Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
A mmorpg without levels-would it work?
nomadian
Member Posts: 3,490
I've been thinking. It bothers me that the main focus of a mmorpg which arguably should be grouping is so divided up by levelling. Surely, a better system would be EVERYONE can group with everyone else, not divided up by levels, not spending ages lfg. Ok you would say what would be the point in playing if you can't advance. What I suggest is that you still gain a full xp bar in the usual way and gain abilities but there is no levelling up. Think a bit like Planetside but made groupable and the WoW/eq format. Of course, grouping would not be the only activity, you could have other activities too which not constrained by levelling you could have many people doing any activity at once. For example, take Realm vs Realm. Aren't people all the same level? Thoughts? I haven't expanded much but I believe a game like this is possible and would be fun.
Comments
Its been done several times.
'Conquer' for example makes a big deal out of rewarding higher levels for being in lower level groups.
Couldn't of said it better myself
"Just because there are other colours to use in chat does not mean you have to use them..." - Please follow
I'm suprised that no big company has taken Ultima Online as their inspiration...Ultima Online offered so much freedom what any level-grinder couldn't even dream of...
If some big company would make a 100% skill based game I'd be straight to it but unfortunately only attempts to do one has been scams or in theme of "Great ideas dying on lack of funding"
""But Coyote, you could learn! You only prefer keyboard and mouse because that's all you've ever known!" You might say right before you hug a rainforest and walk in sandals to your drum circle where you're trying to raise group consciousness of ladybugs or whatever it is you dirty goddamn hippies do when you're not busy smoking pot and smelling bad."
Coyote's Howling: Death of the Computer
Ofc, it would work, but people seem to need a value with the can do a virtual "tail length" comparison. Developers are too bogged down in those level based stuff that they don't see the possibilities of a levelfree system. Tbh, it would be way more interesting to meet a guy in a remote area, both trying to judge the others capabilities by equipment, and appearance. So the plain looking wanderer, with barely any good equipment can be actually a powerful mage, or a total noob. And you wont know it until you engage him - THAT would be a game I would be absolutely delighted to play.
go out and kill some trolls 
Instead you see a guy, colour coded or numberically coded (or both) and you additionally know the name and class just by clicking on him....... boring and unexciting, and totally kills RP and immersion imo. Talking about RP, the most laughable things are when using items is tied to level (or maybe class), like mounts, weapons or a certain type of meal - oh my son you may not eat yet ham, you need to be a level 10 peasant first
Yes, EVE has a good levelfree system to a certain degree, but it still needs a bit of refining and, most importantly, EVE is not a Fantasy game. And there are people who rather wield a sword than pilot a spacecraft.
------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mandolin
Designers need to move away from the old D&D level-based model which was never designed for player vs player combat in the first place.
I'm sure it can be done, and it would be a great advance if in a game you really could play with your friends regardless of 'level'.
The trick is 'how do you achieve that level of cross playability and yet still have meaningful character development?'
I can in Eve be a tackler after a short time for my experienced mates, but I have to be able to cover the bills as a noob.
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
SWG used to do this better in it's pre-cu times, it still does this to some extent. Sure, you have levels and there are damage multipliers based on the level difference of the thing you're attacking and you but there's no restrictions on where you can go or do. For instance, my guild often does raids on the HK-47 instance, the lead up ones to it and the Sher Kar cave. However we often take others from the guild that are only level 40, 60, 70 etc (max level is 90).
As long as they're smart and they don't run ahead of the group and start hitting things first they will survive (and if they don't I can rez them lol). Being grouped with people that are higher levels then you gives you the damage bonuses of being those higher levels so you can still be useful as a low leve rather then just a tag along. It's pretty cool, as it doesn't restrict veterans and new players from interacting together and it's one of the reasons SWG has a tight community
I'm not a game designer, but I would love a game which had true emphasis on everyone being able to group together.
Its because developers are stuck in this mindset that because the game is an MMORPG it HAS to be a....RPG. Im talking old school nes/snes/ps rpg. FF, Crono Trigger/Cross , Wild Arms, Xenogears, on and on. These developers are starting to base their games around those console RPGs, and in doing that they have lost the concept of what rpg means. Role Playing Game.
In the mind numb that is todays games, the role of everbody in every game is the same, a priest is having to go do the same things a warrior does. A ____smith is having to be just as formitable in combat as a warrior to be able to harvest resources for crafting without getting killed left and right. There is no variety at all anymore, its all the same thing now. Games like EVE offer change, but it the game is lacking in so many other areas that it just cant appeal to the person that wants to fight creatures face to face, explore a cave hoping to find a rare harvest node, anything like that. (For the most part anyways I think, im not making a general assumption about everybody that wants to play/plays this game). I cant comment on UO because ive never played it, but its basically THE game that started this all and its been around forever so they obviously did something right, ive never heard much bad other than its old graphics wise. Pirates of the Burning Sea and Auto Assault are my last hopes for MMO's, if one of these dont live up to what im looking for then I think im done with MMO's, there are far better games out there outside the MMO market comming out soon, Elder Scrolls 4...NWN2...
"There's no star system Slave I can't reach, and there's no planet I can't find. There's nowhere in the Galaxy for you to run. Might as well give up now."
Boba Fett
[quote]Originally posted by nomadian
[b][quote]
I'm not a game designer, but I would love a game which had true emphasis on everyone being able to group together.[/b][/quote]
Most MMOs after a certain lvl require you to group to lvl up. Those MMOs usually don't do very well.
FFXI you HAVE to group to lvl up past 10.
A Work in Progress.
Add Me
Hell UO was and still is my favorite of all the MMOs I've played, and it didn't have levels. People grouped in UO, but it also had things you could do solo which is hard in level based MMOs unless you're killing stuff a few levels below you.
One downside to having no levels is it makes it harder to gauge what you can take on, and who you should group with. I never have much fun when I group with someone of a much higher level so you would still want to group with people of your skill level.
What might be an interesting approach is to do away with levels in an MMO, but have various ranks awarded at different skill levels. Someone who spends all of their time sword fighting for example would progress through novice all the way to master, but only at that skill. People could still gauge each other's abilities in certain skills, but you wouldn't have to be X level for certain areas. People also wouldn't assume every priest is a heal bot like is so common in WoW since without levels you could pretty much do away with classes as well.
What I would like to see if a game based on skills like UO, but also with professions you choose for your character which don't limit you to certain skills, but would give you a bonus to learning skills that fit with your profession. So a wizard would get better experience from casting spells, and identifying artifacts, and making scrolls than from trying to beat things with a stick, and a warrior would get better rewards from being at the forefront of battle.
This would be usefull because strictly skill based games can be intimidating for people who aren't familiar with what wors well together, but it wouldn't limit them to a class that can only do one thing well. Also players should be able to pick up other professions, but obviously it will take more effort to advance in two professions instead of one. There should probably be a limit on how many professions one can advance at a time to keep everyone from becoming good at everything, but I don't like the idea of skill degeneration like UO had.
Just some ideas. I think classes, and levels are the easy way out.
When people will pay others to play a game for them it might be a sign the game isn't all that fun.
I liked UO's skill based system the best too. One thing to also remember is UO's current mistake, items. The game can end up playing the same as levelling games if there's a wide dispairity in item powers, causing a gind style of play for those items just like in the levelling games.
If you want to add "classes" to a skill based game, why not do it through game physics? In other words, make it so that wearing armor restricts dexterity (as opposed to agility) so the casting spells becomes much less effective. Make it so that thieves agility is hurt by wearing metal armors, or carrying too much weight. Make it so that some trade skills require high dex, some high strength some a combination of stats, so that a smith needs high strength and thus isn't effective as a tailor, who requires a high Dex.
Also, you could have a social element to it all, to form classes. Trades guilds might be very advantageous for learning new progression. And joining one could be easy, but you might only be accepted in one at a time. If you leave that one, sure you can be accepted by another, but going back to the first one might not be acceptable. Priesthoods would be a natural here, if you turn your back on that deity, expect excommunication and never being accpted back if you leave it, as well as loss of spells granted by the deity.
Once upon a time....
I like those ideas, Amaranthar. Now if only I was a game designer...
I've never been a fan of phat lewt in games. It encourages farming, and everyone ends up wearing and using the same stuff. Bleh.
When people will pay others to play a game for them it might be a sign the game isn't all that fun.
Character advancement, in one form or another, is present is ALL role-playing games.
Whether the advancement is in-your-face like Asheron's Call and EverQuest-style "levels," or UO-style "increasing skills," or acquiring the ability to use higher or better armor, weapons, magic spells, or whatever, character advancement is at the very heart of these games -- in fact, at the heart of almost all games ever designed.
Even games with no "levels" or "skills" -- for example, platform and PC FPS games -- have sneaky ways of introducing tougher and tougher mobs or areas, while allowing players to acquire the bigger guns, better armor and unlocking the better goodies. This is still character advancement, although it is more "hidden."
Whatever the method of character advancement, you can be sure there WILL BE some form of increasing difficulty vs. player character advancement. If this were not so, there would be very little sense of accomplishment.
So, may I add this bit of wisdom....
There is not now nor has there ever been any problem with games based on character advancement through levels or skills or both.
The "problem" is that developers have lacked the imagination of making their games so involving, immersive and downright FUN so that acquiring levels, etc., has become known as "the grind."
One of the problems is that developers make you wait to play the "real game" until you have acquired many levels, skills, and so on, so that "rat-bashing" through the early, boring, penniless levels is not something we look forward to.
~~~
Let me go on a bit here....
Age of Conan. Hmmm, well, of course we are wary due to the horrid release of Funcom's Anarchy Online, even if we hope all will be well.
Think of this. Doing the first 20 levels "solo" before you enter the gameworld proper will have the effect of dropping players into the gameworld who have done a "super-tutorial."
Probably NO ONE will be spamming the stupid newb questions like, "Hoow du I auto-attck??!1!!1??"
Rather than rat-bashing in newbie yards for 20 levels, you sweat out your first levels alone (where you can stfu and stop bothering people) and then are dropped into the game at level 20 (out of 80 max) when you should be a rather accomplished player in regards to game mechanics, combat, etc.
This "might" be of the best revolutionary ideas soon to burst its way into the ho-hum MMORPG game-templates.
OK -- think of this. Funcom, love them or hate them, pioneered the use of "instances." Instances are now, in many cases, considered "standard" in modern MMORPGs.
That, my friends, is pretty fracking impressive.
Hmm, I did not mean to turn this into some AoC puff-piece, but the release Age of Conan "may" become a watershed event in MMORPGs -- after which nearly all games will adopt -- IF SUCCESSFUL -- this new super-tutorial system.
In addition, I believe this game is ground-breaking in the sense that they fully expect a Mature Rating. I applaud Funcom for its "balls." (Apologies if that is offensive, but you know you all say it.)
~~~
Well, in any event, I have never felt levels, skills or any form of character advancement was "bad." I just think that more often than not it is "boring."
You don't need to remove levels.
You need to make a fracking amazingly entertaining game with depth, thrills, chills, and excitment.
My subscription dollars are ready to pay the developers who can do this.
~ Ancient Membership ~
Reasons why level systems are bad:
Playing the game is like being on a conveyer belt. You stop getting expereience killing a certain creature and so you move onto the next set of ever so slightly tougher mobs. Might be fun the first time, but not the 1-billionth time. Doesn't matter which game you play with levels it all seems to feel the same.
There is an end level. Yes, that's right sounds obvious but needs stating, give your games levels then when players reach "the top" they either quit, wait for an expansion or get bored, unless they are provided with something to do at "the top". Endless raiding is not the only 'solution'. So called end game content is inaccessible to a starting player, level locked instances for example. Whilst this prevents new players getting to the top there are better ways and demonstrates that the designer thinks each player is an idiot. "What'dya mean a level 3 can't raid yet?!" There is dumbing down games and hand holding, but some games take that to the extreme.
Players of different levels are separated. Whilst a level 1 Orc Shaman isn't going to "pwn" either Scholomance in WoW or a level 20 Gnome Rogue, equally a level 60 Undead Warrior will rarely help 'the noobs'. Credit goes to those game designers who have a mentoring system. Each player is happily killing or questing in their own range. "Hey can you help me with xyz quest?" "Sorry you need to be level 25, you are only 23"
Everyone turns into a clone. Makes sense that games with level systems also level lock the items too. What tends to happen is that players aim to get a certain item or a certain set. This tends to mean that whatever provides the weapon, spell, scroll, potion, etc is heavily sought after. In fact this is really how camping began. Even if the item database is large and however rare that item is, you inevitably find out that the sword you spent weeks getting is worn by 70% of people in a certain level range of course. Never mind just spam the forums asking for dyes or more custom models! (Okay you can apply some of that to a non-level based game too)
Can't think of anything else right now, so time to look at the good reasons.
Good reasons to have a level system
Makes it easy to tell if you can kill a certain creature. As a level 30 rogue you may have difficulty figuring out if you can kill that bear over there. But wait! Not only does it say that the bear is level 28, but there is even a colour coding system. That just makes the game so much easier and remember easy is good!
You separate the newbs from the good players. Of course a level 60 player is smarter, more skillful and generally a better player, they are level 60 after all! You don't want to be associated with that riffraff level 10 now do you. don't get too close otherwise they will spam you for gold aalll day.
Okay the last two were tongue in cheek. I think a better topic should be "Why would you want to play a mmorpg with levels?"
In all fairness few mmorpgs now have a pure level system. A lot of them are hybrids and do, as another poster wanted, have sub ranks within those levels. WoW has talent trees, EQ2 has Apprentice, Adepts and Masters, Anarchy Online has a points pool system, etc. I think a good system is one which has a limited number of skill points and that forces the player to make a decision, oh noes a decision!, should they specialise or generalise for example. If you limit skill points you also stop players becoming god-like, unless of course the particular world is so dangerous you have to be god-like to survive.
I gave up hope a few years ago, Nothing will ever be as good as UO was, they couldnt even attempt it.
From the April Edition of PC Gamer's article about WAR:
Richard J. Cox
"There were much of the beautiful, much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible, and not a little of that which might have excited disgust."