everything in the end, it can never work in practice.
Okay, let's look at this like we're 5th graders.
In a standard grid - you have an X axis and a Y axis. They are both numbered 1-5.
If you start at zero and move up one spot - that is called vertical progression. You are now at 1. If you move again, you would be at 2. This is called progression.
If you go back to zero, and move to the right one spot - that is called horizontal progression. Hey, look at that - you're at 1 again. If you go one more spot, you're at 2. This is called progression.
What do you know? Progression exists in both axes. The difference is in what these measurements provide value for. You need to think more abstractly in order to understand horizontal progression. Yeah, yeah, I know - an illusion. The difference is abstract things become realities all the time. Everything starts as an abstract - an idea. All things that exist were first an idea. This is no different.
You're problem is that your looking at the MMO as it currently is, and attributing those qualities it presents, as if they translate exactly the same way in a horizontal progression game.
The whole design would have to change to accommodate the progression system. What - did you think leveling up existed in a vacuum - that it really didn't affect every design decision about the game? MANY games have gone under ENORMOUS amounts of redesign based on this one thing alone: How does the player "level up"?
Legend of Zelda lets you level up by finding new relics to use in the world. Chrono Trigger gives you stat progression and powers affect by it. Both are great games. Both are gaming classics. No one is arguing that vertical progression sucks. All I'm saying is horizontal progression, which exists whether you can understand it or not, would be better suited for an MMO.
Yes, I know there's a horizontal direction on a grid, but that's not power progression. Progression is about power, nothing more, nothing less.
You know I'm right.
Whether you attain that power by finding a relic or gaining a level, it's still power progression.
That's what people want - that's what's fun.
People don't want to stagnate in terms of power. It's human nature to grow and evolve - and there's absolutely no way around it.
Saying horizontal progression exists is not enough, you have to prove that it exists - and you can't, because progression is vertical by nature. It can never be horizontal.
I'm sorry, but that's really all there is to it.
Unfortunate? No, not really. I don't mind vertical progression. I mind the grind, the repetition, the tedium. But I enjoy evolving in my roleplaying games. I enjoy progression.
There's nothing wrong with it.
Lol.. dude... I never said anything was wrong with it in the first place.
Explain to me how learning to draw, and then learning to write, and then learning to sing, and then learning to play basketball, and then learning to swim, and then learning to speak to an audience, and then learning to do back flips, and then learning to climb a mountain, and then learning to climb a mountain without ropes, and then learning to fly a plane, and then learning to play the piano, and then learning to build a computer, and then learning to program it, and then learning to ride a bike, and then learning to play chess, and then learning to sell cars, and then learning to do a million other things that are different but in some respect equally valuable in some manner or another is stagnating in life? Even if you suck at all of it... you still have that experience of doing it - and that's a great experience to have!
No one ever said vertical progression was bad and pointless. You aren't listening. But on that, I would never argue that people only want to be better at one thing all the time - constant vertical progression. People who are like that are very closed-minded people who typically have only one care in the world - themselves. Which... kind of explains why you think you're absolutely correct about this. And no... you aren't.
Variety is the spice of life. You don't get variety through vertical power. Is it awesome to achieve a master status in one thing? Absolutely. But its also awesome to experience all this other stuff in one life time? You better believe it is. If you don't agree... well, you simply haven't lived, my friend.
The problem with MMO's is the vertical progression far outweighs the horizontal progression... and people are bored with that. The playing field needs to be leveled more, and I argue that it needs more horizontal progression than vertical progression. An MMO will always have a peak level of power you can achieve. For an MMO, this is bad, because it means end-game. But, it could literally have an infinite number of things to achieve it in. THAT's what people want.
You're talking about real life - where learning a skill will give you something in return that's actually useful.
In a computer game - and I hope you understand that this is about computer games - you don't get anything useful back from something that doesn't give you an advantage of some sort.
Well, it might - but that won't be progression. Then we're back to skins and christmas gifts. You can call that diversity and distraction if you want - but it's not progression. You could call it a gameplay HORIZON - but don't call it progression.
I'm not saying games shouldn't have variety - and I love stuff like housing and fishing.
But if you take progression OUT of your computer game, you're left with a terribly inferior version of real life.
People don't want that - they want a power fantasy when they're playing a game. Distraction and diversity have their place - but they can't represent progression.
I'm not saying progression is everything. I'm saying progression is vertical.
Levels are a balance gate, so you can control when power is unlocked, otherwise why would you ever get a lesser skill might as well always get the best.
From what i see your player has 50 levels, but everything else also levels to 50, so there is a lot you can do even after you cap out. Which is basically how the every elder scrolls game works.
As for the zone levels..no elder scrolls has this feature, in single player elder scrolls game everything just levels with you.
Actually, Daggerfall and Morrowind were static leveled games. Oblivion was completely dynamic leveled, and there were no zones (until you modded it with what were considered -essential- overhauls.) Skyrim introduced and solidified the system of Encounter Zones that were developed with Fallout 3. Most NPCs leveled with you, but Encounter Zones did have minimum levels, and occasionally maximum levels. A shitty system, if I do say so myself. It's not a coincidence most people consider Morrowind to have the best gameplay of the series.
Morrowind is considered the best gameplay, not because of level locking. Actually, I'd argue it had nothing to do with this. It was considered the best because there were a million ways to approach any problem in the game. People were able to use their imagination without feeling like they were limited to certain methods. Unlike Skyrim that while it offered a lot of options... you could simply take one look and already know that feeling of doing anything isn't an option. But for myself... it did a lot of things really well that I was okay with the compromise. Ehh... you win some, you lose some.
Anyway, they changed the way the world works in regards to your level because of Radiant AI. This means that everyone maintained a life cycle where they actually did different normal things throughout the day. They might also have a script that made them travel cross-country depending on what time of month it was. Oblivion introduced this and Fallout 3 used it as well - so did Skyrim. They made the game level up with you, because it showed that the world was constantly changing. It's debatable whether or not it was pulled off to great affect... but the idea is sound.
Skyrim introduced the idea that some of the NPC's couldn't be killed. This is because with Radiant AI... people died sometimes without you being there to help them. This was sometimes a huge problem because it could have potentially locked you out of continuing in a quest. This is a big no-no in game design. It's one thing if YOU fail it. It's another thing for the game to do it at random, and you can't continue.
Morrowind did a lot of things right... but the subsequent games did a lot of things right too. And they also made a lot of improvements. The reason Morrowind was beloved, though, was because of the unparalleled number of options at your disposal at any point in the game.
In response to the OP: I wouldn't be against a level-less system in a game that was built from the ground up for it. ESO is not that game. It takes a total sandbox to pull that off, and preferably one with a hardcore death system or something to really flesh it out. Basically, when you cut out levels, you cut out a huge swathe of standard character development, which either needs to be replaced, or it can be left off if the intent is to allow players to bounce back into the game after serious loss of death, thereby creating meaning for that lost progression avenue. Otherwise there's really no reason to not have that progression.
Now in some games levels are a bigger bane than others. Particularly games where they have hard modifiers to stats when attacking/defending against enemies that are of different level. Like in Sw:TOR, or Borderlands, every level above a creature you get ridiculous bonuses vs it, and likewise if they're above you. This is lame. Take WoW, for instance. Even if you have 150 level 40s bashing on a max level toon, they will never kill that single player because of how broken the scale of power is (and the miss chance/glancing blow bullshit.)
I didn't see that in Elder Scrolls, however. I was running around in areas with monsters more than 50% of my level (and could even take them one at a time until I ran into a named boss mob that was 7 levels higher than me.) This is because ESO has a linear progression. I had about 250 base HP without any investment, and a max level character would have about 1000. By purely numbers, that puts a max level character at ~4x the strength of a level 12 character, in one stat. Obviously this is multiplied when you figure the rest of the stats. But once you factor in crowd control, you could actually kill a max level ESO character (assuming they're not immune to cc) with a small squad (6 or so) level 10 players getting the jump on them. Now as far as I'm concerned, that's pretty awesome. This is doable thanks to CC and moves like puncture or mark target which could reduce the targets armor to nothing. But let's say they're at a more realistic disparity in level -- 10 levels. The differences between the characters would not be so much that one 50 could smash two 40s.
For this reason, levels in ESO already are not nearly as big a deal as other MMOs (for the better, imo.) I don't see any reason to do away with them altogether, however, as there is nothing that would benefit from the removal aside from a loss of progression and customization. The game would lose far too many themepark enthusiasts simply because of how they identify with levels.
This is going to be a first so might want to remember this time exposed. But I actually kind of agree with you. Would definitely make the game more Elder Scrolls like.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Each player or group would have to have their own instanced world to play in for this to work.
You do realize that ESO has this technology and already does this (gives every player their own instanced world to play in).
I'm not agreeing that it should all scale to players, just pointing out that the actual technology already exists and is being used in ESO. (As it stands, every played has their own instances world to play in with regards to questing - different players see different things).
True but it wouldn't be an mmo any more. It would be a co-op rpg.
You wouldn't be able to have mobs in the open world. If a level 50 and level 10 were in the same zone. The level 50 mobs that scaled to the level 50 player would kill the level 10 player.
Edit: This might work at launch but the world would extremely desolate for players who started after.
Neverwinter does this with it's PvE themed events and I think most MMO's that offer some sort of early opt in to PvP areas like GW2 do this as well. Not extremely out of the ordinary for a future company to take this one step further and scale everything to the same level and progression is based on skills and resource management.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
That's the main reason I'm not even considering playing it. I couldn't stomach another level-gated treadmill to the "endgame." I'm so jaded of this tired old rpg-trope I'm getting queasy just thinking about it. Isn't it nigh time someone started looking at something other than D&D as the basis for their MMORPG?
And if ESO world scales with you at lvl 50 then why the hell all those first 49 levels? Let's just start at 50 and be done with it. Elaborate arcane systems woven to cover a rotten core. If the "game begins at endgame" then why the hell doesn't it actually begin at endgame? I really can't see myself taking more than one character (if that) through 49 levels of so-called journey just so I can start playing the game proper.
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
Looking at that post and your last sentence is kinda amusing.
I'm the one making it overly complicated? Ok
Yes, a soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A better soldier is a more powerful soldier. Giving him a power that's better in a specific situation makes him more powerful - which is vertical progression.
It's really very simple. Once again - if you give something that makes them more powerful - you're giving them VERTICAL progression. ALL progression is vertical.
If you add fishing to an MMO - that's not giving a player PROGRESSION. That's adding to the gameplay HORIZON. However, WITHIN that specific activity - you can have PROGRESSION - as in the player can get BETTER at fishing. As in, he's going to be better at fishing than someone who hasn't progressed.
Progression is becoming BETTER - moving FORWARD - it's becoming more POWERFUL.
"True" horizontal progression is an ILLUSION - because it would mean giving players powers that are each identical in power - which CAN NOT HAPPEN in a world controlled by binary numbers and math.
If something was truly identical - it wouldn't represent any kind of progression, horizontal or otherwise.
I think we're going in circles, at this point - don't you?
By all means, if you consider fishing and housing progression - then that's fine - I don't.
If you think giving a player more powers is not vertical progression (MORE powerful because of more choice) - fine, I don't.
HOWEVER:
We essentially agree. MMOs need a wider gameplay horizon. They don't need horizontal progression - because it doesn't exist.
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
Looking at that post and your last sentence is kinda amusing.
I'm the one making it overly complicated? Ok
Yes, a soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A better soldier is a more powerful soldier. Giving him a power that's better in a specific situation makes him more powerful - which is vertical progression.
It's really very simple. Once again - if you give something that makes them more powerful - you're giving them VERTICAL progression. ALL progression is vertical.
If you add fishing to an MMO - that's not giving a player PROGRESSION. That's adding to the gameplay HORIZON. However, WITHIN that specific activity - you can have PROGRESSION - as in the player can get BETTER at fishing. As in, he's going to be better at fishing than someone who hasn't progressed.
Progression is becoming BETTER - moving FORWARD - it's becoming more POWERFUL.
"True" horizontal progression is an ILLUSION - because it would mean giving players powers that are each identical in power - which CAN NOT HAPPEN in a world controlled by binary numbers and math.
If something was truly identical - it wouldn't represent any kind of progression, horizontal or otherwise.
I think we're going in circles, at this point - don't you?
By all means, if you consider fishing and housing progression - then that's fine - I don't.
If you think giving a player more powers is not vertical progression (MORE powerful because of more choice) - fine, I don't.
HOWEVER:
We essentially agree. MMOs need a wider gameplay horizon. They don't need horizontal progression - because it doesn't exist.
You're obviously not going to get this. I've given you the clear definitions and I've explained this as simply as I possibly can.
If horizontal progression doesn't exist... then neither would vertical progression. It would just be... progress. We divide this concept into categories for a reason. They are words used to describe how the progress is made in a conceptual expression. They are adjectives - they give meaning and more clarity to the noun. These are standard industry terms. You saying "horizontal progression" doesn't exist is like saying the word "horizontal" doesn't exist. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
What the hell is gameplay horizon? I'm 31 years old. I've been playing video games since I was 5 years old. My first game ever was Super Mario Brothers on the NES. The second game I ever played was Tiger Heli. I have never, not one time, in all my life, heard the term "gameplay horizon." Seriously dude... are you just making this crap up as you go?
It doesn't matter what you "think". It matters what is. You're telling me what you personally consider to be true, and I'm telling you what actually IS true.
And no - we obviously don't agree. I don't even know what the hell gameplay horizon is, and you insist that horizontal progression doesn't exist. You are obviously processing information in an imaginary domain of language.
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
Looking at that post and your last sentence is kinda amusing.
I'm the one making it overly complicated? Ok
Yes, a soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A better soldier is a more powerful soldier. Giving him a power that's better in a specific situation makes him more powerful - which is vertical progression.
It's really very simple. Once again - if you give something that makes them more powerful - you're giving them VERTICAL progression. ALL progression is vertical.
If you add fishing to an MMO - that's not giving a player PROGRESSION. That's adding to the gameplay HORIZON. However, WITHIN that specific activity - you can have PROGRESSION - as in the player can get BETTER at fishing. As in, he's going to be better at fishing than someone who hasn't progressed.
Progression is becoming BETTER - moving FORWARD - it's becoming more POWERFUL.
"True" horizontal progression is an ILLUSION - because it would mean giving players powers that are each identical in power - which CAN NOT HAPPEN in a world controlled by binary numbers and math.
If something was truly identical - it wouldn't represent any kind of progression, horizontal or otherwise.
I think we're going in circles, at this point - don't you?
By all means, if you consider fishing and housing progression - then that's fine - I don't.
If you think giving a player more powers is not vertical progression (MORE powerful because of more choice) - fine, I don't.
HOWEVER:
We essentially agree. MMOs need a wider gameplay horizon. They don't need horizontal progression - because it doesn't exist.
You're obviously not going to get this. I've given you the clear definitions and I've explained this as simply as I possibly can.
If horizontal progression doesn't exist... then neither would vertical progression. It would just be... progress. We divide this concept into categories for a reason. They are words used to describe how the progress is made in a conceptual expression. They are adjectives - they give meaning and more clarity to the noun. These are standard industry terms. You saying "horizontal progression" doesn't exist is like saying the word "horizontal" doesn't exist. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
What the hell is gameplay horizon? I'm 31 years old. I've been playing video games since I was 5 years old. My first game ever was Super Mario Brothers on the NES. The second game I ever played was Tiger Heli. I have never, not one time, in all my life, heard the term "gameplay horizon." Seriously dude... are you just making this crap up as you go?
It doesn't matter what you "think". It matters what is. You're telling me what you personally consider to be true, and I'm telling you what actually IS true.
We're done here, I think. I know I am.
I'm 37 years old and my first game was a horse racing game with letters representing horses on the ZX-81 - so do I win the prize or what?
Yes, we have opinions - and I'm giving you mine and I'm using rational arguments to support it.
I'm not going to agree with you unil what you're saying makes sense.
As for "gameplay horizon" those are two words I assume you understand. I assume you understand what gameplay is and what a horizon is.
A horizon is what you look towards - and in this case, it's about how many options you have as a gamer. The wider the horizon - the more options.
That's not power and it's not progression, however.
As for you telling me what is "true" - are you seriously telling yourself that represents a convincing argument? Because then you'll be very, very disappointed.
I don't let others dictate truth, sorry.
If you can't rationalise your point - you will fail to convince.
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
Looking at that post and your last sentence is kinda amusing.
I'm the one making it overly complicated? Ok
Yes, a soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A better soldier is a more powerful soldier. Giving him a power that's better in a specific situation makes him more powerful - which is vertical progression.
It's really very simple. Once again - if you give something that makes them more powerful - you're giving them VERTICAL progression. ALL progression is vertical.
If you add fishing to an MMO - that's not giving a player PROGRESSION. That's adding to the gameplay HORIZON. However, WITHIN that specific activity - you can have PROGRESSION - as in the player can get BETTER at fishing. As in, he's going to be better at fishing than someone who hasn't progressed.
Progression is becoming BETTER - moving FORWARD - it's becoming more POWERFUL.
"True" horizontal progression is an ILLUSION - because it would mean giving players powers that are each identical in power - which CAN NOT HAPPEN in a world controlled by binary numbers and math.
If something was truly identical - it wouldn't represent any kind of progression, horizontal or otherwise.
I think we're going in circles, at this point - don't you?
By all means, if you consider fishing and housing progression - then that's fine - I don't.
If you think giving a player more powers is not vertical progression (MORE powerful because of more choice) - fine, I don't.
HOWEVER:
We essentially agree. MMOs need a wider gameplay horizon. They don't need horizontal progression - because it doesn't exist.
You're obviously not going to get this. I've given you the clear definitions and I've explained this as simply as I possibly can.
If horizontal progression doesn't exist... then neither would vertical progression. It would just be... progress. We divide this concept into categories for a reason. They are words used to describe how the progress is made in a conceptual expression. They are adjectives - they give meaning and more clarity to the noun. These are standard industry terms. You saying "horizontal progression" doesn't exist is like saying the word "horizontal" doesn't exist. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
What the hell is gameplay horizon? I'm 31 years old. I've been playing video games since I was 5 years old. My first game ever was Super Mario Brothers on the NES. The second game I ever played was Tiger Heli. I have never, not one time, in all my life, heard the term "gameplay horizon." Seriously dude... are you just making this crap up as you go?
It doesn't matter what you "think". It matters what is. You're telling me what you personally consider to be true, and I'm telling you what actually IS true.
We're done here, I think. I know I am.
I'm 37 years old and my first game was a horse racing game with letters representing horses on the ZX-81 - so do I win the prize or what?
Yes, we have opinions - and I'm giving you mine and I'm using rational arguments to support it.
I'm not going to agree with you unil what you're saying makes sense.
As for "gameplay horizon" those are two words I assume you understand. I assume you understand what gameplay is and what a horizon is.
A horizon is what you look towards - and in this case, it's about how many options you have as a gamer. The wider the horizon - the more options.
That's not power and it's not progression, however.
As for you telling me what is "true" - are you seriously telling yourself that represents a convincing argument? Because then you'll be very, very disappointed.
I don't let others dictate truth, sorry.
If you can't rationalise your point - you will fail to convince.
Okay. Congratulations on being 37!
My point in saying my age wasn't to win a pissing contest. My point was to illustrate that in 26 years of being involved in the industry in one form or another, I have never heard a game developer, publisher, marketer, no one, use the term "gameplay horizon" to describe anything about a game or a concept within the game. When the gaming industry absorbs this as a common concept that professionals use as a standard for conveying a specific element within a game... then I'll accept this as a term from you. Unfortunately... they don't use this term as far as I am aware, and 26 years is a long time to go without ever hearing it, especially when you stay current on this industry like I do.
Because of this, I have to assume you're just making it up in your own domain of language processing. My issue with it is that no one else on this earth uses that process. They use another process. This process is called a standard. Horizontal Progression is a standard within that process. Gameplay Horizon is not.
Yes, I understand what the words mean when they are apart. What I don't understand is how you put these two words together and expect me to come to the conclusion that what I am talking about... is actually that, when what I am talking about is actually what I called it, justified by the fact that what I called it is an industry standard term. I don't understand gameplay horizon, because unlike Horizontal Progression... gameplay horizon isn't an actual term used within the industry.
I'm not rationalizing anything to you. It's already been rationalized by the industry that coined the term. I'm using the term properly to explain an idea about what I think MMO's need more of. I used the term Horizontal Progression, knowing what it meant, and assuming others knew what it meant, since it's an industry standard term that means exactly how I am using it in my explanation.
I bet you're going to tell me that "volumetric fog" and "dynamic lighting" don't exist, next. Instead, what they actually are is "cloudy mass of game mystery" and "bright exclamation mark of simulated vision."
- My opinion was about how the industry standard term "Horizontal Progression" should be applied in an MMO. Your opinion is that "Horizontal Progression" doesn't actually exist.
- I gave you the definitions to the industry standard term Horizontal Progression, and explained how they make sense according to those REAL dictionary definitions. You gave me a made up term that no one has ever heard of before, by applying your own interpretation of the definitions to the words that make up that term.
- My use of the industry standard term Horizontal Progression is not an opinion. The idea to better utilize the concept within the MMO is. Your opinion is that I am wrong because the industry standard term Horizontal Progression doesn't actually exist... it's actually a made up word gameplay horizon.
- And your final claim is that you are more rational with your conclusion.
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
Looking at that post and your last sentence is kinda amusing.
I'm the one making it overly complicated? Ok
Yes, a soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A better soldier is a more powerful soldier. Giving him a power that's better in a specific situation makes him more powerful - which is vertical progression.
It's really very simple. Once again - if you give something that makes them more powerful - you're giving them VERTICAL progression. ALL progression is vertical.
If you add fishing to an MMO - that's not giving a player PROGRESSION. That's adding to the gameplay HORIZON. However, WITHIN that specific activity - you can have PROGRESSION - as in the player can get BETTER at fishing. As in, he's going to be better at fishing than someone who hasn't progressed.
Progression is becoming BETTER - moving FORWARD - it's becoming more POWERFUL.
"True" horizontal progression is an ILLUSION - because it would mean giving players powers that are each identical in power - which CAN NOT HAPPEN in a world controlled by binary numbers and math.
If something was truly identical - it wouldn't represent any kind of progression, horizontal or otherwise.
I think we're going in circles, at this point - don't you?
By all means, if you consider fishing and housing progression - then that's fine - I don't.
If you think giving a player more powers is not vertical progression (MORE powerful because of more choice) - fine, I don't.
HOWEVER:
We essentially agree. MMOs need a wider gameplay horizon. They don't need horizontal progression - because it doesn't exist.
You're obviously not going to get this. I've given you the clear definitions and I've explained this as simply as I possibly can.
If horizontal progression doesn't exist... then neither would vertical progression. It would just be... progress. We divide this concept into categories for a reason. They are words used to describe how the progress is made in a conceptual expression. They are adjectives - they give meaning and more clarity to the noun. These are standard industry terms. You saying "horizontal progression" doesn't exist is like saying the word "horizontal" doesn't exist. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
What the hell is gameplay horizon? I'm 31 years old. I've been playing video games since I was 5 years old. My first game ever was Super Mario Brothers on the NES. The second game I ever played was Tiger Heli. I have never, not one time, in all my life, heard the term "gameplay horizon." Seriously dude... are you just making this crap up as you go?
It doesn't matter what you "think". It matters what is. You're telling me what you personally consider to be true, and I'm telling you what actually IS true.
We're done here, I think. I know I am.
I'm 37 years old and my first game was a horse racing game with letters representing horses on the ZX-81 - so do I win the prize or what?
Yes, we have opinions - and I'm giving you mine and I'm using rational arguments to support it.
I'm not going to agree with you unil what you're saying makes sense.
As for "gameplay horizon" those are two words I assume you understand. I assume you understand what gameplay is and what a horizon is.
A horizon is what you look towards - and in this case, it's about how many options you have as a gamer. The wider the horizon - the more options.
That's not power and it's not progression, however.
As for you telling me what is "true" - are you seriously telling yourself that represents a convincing argument? Because then you'll be very, very disappointed.
I don't let others dictate truth, sorry.
If you can't rationalise your point - you will fail to convince.
Okay. Congratulations on being 37!
My point in saying my age wasn't to win a pissing contest. My point was to illustrate that in 26 years of being involved in the industry in one form or another, I have never heard a game developer, publisher, marketer, no one, use the term "gameplay horizon" to describe anything about a game or a concept within the game. When the gaming industry absorbs this as a common concept that professionals use as a standard for conveying a specific element within a game... then I'll accept this as a term from you. Unfortunately... they don't use this term as far as I am aware, and 26 years is a long time to go without ever hearing it, especially when you stay current on this industry like I do.
Because of this, I have to assume you're just making it up in your own domain of language processing. My issue with it is that no one else on this earth uses that process. They use another process. This process is called a standard. Horizontal Progression is a standard within that process. Gameplay Horizon is not.
Yes, I understand what the words mean when they are apart. What I don't understand is how you put these two words together and expect me to come to the conclusion that what I am talking about... is actually that, when what I am talking about is actually what I called it, justified by the fact that what I called it is an industry standard term. I don't understand gameplay horizon, because unlike Horizontal Progression... gameplay horizon isn't an actual term used within the industry.
I'm not rationalizing anything to you. It's already been rationalized by the industry that coined the term. I'm using the term properly to explain an idea about what I think MMO's need more of. I used the term Horizontal Progression, knowing what it meant, and assuming others knew what it meant, since it's an industry standard term that means exactly how I am using it in my explanation.
I bet you're going to tell me that "volumetric fog" and "dynamic lighting" don't exist, next. Instead, what they actually are is "cloudy mass of game mystery" and "bright exclamation mark of simulated vision."
- My opinion was about how the industry standard term "Horizontal Progression" should be applied in an MMO. Your opinion is that "Horizontal Progression" doesn't actually exist.
- I gave you the definitions to the industry standard term Horizontal Progression, and explained how they make sense according to those REAL dictionary definitions. You gave me a made up term that no one has ever heard of before, by applying your own interpretation of the definitions to the words that make up that term.
- My use of the industry standard term Horizontal Progression is not an opinion. The idea to better utilize the concept within the MMO is. Your opinion is that I am wrong because the industry standard term Horizontal Progression doesn't actually exist... it's actually a made up word gameplay horizon.
- And your final claim is that you are more rational with your conclusion.
Alright.... we're done here.
I'm sorry, but because horizontal progression has become trendy in the industry - it doesn't make your understanding of it logical or rational.
For every buzzword out there - there will be different ways of perceiving it and using it.
"Immersion" is another buzzword that means many things to many people.
If you need the industry to hold your hand before you can accept the use of words describing gameplay concepts, then you're right - we're done here.
I can't provide that, as I don't really care about industry standards.
I care about logic and rational arguments when having a debate - and you can't provide that.
this game would be better with No character Levels and No Zone Levels
This would make the game more adventurous to make our own
Adventure.
The level rails make the gane feel more themepark than it needs to be.
Dont get me wrong. Levels can stay for thr skills and skill point gain.
But remove the charactet levels and Zones.
The Singleplayer game gets away with levels because the world scales to the one player and not hundreads of players. For a single game world.
Get rid of levels and make all the world a big world with no start and endpoint defined.
Its a good idea, but by the sounds of the questing the game needs that carrot on the stick to make the jounrey about the race to end game than in the moment which would put bigger emphasis on the quality of the quests than before. That race to end game, that there is some big objective is a huge draw for players, and to take that away it then has to be replaced by something that makes up for it. And the questing is not suitable by the sounds of it to swtich to having a horizontal progression and should have challenging quests, different quest mechanics, mini games, and also include more in the game over all as well... in not jsut questing but player housing, player made music, player made content etc etc... so the mmo needs to be so much more higher quality to appeal to the main stream crowd by re inventing the wheel so to speak.
To suddenly swtich to horiztontal progression with average/bad questing systems and not much other than a few raids and supposedly great pvp, then the game will do worse, imo.
I would like to see a game do that, and pull it off well. I hear TSW is a good game with decent quests, but the combat seems to be the major critical issue and the animations as well... but its probably not as bad as ppl make it out to be... so maybe TSW is a good example of something similar to what you are talking about and I am suggesting.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
Looking at that post and your last sentence is kinda amusing.
I'm the one making it overly complicated? Ok
Yes, a soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A better soldier is a more powerful soldier. Giving him a power that's better in a specific situation makes him more powerful - which is vertical progression.
It's really very simple. Once again - if you give something that makes them more powerful - you're giving them VERTICAL progression. ALL progression is vertical.
If you add fishing to an MMO - that's not giving a player PROGRESSION. That's adding to the gameplay HORIZON. However, WITHIN that specific activity - you can have PROGRESSION - as in the player can get BETTER at fishing. As in, he's going to be better at fishing than someone who hasn't progressed.
Progression is becoming BETTER - moving FORWARD - it's becoming more POWERFUL.
"True" horizontal progression is an ILLUSION - because it would mean giving players powers that are each identical in power - which CAN NOT HAPPEN in a world controlled by binary numbers and math.
If something was truly identical - it wouldn't represent any kind of progression, horizontal or otherwise.
I think we're going in circles, at this point - don't you?
By all means, if you consider fishing and housing progression - then that's fine - I don't.
If you think giving a player more powers is not vertical progression (MORE powerful because of more choice) - fine, I don't.
HOWEVER:
We essentially agree. MMOs need a wider gameplay horizon. They don't need horizontal progression - because it doesn't exist.
You're obviously not going to get this. I've given you the clear definitions and I've explained this as simply as I possibly can.
If horizontal progression doesn't exist... then neither would vertical progression. It would just be... progress. We divide this concept into categories for a reason. They are words used to describe how the progress is made in a conceptual expression. They are adjectives - they give meaning and more clarity to the noun. These are standard industry terms. You saying "horizontal progression" doesn't exist is like saying the word "horizontal" doesn't exist. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
What the hell is gameplay horizon? I'm 31 years old. I've been playing video games since I was 5 years old. My first game ever was Super Mario Brothers on the NES. The second game I ever played was Tiger Heli. I have never, not one time, in all my life, heard the term "gameplay horizon." Seriously dude... are you just making this crap up as you go?
It doesn't matter what you "think". It matters what is. You're telling me what you personally consider to be true, and I'm telling you what actually IS true.
We're done here, I think. I know I am.
I'm 37 years old and my first game was a horse racing game with letters representing horses on the ZX-81 - so do I win the prize or what?
Yes, we have opinions - and I'm giving you mine and I'm using rational arguments to support it.
I'm not going to agree with you unil what you're saying makes sense.
As for "gameplay horizon" those are two words I assume you understand. I assume you understand what gameplay is and what a horizon is.
A horizon is what you look towards - and in this case, it's about how many options you have as a gamer. The wider the horizon - the more options.
That's not power and it's not progression, however.
As for you telling me what is "true" - are you seriously telling yourself that represents a convincing argument? Because then you'll be very, very disappointed.
I don't let others dictate truth, sorry.
If you can't rationalise your point - you will fail to convince.
Okay. Congratulations on being 37!
My point in saying my age wasn't to win a pissing contest. My point was to illustrate that in 26 years of being involved in the industry in one form or another, I have never heard a game developer, publisher, marketer, no one, use the term "gameplay horizon" to describe anything about a game or a concept within the game. When the gaming industry absorbs this as a common concept that professionals use as a standard for conveying a specific element within a game... then I'll accept this as a term from you. Unfortunately... they don't use this term as far as I am aware, and 26 years is a long time to go without ever hearing it, especially when you stay current on this industry like I do.
Because of this, I have to assume you're just making it up in your own domain of language processing. My issue with it is that no one else on this earth uses that process. They use another process. This process is called a standard. Horizontal Progression is a standard within that process. Gameplay Horizon is not.
Yes, I understand what the words mean when they are apart. What I don't understand is how you put these two words together and expect me to come to the conclusion that what I am talking about... is actually that, when what I am talking about is actually what I called it, justified by the fact that what I called it is an industry standard term. I don't understand gameplay horizon, because unlike Horizontal Progression... gameplay horizon isn't an actual term used within the industry.
I'm not rationalizing anything to you. It's already been rationalized by the industry that coined the term. I'm using the term properly to explain an idea about what I think MMO's need more of. I used the term Horizontal Progression, knowing what it meant, and assuming others knew what it meant, since it's an industry standard term that means exactly how I am using it in my explanation.
I bet you're going to tell me that "volumetric fog" and "dynamic lighting" don't exist, next. Instead, what they actually are is "cloudy mass of game mystery" and "bright exclamation mark of simulated vision."
- My opinion was about how the industry standard term "Horizontal Progression" should be applied in an MMO. Your opinion is that "Horizontal Progression" doesn't actually exist.
- I gave you the definitions to the industry standard term Horizontal Progression, and explained how they make sense according to those REAL dictionary definitions. You gave me a made up term that no one has ever heard of before, by applying your own interpretation of the definitions to the words that make up that term.
- My use of the industry standard term Horizontal Progression is not an opinion. The idea to better utilize the concept within the MMO is. Your opinion is that I am wrong because the industry standard term Horizontal Progression doesn't actually exist... it's actually a made up word gameplay horizon.
- And your final claim is that you are more rational with your conclusion.
Alright.... we're done here.
I'm sorry, but because horizontal progression has become trendy in the industry - it doesn't make your understanding of it logical or rational.
For every buzzword out there - there will be different ways of perceiving it and using it.
"Immersion" is another buzzword that means many things to many people.
If you need the industry to hold your hand before you can accept the use of words describing gameplay concepts, then you're right - we're done here.
I can't provide that, as I don't really care about industry standards.
I care about logic and rational arguments when having a debate - and you can't provide that.
Have fun
You can't have a debate without standards. This is why a dictionary exists in the first place. All it is is a book full of standards. This is why people in this world go to great lengths to find the meaning of a word. Words are symbols by which we infer meaning. These words are in and of themselves, standards. The English language you are using to write to me uses standards. You use these because it is already understood... with these standards, we may communicate.
An industry standard is a symbol created to convey a specific concept within that industry. "Pipeline" is a term in many industries used to describe the nature by which production of a product is managed within a company. This pipeline can implement different strategies, but it never deviates from what the term means. Going from one industry or company to another, you carry this terminology with you. This creates a standard within said industry. It isn't created because it is "trendy." Also, the very fact that it is a "standard" implies that it has one accepted meaning within that industry. What you perceive it to mean doesn't matter. All that matters is what the standard means. That's why it's a standard.
Your refusal to use these standards neither means anything in relation to the quality of the standard, nor to the integrity of people who use it within the industry. All it means is you choose not to cooperate with people who would otherwise probably love to work with you. The only problem here, is you.
Communication is the backbone to every successful team endeavor. Building a game is a team endeavor. Standards are created so that the team may express bigger ideals to their team mates, in a few short words or by use of an acronym. This creates a more efficient method of communicating. This means that the team now has more time to spend turning a concept of a game into a reality.
I've explained to you what I meant with the term. I don't use the words because they are trendy. I use them because they make sense to me. I've explained as best I can how they make sense to me by the very definition of the words within the term. I also used the term because when I use the it, most people who understand why standards are used in the first place aren't completely lost by what it means - because of the standard. I chose not to hate the word because of some juvenile hipster ideal of conformity. I use it simply as a tool to communicate with people who like being involved in collaborative efforts.
A discussion... is a collaborative effort. I would love to use your word for what you are talking about... but your definition of that word is not defining what I am actually talking about, and I disagree with you when you say that the industry standard that already exists, which I used, doesn't actually exist. Since you don't want to use industry standards for juvenile reasons, not only do I not want to collaborate with you further, but I don't think anyone else who actually treats this industry with some respect would either. Your position on this is petty and unprofessional.
It is apparent, now (as if it weren't before) that the only reason you are arguing about this is because you don't like people using certain words... because you don't like those words. How much more useless can a person get, to lawyer over something so trivial simply because you don't like it? I mean, what exactly did you expect to happen here, honestly? That you were somehow going to convince someone that they are wrong.... because you say so?
I'm only asking this, because... seriously... I... I can't believe this. It blows my mind that someone would behave this way. A 37 year old, no less. Seriously dude... I've spent all night trying to have a conversation with you about something, and you've been nothing but a child about it.
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
Looking at that post and your last sentence is kinda amusing.
I'm the one making it overly complicated? Ok
Yes, a soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A better soldier is a more powerful soldier. Giving him a power that's better in a specific situation makes him more powerful - which is vertical progression.
It's really very simple. Once again - if you give something that makes them more powerful - you're giving them VERTICAL progression. ALL progression is vertical.
If you add fishing to an MMO - that's not giving a player PROGRESSION. That's adding to the gameplay HORIZON. However, WITHIN that specific activity - you can have PROGRESSION - as in the player can get BETTER at fishing. As in, he's going to be better at fishing than someone who hasn't progressed.
Progression is becoming BETTER - moving FORWARD - it's becoming more POWERFUL.
"True" horizontal progression is an ILLUSION - because it would mean giving players powers that are each identical in power - which CAN NOT HAPPEN in a world controlled by binary numbers and math.
If something was truly identical - it wouldn't represent any kind of progression, horizontal or otherwise.
I think we're going in circles, at this point - don't you?
By all means, if you consider fishing and housing progression - then that's fine - I don't.
If you think giving a player more powers is not vertical progression (MORE powerful because of more choice) - fine, I don't.
HOWEVER:
We essentially agree. MMOs need a wider gameplay horizon. They don't need horizontal progression - because it doesn't exist.
You're obviously not going to get this. I've given you the clear definitions and I've explained this as simply as I possibly can.
If horizontal progression doesn't exist... then neither would vertical progression. It would just be... progress. We divide this concept into categories for a reason. They are words used to describe how the progress is made in a conceptual expression. They are adjectives - they give meaning and more clarity to the noun. These are standard industry terms. You saying "horizontal progression" doesn't exist is like saying the word "horizontal" doesn't exist. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
What the hell is gameplay horizon? I'm 31 years old. I've been playing video games since I was 5 years old. My first game ever was Super Mario Brothers on the NES. The second game I ever played was Tiger Heli. I have never, not one time, in all my life, heard the term "gameplay horizon." Seriously dude... are you just making this crap up as you go?
It doesn't matter what you "think". It matters what is. You're telling me what you personally consider to be true, and I'm telling you what actually IS true.
We're done here, I think. I know I am.
[mod edit - snipped for overall forum readability]
[mod edit] I'm explaining to you why "horizontal progression" doesn't actually exist. The TERM exists, yeah, but it's not actual progression. It's an illusion of progression.
I've explained that to you over and over again, and you've utterly failed to refute it.
You keep pretending "horizontal progression" exists as actual progression because developers use the term, as if developers are implicitly capable of no fault and can't be logically and semantically in the wrong.
GW2 developers have been trying to sell the concept since they started marketing the game, and yet they've failed to rationalise the concept.
[mod edit]
Again, if you consider fishing and housing horizontal progression, fine, I don't.
Again, if you consider giving more powers of a similar "strength" to a soldier horizontal progression, fine, I don't.
I call the first part of the gameplay horizon, and I consider the second vertical progression - because more powers mean more to choose from, and in the end - an advantage to the soldier, making him more efficient in more situations. That's power, that's progression and that's vertical.
And again I can only say, people keep forgetting the name says Elder Scrolls, so it will be atleast abit like the previous Elder Scrolls games, which had character levels.
Comments
Ryoshi1 as Rikimaru
Sounds more like someone wants to go back to the old Ultima Online days.
I would like that somehow ^^
But really as far as i was able tp check it out i dont think that system would work that well for ESO. Justa feeling.
just a blog
Content doesn't in itself needs to scale to make a game challenging, that's the easy/common route to design. But it's done as games usually revolve by some progression means to feel like it's progression. EvE doesn't have levels, it uses skills as a measure of progression. Just like a crafting MMO can use titles as a means to show progression (e.g., Apprentice>Journeyman>Expert>Master>Grandmaster).
Games that still use environment gating via levels are behind the times, because challenge can also be more than creature/NPC levels. It can be skill based; feat based; attunement; even a rare key find, to open an area of exploration that's walled off. I love adventuring in the very dangerous zones as a lowbie to find the highest mountains to climb (I bypassed the story lines in Skyrim, to just do that as fun), not wait for the highest level so the mobs would scale to my level. That's not fun to me, nor a challenge.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Lol.. dude... I never said anything was wrong with it in the first place.
Explain to me how learning to draw, and then learning to write, and then learning to sing, and then learning to play basketball, and then learning to swim, and then learning to speak to an audience, and then learning to do back flips, and then learning to climb a mountain, and then learning to climb a mountain without ropes, and then learning to fly a plane, and then learning to play the piano, and then learning to build a computer, and then learning to program it, and then learning to ride a bike, and then learning to play chess, and then learning to sell cars, and then learning to do a million other things that are different but in some respect equally valuable in some manner or another is stagnating in life? Even if you suck at all of it... you still have that experience of doing it - and that's a great experience to have!
No one ever said vertical progression was bad and pointless. You aren't listening. But on that, I would never argue that people only want to be better at one thing all the time - constant vertical progression. People who are like that are very closed-minded people who typically have only one care in the world - themselves. Which... kind of explains why you think you're absolutely correct about this. And no... you aren't.
Variety is the spice of life. You don't get variety through vertical power. Is it awesome to achieve a master status in one thing? Absolutely. But its also awesome to experience all this other stuff in one life time? You better believe it is. If you don't agree... well, you simply haven't lived, my friend.
The problem with MMO's is the vertical progression far outweighs the horizontal progression... and people are bored with that. The playing field needs to be leveled more, and I argue that it needs more horizontal progression than vertical progression. An MMO will always have a peak level of power you can achieve. For an MMO, this is bad, because it means end-game. But, it could literally have an infinite number of things to achieve it in. THAT's what people want.
Actually, Daggerfall and Morrowind were static leveled games. Oblivion was completely dynamic leveled, and there were no zones (until you modded it with what were considered -essential- overhauls.) Skyrim introduced and solidified the system of Encounter Zones that were developed with Fallout 3. Most NPCs leveled with you, but Encounter Zones did have minimum levels, and occasionally maximum levels. A shitty system, if I do say so myself. It's not a coincidence most people consider Morrowind to have the best gameplay of the series.
You're talking about real life - where learning a skill will give you something in return that's actually useful.
In a computer game - and I hope you understand that this is about computer games - you don't get anything useful back from something that doesn't give you an advantage of some sort.
Well, it might - but that won't be progression. Then we're back to skins and christmas gifts. You can call that diversity and distraction if you want - but it's not progression. You could call it a gameplay HORIZON - but don't call it progression.
I'm not saying games shouldn't have variety - and I love stuff like housing and fishing.
But if you take progression OUT of your computer game, you're left with a terribly inferior version of real life.
People don't want that - they want a power fantasy when they're playing a game. Distraction and diversity have their place - but they can't represent progression.
I'm not saying progression is everything. I'm saying progression is vertical.
Morrowind is considered the best gameplay, not because of level locking. Actually, I'd argue it had nothing to do with this. It was considered the best because there were a million ways to approach any problem in the game. People were able to use their imagination without feeling like they were limited to certain methods. Unlike Skyrim that while it offered a lot of options... you could simply take one look and already know that feeling of doing anything isn't an option. But for myself... it did a lot of things really well that I was okay with the compromise. Ehh... you win some, you lose some.
Anyway, they changed the way the world works in regards to your level because of Radiant AI. This means that everyone maintained a life cycle where they actually did different normal things throughout the day. They might also have a script that made them travel cross-country depending on what time of month it was. Oblivion introduced this and Fallout 3 used it as well - so did Skyrim. They made the game level up with you, because it showed that the world was constantly changing. It's debatable whether or not it was pulled off to great affect... but the idea is sound.
Skyrim introduced the idea that some of the NPC's couldn't be killed. This is because with Radiant AI... people died sometimes without you being there to help them. This was sometimes a huge problem because it could have potentially locked you out of continuing in a quest. This is a big no-no in game design. It's one thing if YOU fail it. It's another thing for the game to do it at random, and you can't continue.
Morrowind did a lot of things right... but the subsequent games did a lot of things right too. And they also made a lot of improvements. The reason Morrowind was beloved, though, was because of the unparalleled number of options at your disposal at any point in the game.
That's horizontal progression, by the way.
In response to the OP: I wouldn't be against a level-less system in a game that was built from the ground up for it. ESO is not that game. It takes a total sandbox to pull that off, and preferably one with a hardcore death system or something to really flesh it out. Basically, when you cut out levels, you cut out a huge swathe of standard character development, which either needs to be replaced, or it can be left off if the intent is to allow players to bounce back into the game after serious loss of death, thereby creating meaning for that lost progression avenue. Otherwise there's really no reason to not have that progression.
Now in some games levels are a bigger bane than others. Particularly games where they have hard modifiers to stats when attacking/defending against enemies that are of different level. Like in Sw:TOR, or Borderlands, every level above a creature you get ridiculous bonuses vs it, and likewise if they're above you. This is lame. Take WoW, for instance. Even if you have 150 level 40s bashing on a max level toon, they will never kill that single player because of how broken the scale of power is (and the miss chance/glancing blow bullshit.)
I didn't see that in Elder Scrolls, however. I was running around in areas with monsters more than 50% of my level (and could even take them one at a time until I ran into a named boss mob that was 7 levels higher than me.) This is because ESO has a linear progression. I had about 250 base HP without any investment, and a max level character would have about 1000. By purely numbers, that puts a max level character at ~4x the strength of a level 12 character, in one stat. Obviously this is multiplied when you figure the rest of the stats. But once you factor in crowd control, you could actually kill a max level ESO character (assuming they're not immune to cc) with a small squad (6 or so) level 10 players getting the jump on them. Now as far as I'm concerned, that's pretty awesome. This is doable thanks to CC and moves like puncture or mark target which could reduce the targets armor to nothing. But let's say they're at a more realistic disparity in level -- 10 levels. The differences between the characters would not be so much that one 50 could smash two 40s.
For this reason, levels in ESO already are not nearly as big a deal as other MMOs (for the better, imo.) I don't see any reason to do away with them altogether, however, as there is nothing that would benefit from the removal aside from a loss of progression and customization. The game would lose far too many themepark enthusiasts simply because of how they identify with levels.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Neverwinter does this with it's PvE themed events and I think most MMO's that offer some sort of early opt in to PvP areas like GW2 do this as well. Not extremely out of the ordinary for a future company to take this one step further and scale everything to the same level and progression is based on skills and resource management.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I think Star Citizen has the best 'leveling' concept - your abilities are determined by what your ship is and the equipment on board.
You can insure your ship, but all the equipment can be destroyed.
There is no leveling of skills. Therefore, if two players had a fight in identical ships, it would all be down to player skill.
I think this is the ideal system and a similar system should be introduced to ESO.
Here, this is the literal definition of the word: progression. Yes, the definition you are applying to it is in there. So is the one I am applying it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progression?s=t
You're relating it to a succession in quantities.
I'm relating it to a passive of successively from one member to the next.
These definitions have the word successively. This is an adverb which describes how something is ordered. The root of the word is successive. Here is the definition for it:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/succession
This word relates to order. Let's look that word up.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/order?s=t
Progression does not just mean more power. It does mean that - yes. But it also has other meanings. It can simply mean moving from one spot to another dependening upon how things are organized.
You can organize something based on the amount of power it generates - vertical progression.
You can organize it based on the color it has - vanity - has no function in relative terms.
You can organize it based on how it generates power - horizontal progression.
You can also organize it based on how the power generated is used - more horizontal progression
All of these are good things. They can all be great. But a game alone they do not make.
It is of my opinion that MMO's need more horizontal progression. It is progress because when you start the game, you have one manner in which you can generate power. As your progress, you gain more ways in which to generate power. This makes you more powerful in the fact that you have more options available at your disposal. This means the entire game has to be designed around this idea.
The point of leveling up in this sort of game is not to equip a more powerful rifle. The point is to be able to carry a rifle, and a pistol, and some grenades, and a bullet proof vest. This is horizontal progression. One item is just as useful as another. Metrically speaking - they generate the same amount of power. But by having more options available, you become more powerful. Not because you generate more power. But because you now have more ways in which to distribute and generate that power. Sometimes a pistol works better. Sometimes a grenade gets the job done. Sometimes you want a bullet proof vest.... though to be fair, I don't know when you would ever not want one :P
Real life military tactics revolve around the concept of horizontal progression. A soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A soldier with more tools is a better soldier. Providing a soldier with more of either one or both automatically generates more tactical options. This makes the soldier's unit more powerful. Not because they generate more power, but because they have more options in how that power is generated and how to disperse it.
No one is arguing that vertical progression is bad. I am simply saying that horizontal progression is progression if you DESIGN THE WHOLE GAME around it being progress. "Hey, awesome - I couldn't carry grenades before. Now I can. This is cool. I feel like my guy is becoming more powerful and that I am progressing in this game."
I understand completely this is about video games. Bringing real life scenarios into this is to help you understand what I am talking about, because generally speaking, people relate better to things that are real. I'm talking about a principle - not the actual thing.
Something that generates an advantage in a video game is a vague statement that could literally mean anything. Having a powerful rifle is an advantage. Having grenades is an advantage. Having both is an even bigger advantage, even if the other person has a more powerful rifle than you do. It's all in whether or not the game is designed to take advantage of a horizontal progression. The point that makes it progress is the fact that you get to use this other thing, when before, you couldn't.
Geez... you're making a very simple thing to be overly complicated.
That's the main reason I'm not even considering playing it. I couldn't stomach another level-gated treadmill to the "endgame." I'm so jaded of this tired old rpg-trope I'm getting queasy just thinking about it. Isn't it nigh time someone started looking at something other than D&D as the basis for their MMORPG?
And if ESO world scales with you at lvl 50 then why the hell all those first 49 levels? Let's just start at 50 and be done with it. Elaborate arcane systems woven to cover a rotten core. If the "game begins at endgame" then why the hell doesn't it actually begin at endgame? I really can't see myself taking more than one character (if that) through 49 levels of so-called journey just so I can start playing the game proper.
Looking at that post and your last sentence is kinda amusing.
I'm the one making it overly complicated? Ok
Yes, a soldier with more skills is a better soldier. A better soldier is a more powerful soldier. Giving him a power that's better in a specific situation makes him more powerful - which is vertical progression.
It's really very simple. Once again - if you give something that makes them more powerful - you're giving them VERTICAL progression. ALL progression is vertical.
If you add fishing to an MMO - that's not giving a player PROGRESSION. That's adding to the gameplay HORIZON. However, WITHIN that specific activity - you can have PROGRESSION - as in the player can get BETTER at fishing. As in, he's going to be better at fishing than someone who hasn't progressed.
Progression is becoming BETTER - moving FORWARD - it's becoming more POWERFUL.
"True" horizontal progression is an ILLUSION - because it would mean giving players powers that are each identical in power - which CAN NOT HAPPEN in a world controlled by binary numbers and math.
If something was truly identical - it wouldn't represent any kind of progression, horizontal or otherwise.
I think we're going in circles, at this point - don't you?
By all means, if you consider fishing and housing progression - then that's fine - I don't.
If you think giving a player more powers is not vertical progression (MORE powerful because of more choice) - fine, I don't.
HOWEVER:
We essentially agree. MMOs need a wider gameplay horizon. They don't need horizontal progression - because it doesn't exist.
You're obviously not going to get this. I've given you the clear definitions and I've explained this as simply as I possibly can.
If horizontal progression doesn't exist... then neither would vertical progression. It would just be... progress. We divide this concept into categories for a reason. They are words used to describe how the progress is made in a conceptual expression. They are adjectives - they give meaning and more clarity to the noun. These are standard industry terms. You saying "horizontal progression" doesn't exist is like saying the word "horizontal" doesn't exist. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
What the hell is gameplay horizon? I'm 31 years old. I've been playing video games since I was 5 years old. My first game ever was Super Mario Brothers on the NES. The second game I ever played was Tiger Heli. I have never, not one time, in all my life, heard the term "gameplay horizon." Seriously dude... are you just making this crap up as you go?
It doesn't matter what you "think". It matters what is. You're telling me what you personally consider to be true, and I'm telling you what actually IS true.
And no - we obviously don't agree. I don't even know what the hell gameplay horizon is, and you insist that horizontal progression doesn't exist. You are obviously processing information in an imaginary domain of language.
We're done here, I think. I know I am.
I'm 37 years old and my first game was a horse racing game with letters representing horses on the ZX-81 - so do I win the prize or what?
Yes, we have opinions - and I'm giving you mine and I'm using rational arguments to support it.
I'm not going to agree with you unil what you're saying makes sense.
As for "gameplay horizon" those are two words I assume you understand. I assume you understand what gameplay is and what a horizon is.
A horizon is what you look towards - and in this case, it's about how many options you have as a gamer. The wider the horizon - the more options.
That's not power and it's not progression, however.
As for you telling me what is "true" - are you seriously telling yourself that represents a convincing argument? Because then you'll be very, very disappointed.
I don't let others dictate truth, sorry.
If you can't rationalise your point - you will fail to convince.
Okay. Congratulations on being 37!
My point in saying my age wasn't to win a pissing contest. My point was to illustrate that in 26 years of being involved in the industry in one form or another, I have never heard a game developer, publisher, marketer, no one, use the term "gameplay horizon" to describe anything about a game or a concept within the game. When the gaming industry absorbs this as a common concept that professionals use as a standard for conveying a specific element within a game... then I'll accept this as a term from you. Unfortunately... they don't use this term as far as I am aware, and 26 years is a long time to go without ever hearing it, especially when you stay current on this industry like I do.
Because of this, I have to assume you're just making it up in your own domain of language processing. My issue with it is that no one else on this earth uses that process. They use another process. This process is called a standard. Horizontal Progression is a standard within that process. Gameplay Horizon is not.
Yes, I understand what the words mean when they are apart. What I don't understand is how you put these two words together and expect me to come to the conclusion that what I am talking about... is actually that, when what I am talking about is actually what I called it, justified by the fact that what I called it is an industry standard term. I don't understand gameplay horizon, because unlike Horizontal Progression... gameplay horizon isn't an actual term used within the industry.
I'm not rationalizing anything to you. It's already been rationalized by the industry that coined the term. I'm using the term properly to explain an idea about what I think MMO's need more of. I used the term Horizontal Progression, knowing what it meant, and assuming others knew what it meant, since it's an industry standard term that means exactly how I am using it in my explanation.
I bet you're going to tell me that "volumetric fog" and "dynamic lighting" don't exist, next. Instead, what they actually are is "cloudy mass of game mystery" and "bright exclamation mark of simulated vision."
- My opinion was about how the industry standard term "Horizontal Progression" should be applied in an MMO. Your opinion is that "Horizontal Progression" doesn't actually exist.
- I gave you the definitions to the industry standard term Horizontal Progression, and explained how they make sense according to those REAL dictionary definitions. You gave me a made up term that no one has ever heard of before, by applying your own interpretation of the definitions to the words that make up that term.
- My use of the industry standard term Horizontal Progression is not an opinion. The idea to better utilize the concept within the MMO is. Your opinion is that I am wrong because the industry standard term Horizontal Progression doesn't actually exist... it's actually a made up word gameplay horizon.
- And your final claim is that you are more rational with your conclusion.
Alright.... we're done here.
ADDITION::
Just do a Google search, dude.
"Horizontal Progression"
"Gameplay Horizon"
LOL What is it with these people who've only ever played WoW and think that's the only way an MMO can work...?
Guess you never played Ultima Online. No levels or level zones there! Worked great!
I'm sorry, but because horizontal progression has become trendy in the industry - it doesn't make your understanding of it logical or rational.
For every buzzword out there - there will be different ways of perceiving it and using it.
"Immersion" is another buzzword that means many things to many people.
If you need the industry to hold your hand before you can accept the use of words describing gameplay concepts, then you're right - we're done here.
I can't provide that, as I don't really care about industry standards.
I care about logic and rational arguments when having a debate - and you can't provide that.
Have fun
Its a good idea, but by the sounds of the questing the game needs that carrot on the stick to make the jounrey about the race to end game than in the moment which would put bigger emphasis on the quality of the quests than before. That race to end game, that there is some big objective is a huge draw for players, and to take that away it then has to be replaced by something that makes up for it. And the questing is not suitable by the sounds of it to swtich to having a horizontal progression and should have challenging quests, different quest mechanics, mini games, and also include more in the game over all as well... in not jsut questing but player housing, player made music, player made content etc etc... so the mmo needs to be so much more higher quality to appeal to the main stream crowd by re inventing the wheel so to speak.
To suddenly swtich to horiztontal progression with average/bad questing systems and not much other than a few raids and supposedly great pvp, then the game will do worse, imo.
I would like to see a game do that, and pull it off well. I hear TSW is a good game with decent quests, but the combat seems to be the major critical issue and the animations as well... but its probably not as bad as ppl make it out to be... so maybe TSW is a good example of something similar to what you are talking about and I am suggesting.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Removing the levels? are u some complete retard? sorry? but really.
if they would even consider removing anything it should be the game itself..
You can't have a debate without standards. This is why a dictionary exists in the first place. All it is is a book full of standards. This is why people in this world go to great lengths to find the meaning of a word. Words are symbols by which we infer meaning. These words are in and of themselves, standards. The English language you are using to write to me uses standards. You use these because it is already understood... with these standards, we may communicate.
An industry standard is a symbol created to convey a specific concept within that industry. "Pipeline" is a term in many industries used to describe the nature by which production of a product is managed within a company. This pipeline can implement different strategies, but it never deviates from what the term means. Going from one industry or company to another, you carry this terminology with you. This creates a standard within said industry. It isn't created because it is "trendy." Also, the very fact that it is a "standard" implies that it has one accepted meaning within that industry. What you perceive it to mean doesn't matter. All that matters is what the standard means. That's why it's a standard.
Your refusal to use these standards neither means anything in relation to the quality of the standard, nor to the integrity of people who use it within the industry. All it means is you choose not to cooperate with people who would otherwise probably love to work with you. The only problem here, is you.
Communication is the backbone to every successful team endeavor. Building a game is a team endeavor. Standards are created so that the team may express bigger ideals to their team mates, in a few short words or by use of an acronym. This creates a more efficient method of communicating. This means that the team now has more time to spend turning a concept of a game into a reality.
I've explained to you what I meant with the term. I don't use the words because they are trendy. I use them because they make sense to me. I've explained as best I can how they make sense to me by the very definition of the words within the term. I also used the term because when I use the it, most people who understand why standards are used in the first place aren't completely lost by what it means - because of the standard. I chose not to hate the word because of some juvenile hipster ideal of conformity. I use it simply as a tool to communicate with people who like being involved in collaborative efforts.
A discussion... is a collaborative effort. I would love to use your word for what you are talking about... but your definition of that word is not defining what I am actually talking about, and I disagree with you when you say that the industry standard that already exists, which I used, doesn't actually exist. Since you don't want to use industry standards for juvenile reasons, not only do I not want to collaborate with you further, but I don't think anyone else who actually treats this industry with some respect would either. Your position on this is petty and unprofessional.
It is apparent, now (as if it weren't before) that the only reason you are arguing about this is because you don't like people using certain words... because you don't like those words. How much more useless can a person get, to lawyer over something so trivial simply because you don't like it? I mean, what exactly did you expect to happen here, honestly? That you were somehow going to convince someone that they are wrong.... because you say so?
I'm only asking this, because... seriously... I... I can't believe this. It blows my mind that someone would behave this way. A 37 year old, no less. Seriously dude... I've spent all night trying to have a conversation with you about something, and you've been nothing but a child about it.
[mod edit] I'm explaining to you why "horizontal progression" doesn't actually exist. The TERM exists, yeah, but it's not actual progression. It's an illusion of progression.
I've explained that to you over and over again, and you've utterly failed to refute it.
You keep pretending "horizontal progression" exists as actual progression because developers use the term, as if developers are implicitly capable of no fault and can't be logically and semantically in the wrong.
GW2 developers have been trying to sell the concept since they started marketing the game, and yet they've failed to rationalise the concept.
[mod edit]
Again, if you consider fishing and housing horizontal progression, fine, I don't.
Again, if you consider giving more powers of a similar "strength" to a soldier horizontal progression, fine, I don't.
I call the first part of the gameplay horizon, and I consider the second vertical progression - because more powers mean more to choose from, and in the end - an advantage to the soldier, making him more efficient in more situations. That's power, that's progression and that's vertical.
[mod edit]
It might also be better with pandas, spaceships and underage argonian strippers. None of which is relevant. The game has levels and zones.
As it stands, it's pretty much the only game of this kind that let's you experience the entire world at same level by having the 50+ gameplay.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO