"In regular games, you can do YOUR CHOICE of many things to increase sword skill."
Well there's where the problem is. The argument is just a false assumption that he's basing the rest of his rant on.
To put it simply, most games don't give you such freedom. You aren't picking your choice among many things in most themepark games, but instead following a given directive at any moment as to what you can/must do. In most side activities the XP gain, if any, has tended to be pretty minimal.
You have exceptions with the likes of Ryzom and GW2, but those are exceptions more so than the norm such as WoW and games that follow it where the only major XP is either grinding dungeons (killing) or quest chains (directed activities).
That's not freedom.
Even taking Ver's original approach and saying XP for a skill only comes from practicing that skill, the difference becomes that while the reward is more restricted, the choice of play is considerably less so.
Not to mention the concept of progress may very well be getting skewed by Axehilt, as he may be assuming that there is still a heavy hand of vertical progression where Ver refers to more horizontal progression.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You have the weirdest idea of freedom to the point that i think you either argue to argue or you have blinders on. It's laughable that you say a level gated, sequential content, developer forced content is freedom because you artificially get improvements by levels. Oh 10% give some activity like FedEx and find and pick. Yet a game that you literally could pick those same quest except in any order, grind, raid, dungeon run, craft, explore has no freedom.
So basically any game that doesn't give you quest experience and makes you do the activity to get better has no freedom. I guess Morrowind is the most restrictive game ever because it's skill based. I am sure everyone agrees.
In your game you MUST DO ONE SPECIFIC THING to increase sword skill. That's not freedom.
In regular games, you can do YOUR CHOICE of many things to increase sword skill. That's freedom.
The logic here is super obvious and super straight-forward, so all this nonsense about me having 'blinders' or arguing for argument's sake is nonsensical gibberish. The simple fact is that your system doesn't allow as much freedom as a centralized progression system.
You are framing the argument by trying go pair it down to a single action equal restrictive while ignoring content freedom of choice. While you do have to kill to gain swordsmanship perk you complete this while doing any activity that you kill. In MMORPG is generally a lot like questing, dungeons, raiding, exploring. Compared to themeparks the content is your choice.
Centralized progression only gives as much freedom as the content just as activity based. And the content you are talking about is restricted by levels, quest choices, developer choice. You will be required to kill because frankly a themepark without killing would be even more boring than they are.
There are so many activity based games that offer open gameplay it's silly.
OP's idea is just a slightly different way of counting experience. I am not opposed to achievement rewards but making them the only means of progression is another step backwards.
You are framing the argument by trying go pair it down to a single action equal restrictive while ignoring content freedom of choice. While you do have to kill to gain swordsmanship perk you complete this while doing any activity that you kill. In MMORPG is generally a lot like questing, dungeons, raiding, exploring. Compared to themeparks the content is your choice.
Centralized progression only gives as much freedom as the content just as activity based. And the content you are talking about is restricted by levels, quest choices, developer choice. You will be required to kill because frankly a themepark without killing would be even more boring than they are.
There are so many activity based games that offer open gameplay it's silly.
This isn't complicated:
I pointed out your system involves less freedom.
I supported that point with factual statements about precisely why it involves less freedom.
Yes, that does constitute "framing the argument" because all my statements revolve around the objective truth that your system involves less freedom. But obviously "framing the argument" is by no means a bad thing (unless you're the person attempting to say false things.)
Centralized progress does give only as much freedom as the content allows. This is true. And usually that's a good chunk of freedom: rarely are you forced into questlines you don't like, and often a variety of activities are rewarded so you can gain your sword skill by crafting, exploring, etc.
Meanwhile your system always provides almost no freedom. Also true.
Basically you're trying to nitpick over the possibility of a lack of freedom, and I'm pointing out your system provides a consistent, definite lack of freedom. You cannot argue against the truth of this, so why try?
Up isn't down. It's up. Why are you such a big fan of arguing objectively false things?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You are framing the argument by trying go pair it down to a single action equal restrictive while ignoring content freedom of choice. While you do have to kill to gain swordsmanship perk you complete this while doing any activity that you kill. In MMORPG is generally a lot like questing, dungeons, raiding, exploring. Compared to themeparks the content is your choice.
Centralized progression only gives as much freedom as the content just as activity based. And the content you are talking about is restricted by levels, quest choices, developer choice. You will be required to kill because frankly a themepark without killing would be even more boring than they are.
There are so many activity based games that offer open gameplay it's silly.
This isn't complicated:
I pointed out your system involves less freedom.
I supported that point with factual statements about precisely why it involves less freedom.
Yes, that does constitute "framing the argument" because all my statements revolve around the objective truth that your system involves less freedom. But obviously "framing the argument" is by no means a bad thing (unless you're the person attempting to say false things.)
Centralized progress does give only as much freedom as the content allows. This is true. And usually that's a good chunk of freedom: rarely are you forced into questlines you don't like, and often a variety of activities are rewarded so you can gain your sword skill by crafting, exploring, etc.
Meanwhile your system always provides almost no freedom. Also true.
Basically you're trying to nitpick over the possibility of a lack of freedom, and I'm pointing out your system provides a consistent, definite lack of freedom. You cannot argue against the truth of this, so why try?
Up isn't down. It's up. Why are you such a big fan of arguing objectively false things?
What are you exactly talking about? You make zero sense. Are you saying all RPG without centralized exp through are more restrictive? If your saying games like UO or Morrowind are more restrictive than a game like WoW. If so you really have no credibility.
This system let's you advance doing the same quest. Not sure how even bringing up quest helps your argument. You will max faster in this system. You will be able to pick and choose which quest you want when you want without level restrictions. You will be able to decide not to do any quest at all. You could only do dungeons or raids to max. You could grind NPCs.
Just because the progression is done through one method doesn't mean the gameplay surrounding it does. Because you know the majority vessel of progression in MMORPG is combat. You harp on it in another thread. Meaning even if max in say swordsmanship was a relatively 1000 kills running through the typical themepark you would reach that very quickly.
Freedom is based on choice in gameplay options and progression methods not progression action that you are stuck on.
I would like to point out several things: 1. A system by nature, inhibits or restrict freedom. When you design a system you are restricting the way a user or an object interacts in favor of certain (expected) results. A good example is the achievement system which you mentioned: Pick up / use a sword to gain access to sword skill (the restriction is, a player could not gain access to sword skill if the player picks up other weapon aside from a sword). The catch is, the more complex or convoluted a system is the more restrictive it will become. Providing an alternative to that system will make that same system redundant or less effective.
2. Going by the logic above, 'grinding fatigue', is the result of a system. If you want to remove the phenomenon of grinding or people macro-ing, you should remove the system that enables them completely. For example, you could remove the system which gives xp when killing a monster, instead player can only gain exp from doing quest. Quest could be given daily with random specific task. Or you could spawn event related quest regularly or randomly. The achievements which related to skill/exp/attributes are based on player finishing those quest.
3. 'Fun' is subjective. Each person have different tastes. To create a system that could caters to all players demand is like trying to create a color which all people would pick as their favorite.
What are you exactly talking about? You make zero sense. Are you saying all RPG without centralized exp through are more restrictive? If your saying games like UO or Morrowind are more restrictive than a game like WoW. If so you really have no credibility.
This system let's you advance doing the same quest. Not sure how even bringing up quest helps your argument. You will max faster in this system. You will be able to pick and choose which quest you want when you want without level restrictions. You will be able to decide not to do any quest at all. You could only do dungeons or raids to max. You could grind NPCs.
Just because the progression is done through one method doesn't mean the gameplay surrounding it does. Because you know the majority vessel of progression in MMORPG is combat. You harp on it in another thread. Meaning even if max in say swordsmanship was a relatively 1000 kills running through the typical themepark you would reach that very quickly.
Freedom is based on choice in gameplay options and progression methods not progression action that you are stuck on.
Straw men won't help your cause:
Did I write that your system involved less freedom? Yes.
Did I write that all non-centralized systems involve less freedom? No.
It turns out: I'm saying what I'm saying, and I'm not saying what I'm not saying.
But sure let's look at Morrowind vs. WOW in terms of the freedom of their progression systems:
Can you improve sword skill doing whatever you feel like in Morrowind? No. The game's progression system offers NO FREEDOM.
Can you improve the equivalent in WOW by doing whatever you feel like in WOW? Yes, you have a much broader set of XP-generating activities in WOW.
To insist that the overall level of freedom in Morrowind is the result of its overly restrictive progression system is utter nonsense. You're taking a piece of Morrowind which was objectively restrictive (not free at all) and because it existed in a game that otherwise had good freedom you're pretending that the mechanic itself provided freedom. It's utter madness.
Why can't people just think?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We could call them "quests" and they could provide a centralized progression currency called "XP" that advances your character as you complete a lot of them!
It's not really what I am talking about. You could have quest force you do something on a vertical progression trail but this is more about freedom of choice. If you never wanted to do a quest you could keep them to a minimum and just raiding. More raiding you do the more perks you get for use while raiding.
You'd need to traipse through hell for that fire resistance buff you mentioned earlier.
Then kill 100 of whatever mob type the raid boss happens to be to get the bonus before raid.
Your system would not work like you envision it. It would cause people to do very specific things to get the achievement and advance.
That is what I want... players making there own choices how, when and where they play. You want to grind you can. You want quest you can.
I think we're misunderstanding each other.
Don't you need to explore to get that +fire resist buff for raiding? Then grind mobs to get mob type buff for raid boss mob?
Assuming people want to get as strong as possible in their chose activity, don't they need to branch into other activities for buffs that help them in whatever activity they choose to do? Wouldn't that be really limiting, because quest chains can be skipped, but if you want the fire resistance achievement for exploring hell the only way to get it is to explore hell?
Wouldn't the min-maxers need to do every activity to max their power in their chosen activity?
What are you exactly talking about? You make zero sense. Are you saying all RPG without centralized exp through are more restrictive? If your saying games like UO or Morrowind are more restrictive than a game like WoW. If so you really have no credibility.
This system let's you advance doing the same quest. Not sure how even bringing up quest helps your argument. You will max faster in this system. You will be able to pick and choose which quest you want when you want without level restrictions. You will be able to decide not to do any quest at all. You could only do dungeons or raids to max. You could grind NPCs.
Just because the progression is done through one method doesn't mean the gameplay surrounding it does. Because you know the majority vessel of progression in MMORPG is combat. You harp on it in another thread. Meaning even if max in say swordsmanship was a relatively 1000 kills running through the typical themepark you would reach that very quickly.
Freedom is based on choice in gameplay options and progression methods not progression action that you are stuck on.
Straw men won't help your cause:
Did I write that your system involved less freedom? Yes.
Did I write that all non-centralized systems involve less freedom? No.
It turns out: I'm saying what I'm saying, and I'm not saying what I'm not saying.
But sure let's look at Morrowind vs. WOW in terms of the freedom of their progression systems:
Can you improve sword skill doing whatever you feel like in Morrowind? No. The game's progression system offers NO FREEDOM.
Can you improve the equivalent in WOW by doing whatever you feel like in WOW? Yes, you have a much broader set of XP-generating activities in WOW.
To insist that the overall level of freedom in Morrowind is the result of its overly restrictive progression system is utter nonsense. You're taking a piece of Morrowind which was objectively restrictive (not free at all) and because it existed in a game that otherwise had good freedom you're pretending that the mechanic itself provided freedom. It's utter madness.
Why can't people just think?
So there you have it. You're just arguing to arguing. I just said that progression doesn't restrict freedom. Everything else is contradictory to that. My game has freedom the same way Morrowind does. Freedom to choose what to do within gameplay regardless of progression and white you progress
And if you think WoW with developer forced content and strict classes and builds is freedom. No point in discussing further. We have different opinions of freedom.
So there you have it. You're just arguing to arguing. I just said that progression doesn't restrict freedom. Everything else is contradictory to that. My game has freedom the same way Morrowind does. Freedom to choose what to do within gameplay regardless of progression and white you progress
And if you think WoW with developer forced content and strict classes and builds is freedom. No point in discussing further. We have different opinions of freedom.
Morrowind's progression did restrict freedom. Want sword skill? You MUST swing a sword. Unequivocally less freedom.
The game was free in spite of the system, not because of it.
This thread is about one thing: your proposed system.
When discussing your proposed system, we're discussing something that objectively limits freedom.
When discussing things OUTSIDE of your proposed system, we're discussing things that might not be as limiting -- but at that point we're no longer discussing your proposed system.
My posts have focused on your system. Your posts have essentially said 'Ignore my system and focus on the fact that freedom could be achieved in spite of my system!'
Which of those sounds like 'arguing to argue' to you?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When discussing "things outside his proposed system" you have used very skewed arguments. The claim that such things as, say, WoW's system being less limiting because it uses global XP. You have chosen to cherry pick how you try to discuss the subject and the mechanics in order to dodge some rather blatant flaws in logic.
Is a system where global XP progresses all character skills more open in terms of what a person can theoretically do to progress a game as opposed to discrete skill gains? Semantically yes.
But here comes all the caveats.
How the progression system works. If it's a game with lots of vertical progression there can be an issue with discrete skill gains and no global XP. However, if it's a more horizontal game then progressing in the skill trees that you actively practice works just fine as you are sculpting your character according to your play-style and not really at a loss compared to others.
This compounds with what other game systems get implemented along with it and there are many solutions if someone wants to implement more vertical progression or some degree of global experience to pad out some features.
How systems affect freedom of decision. The difference between a system with discrete skill gains, especially wen coupled with an open-ended world experience, means player choice actually is more open in ways that traditional themepark mechanics lack. What discrete skill gains loses in global gains it makes up for in freedom of choice on activities and user direction.
That's an important distinction because it's not simply a matter of better or worse, but trade-offs and asking what kind of freedom you want to experience in a game. Freedom to progress any skill at the cost of getting to choose what you're actually doing to gain that XP, or freedom to do what you want to do and gain XP specific to your preferred play.
How much such freedom global XP offers matters. To put it simply, the argument is built on making a mountain out of a molehill in the first place. Stopping to ask oneself "If a player has been given the option to play the aspects of the game they enjoy and are actively being rewarded for it, then are they actually missing out on anything?"
And the answer is no, they are not. Technically sure, there's a lot of things they aren't doing, but they have chosen specific things based on their level of interest, and forcing them to play something they don't have interest in is not a great design choice. Players aren't suffering for not gaining rewards on content they aren't caring to utilize.
The extended argument of this is that it's a more natural system to progress along more discrete paths of experience than chopping trees and "ding" your cooking skill went up. You can model it so there is XP bleed into associated skills and activities, as that makes sense, but the idea of a horizontal progression system where you unlock specialized skills and your character stats grow to reflect your chosen playstyle, sculpting your class by the effect of your play, is very much an system and course of action that is driven by a players freedom of choice.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
So there you have it. You're just arguing to arguing. I just said that progression doesn't restrict freedom. Everything else is contradictory to that. My game has freedom the same way Morrowind does. Freedom to choose what to do within gameplay regardless of progression and white you progress
And if you think WoW with developer forced content and strict classes and builds is freedom. No point in discussing further. We have different opinions of freedom.
Morrowind's progression did restrict freedom. Want sword skill? You MUST swing a sword. Unequivocally less freedom.
The game was free in spite of the system, not because of it.
This thread is about one thing: your proposed system.
When discussing your proposed system, we're discussing something that objectively limits freedom.
When discussing things OUTSIDE of your proposed system, we're discussing things that might not be as limiting -- but at that point we're no longer discussing your proposed system.
My posts have focused on your system. Your posts have essentially said 'Ignore my system and focus on the fact that freedom could be achieved in spite of my system!'
Which of those sounds like 'arguing to argue' to you?
You're talking in circles. The system in Morrowind isn't restrictive. It was a natural system where you fought with a sword you got better. The limitations come with gameplay not progression action. Essentially you do what you want to be better than. Doing what you want = freedom. Not doing what you want = no freedom.
You're trying frame you're argument about a singular action vs. the whole picture of choices in how you want to play. You could be a mage, warrior, thief on one character because you're game play choices in advancement is based on doing what you want. Even if its only gain by a single action at a time you're still free to do that action while you play the gameplay freely.
Typically you're restricted in centralized level based games to do what the developer places in front of you to gain abilities... if you can at all. You don't even address the limitations and heavy restrictions of WoW with classes, levels, gated content and etc. For example if I am wizard in a World of Warcraft I can never use a sword. How is that freedom to someone who whants to be a sword weilding wizard? I could never practice with a staff as a Priest to be able to fight as well in melee as a warrior. That's not even going into the nature of forced developer content placed on a level schedule.
The system in Morrowind isn't restrictive. It was a natural system where you fought with a sword you got better. The limitations come with gameplay not progression action. Essentially you do what you want to be better than. Doing what you want = freedom. Not doing what you want = no freedom.
This is why I am a fan of skill use progression. It can be grindy, but it makes the most sense to me. Use a skill, get better at it. This whole "general XP" makes no sense to me. Why did my smithing get better by whacking at orcs?
So there you have it. You're just arguing to arguing. I just said that progression doesn't restrict freedom. Everything else is contradictory to that. My game has freedom the same way Morrowind does. Freedom to choose what to do within gameplay regardless of progression and white you progress
And if you think WoW with developer forced content and strict classes and builds is freedom. No point in discussing further. We have different opinions of freedom.
Morrowind's progression did restrict freedom. Want sword skill? You MUST swing a sword. Unequivocally less freedom.
The game was free in spite of the system, not because of it.
This thread is about one thing: your proposed system.
When discussing your proposed system, we're discussing something that objectively limits freedom.
When discussing things OUTSIDE of your proposed system, we're discussing things that might not be as limiting -- but at that point we're no longer discussing your proposed system.
My posts have focused on your system. Your posts have essentially said 'Ignore my system and focus on the fact that freedom could be achieved in spite of my system!'
Which of those sounds like 'arguing to argue' to you?
You're talking in circles. The system in Morrowind isn't restrictive. It was a natural system where you fought with a sword you got better. The limitations come with gameplay not progression action. Essentially you do what you want to be better than. Doing what you want = freedom. Not doing what you want = no freedom.
You're trying frame you're argument about a singular action vs. the whole picture of choices in how you want to play. You could be a mage, warrior, thief on one character because you're game play choices in advancement is based on doing what you want. Even if its only gain by a single action at a time you're still free to do that action while you play the gameplay freely.
Typically you're restricted in centralized level based games to do what the developer places in front of you to gain abilities... if you can at all. You don't even address the limitations and heavy restrictions of WoW with classes, levels, gated content and etc. For example if I am wizard in a World of Warcraft I can never use a sword. How is that freedom to someone who whants to be a sword weilding wizard? I could never practice with a staff as a Priest to be able to fight as well in melee as a warrior. That's not even going into the nature of forced developer content placed on a level schedule.
What about actions people want to be better at so that they could avoid them?
For example I want to be better at traveling fast so that I can spend as little time traveling as possible. In your system, wouldn't I need to spend huge amount of extra time traveling around the world, to get achievements, so that I could be better at avoiding traveling.
Also I want to be better at resisting damage because I want to avoid it as much as possible, not because I'd want to get damaged as many times as possible. But in a system where I need to engage in an action to get more skilled, wouldn't I have to intentionally take more damage so that I would get achievements and take less damage?
The system in Morrowind isn't restrictive. It was a natural system where you fought with a sword you got better. The limitations come with gameplay not progression action. Essentially you do what you want to be better than. Doing what you want = freedom. Not doing what you want = no freedom.
This is why I am a fan of skill use progression. It can be grindy, but it makes the most sense to me. Use a skill, get better at it. This whole "general XP" makes no sense to me. Why did my smithing get better by whacking at orcs?
So, when I reach 100 in Blade skill by killing 1000000000 rats - you think it's realistic that I'm suddenly able to defeat a highly skilled swordsman?
Rats, generally, aren't the best swordfighters out there.
You're talking in circles. The system in Morrowind isn't restrictive. It was a natural system where you fought with a sword you got better. The limitations come with gameplay not progression action. Essentially you do what you want to be better than. Doing what you want = freedom. Not doing what you want = no freedom.
You're trying frame you're argument about a singular action vs. the whole picture of choices in how you want to play. You could be a mage, warrior, thief on one character because you're game play choices in advancement is based on doing what you want. Even if its only gain by a single action at a time you're still free to do that action while you play the gameplay freely.
Typically you're restricted in centralized level based games to do what the developer places in front of you to gain abilities... if you can at all. You don't even address the limitations and heavy restrictions of WoW with classes, levels, gated content and etc. For example if I am wizard in a World of Warcraft I can never use a sword. How is that freedom to someone who whants to be a sword weilding wizard? I could never practice with a staff as a Priest to be able to fight as well in melee as a warrior. That's not even going into the nature of forced developer content placed on a level schedule.
I'm not talking in circles. The truth is one, constant thing.
In Morrowind you are not free to do 2 or more activities to raise sword skill. You are restricted to exactly one activity: sword-swinging.
That's not freedom. If you felt it was "natural", that's irrelevant. It wasn't freedom. Period.
Can you "do what you want" to improve sword skill in Morrowind? No. It wasn't freedom.
Your thread is a progression system. We're talking about progression systems. So yes, the discussion is framed around progression systems. And in that context, your system is restrictive and lacks freedom.
In a centralized progression system can "do what you want". You do have freedom. That sort of progression system offers a high degree of freedom. Whether factors outside the progression system are constraining or not is completely irrelevant because we're discussing progression systems.
It's like you're totally incapable of splitting things out into their component parts. If I tied a 1-gram feather to a 200 lb weight and asked you how much just the feather weighed, you'd tell me "over 200 lbs."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is why I am a fan of skill use progression. It can be grindy, but it makes the most sense to me. Use a skill, get better at it. This whole "general XP" makes no sense to me. Why did my smithing get better by whacking at orcs?
Because fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The system in Morrowind isn't restrictive. It was a natural system where you fought with a sword you got better. The limitations come with gameplay not progression action. Essentially you do what you want to be better than. Doing what you want = freedom. Not doing what you want = no freedom.
This is why I am a fan of skill use progression. It can be grindy, but it makes the most sense to me. Use a skill, get better at it. This whole "general XP" makes no sense to me. Why did my smithing get better by whacking at orcs?
So, when I reach 100 in Blade skill by killing 1000000000 rats - you think it's realistic that I'm suddenly able to defeat a highly skilled swordsman?
Rats, generally, aren't the best swordfighters out there.
If you play a game that allows you to reach master level skill by killing the same measly opponent, it's not due to the skill system, but it's implementation.
You're talking in circles. The system in Morrowind isn't restrictive. It was a natural system where you fought with a sword you got better. The limitations come with gameplay not progression action. Essentially you do what you want to be better than. Doing what you want = freedom. Not doing what you want = no freedom.
You're trying frame you're argument about a singular action vs. the whole picture of choices in how you want to play. You could be a mage, warrior, thief on one character because you're game play choices in advancement is based on doing what you want. Even if its only gain by a single action at a time you're still free to do that action while you play the gameplay freely.
Typically you're restricted in centralized level based games to do what the developer places in front of you to gain abilities... if you can at all. You don't even address the limitations and heavy restrictions of WoW with classes, levels, gated content and etc. For example if I am wizard in a World of Warcraft I can never use a sword. How is that freedom to someone who whants to be a sword weilding wizard? I could never practice with a staff as a Priest to be able to fight as well in melee as a warrior. That's not even going into the nature of forced developer content placed on a level schedule.
I'm not talking in circles. The truth is one, constant thing.
In Morrowind you are not free to do 2 or more activities to raise sword skill. You are restricted to exactly one activity: sword-swinging.
That's not freedom. If you felt it was "natural", that's irrelevant. It wasn't freedom. Period.
Can you "do what you want" to improve sword skill in Morrowind? No. It wasn't freedom.
Your thread is a progression system. We're talking about progression systems. So yes, the discussion is framed around progression systems. And in that context, your system is restrictive and lacks freedom.
In a centralized progression system can "do what you want". You do have freedom. That sort of progression system offers a high degree of freedom. Whether factors outside the progression system are constraining or not is completely irrelevant because we're discussing progression systems.
It's like you're totally incapable of splitting things out into their component parts. If I tied a 1-gram feather to a 200 lb weight and asked you how much just the feather weighed, you'd tell me "over 200 lbs."
It's not restrictive because if you want to use swords you are using swords already. You in turn get better at swords. If I don't want to use swords I use a staff or magic.
You can't do what you want in centralized experience. You do what the developer gives you to gain experience. If you have levels it's more limited to a few things what you can do. If you have classes you have even more restricts what you can do. If you gave gear restrictions you have even more restrictions.
So there you have it. You're just arguing to arguing. I just said that progression doesn't restrict freedom. Everything else is contradictory to that. My game has freedom the same way Morrowind does. Freedom to choose what to do within gameplay regardless of progression and white you progress
And if you think WoW with developer forced content and strict classes and builds is freedom. No point in discussing further. We have different opinions of freedom.
Morrowind's progression did restrict freedom. Want sword skill? You MUST swing a sword. Unequivocally less freedom.
The game was free in spite of the system, not because of it.
This thread is about one thing: your proposed system.
When discussing your proposed system, we're discussing something that objectively limits freedom.
When discussing things OUTSIDE of your proposed system, we're discussing things that might not be as limiting -- but at that point we're no longer discussing your proposed system.
My posts have focused on your system. Your posts have essentially said 'Ignore my system and focus on the fact that freedom could be achieved in spite of my system!'
Which of those sounds like 'arguing to argue' to you?
You're talking in circles. The system in Morrowind isn't restrictive. It was a natural system where you fought with a sword you got better. The limitations come with gameplay not progression action. Essentially you do what you want to be better than. Doing what you want = freedom. Not doing what you want = no freedom.
You're trying frame you're argument about a singular action vs. the whole picture of choices in how you want to play. You could be a mage, warrior, thief on one character because you're game play choices in advancement is based on doing what you want. Even if its only gain by a single action at a time you're still free to do that action while you play the gameplay freely.
Typically you're restricted in centralized level based games to do what the developer places in front of you to gain abilities... if you can at all. You don't even address the limitations and heavy restrictions of WoW with classes, levels, gated content and etc. For example if I am wizard in a World of Warcraft I can never use a sword. How is that freedom to someone who whants to be a sword weilding wizard? I could never practice with a staff as a Priest to be able to fight as well in melee as a warrior. That's not even going into the nature of forced developer content placed on a level schedule.
What about actions people want to be better at so that they could avoid them?
For example I want to be better at traveling fast so that I can spend as little time traveling as possible. In your system, wouldn't I need to spend huge amount of extra time traveling around the world, to get achievements, so that I could be better at avoiding traveling.
Also I want to be better at resisting damage because I want to avoid it as much as possible, not because I'd want to get damaged as many times as possible. But in a system where I need to engage in an action to get more skilled, wouldn't I have to intentionally take more damage so that I would get achievements and take less damage?
If you want to be better at that stuff in any other system you're going to have to spend time doing a bunch of things to grind up the necessary XP any ways. Skipping past the progression in a game kind of kills the point of having progression.
Even in WoW they gate your access to faster travel methods according to your overall level for a reason. In a skill system where you can specifically choose to improve your travel speed, you semantically could focus on doing just that and improve it foremost before it's an impediment to other stuff.
Similarly on resisting damage, gear is level restricted in vertical games for a reason and a lot of your damage resistance is consequently gated until you grind a silly amount of stuff.
The argument that you want to skip content to get the progress without the effort is a silly argument to make when talking about a system built on progression.
Besides which, that has a certain degree of assumptions about what the activities to improve a skill may be. For example to improve your defense you may very well not have a skill, and that may be entirely gear based. Evasion and blocking might be skills though, and those could involve more obstacle avoidance and tactful defensive skill use to negate damage rather than just being hit.
Also of note is that travel skills are generally of little concern. They actually have to get a much longer XP curve in many cases just because the amount of traveling done would mean they'd get capped shortly into the game if they followed the same curve as the rest of the content's progression. Even then it's remarkably easy to level traveling in most any game. For example a lot of people cheesed that skill in Morrowind and Oblivion both by either taping their controller or macroing they keyboards and going AFK.
It's super-difficult for developers to make that kinda skill hard or even moderately difficult to master because the nature of what it's attached to. It's also subsequently rather a non-issue.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's not restrictive because if you want to use swords you are using swords already. You in turn get better at swords. If I don't want to use swords I use a staff or magic.
You can't do what you want in centralized experience. You do what the developer gives you to gain experience. If you have levels it's more limited to a few things what you can do. If you have classes you have even more restricts what you can do. If you gave gear restrictions you have even more restrictions.
In Morrowind I wanted to get better at Acrobatics.
I could not become better at Acrobatics through standard play.
What did Morrowind encourage me to do instead? Jump everywhere at all times.
That actually happened. It was my actual Morrowind experience. It was restrictive and stupid.
Meanwhile in other games I could simply used a centralized progression system to do whatever I wanted to earn XP, and dump points into the Acrobatics equivalent.
Your second paragraph essentially argues there aren't INFINITE WAYS to progress. Who cares? We're comparing your progression (ONE WAY to progress) vs. centralized progression (MANY WAYS to progress.)
So the bar to beat is one way, and by definition centralized progression beats that. (Because centralized implies there are at least 2 activities feeding into a central progression.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In Morrowind I wanted to get better at Acrobatics.
I could not become better at Acrobatics through standard play.
Not really. Getting better at acrobatics was natural for the gameplay if you at all took to exploration or environment traversal (IE, running/jumping through cities and around obstacles to both benefit you in combat, avoid guards, shortcut pathways, traverse the mountain or marsh areas, etc).
It's just that jumping everywhere was easier and faster way to cheese the progression. You sought the path of least resistance, not the natural course of progression.
That's not restriction, that's metagaming taking advantage of a mechanic provided (the ability to spam an action to bypass the natural curve).
And you seem to enjoy taking advantage of the rather fuzzy definition you are using of "centralized xp" since you are describing a mechanic of choice where you will not necessarily be getting one. The freedom to allot your own skill points is offered in specific forms of play and it not bound to centralized nor restricted from a dominantly skill progression system, but is instead a secondary mechanic that defined the options a user has for sculpting their character.
Take for example both WoW and Diablo 3, two titles with centralized progression and very little choice of stat progression outside of gear, to which gear has an equal potential application in both systems.
Rather than making a precarious argument that only works if the stars align and people make all the wrong decisions in building one system while making all the right ones when building the other, it may be more fair to state reality next time.
The argument that's been given by you is more accurately summarized as "I don't like some of the side systems that are sometimes used in tandem with skill based progression systems and I refuse to think of anything beyond this one poorly constructed concept I have in my head." That's not a reasonable argument.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Rather than making a precarious argument that only works if the stars align and people make all the wrong decisions in building one system while making all the right ones when building the other, it may be more fair to state reality next time.
The argument that's been given by you is more accurately summarized as "I don't like some of the side systems that are sometimes used in tandem with skill based progression systems and I refuse to think of anything beyond this one poorly constructed concept I have in my head." That's not a reasonable argument.
Nor has he even addressed the restrictions of levels, classes, forced developer content and etc. Just you can do things which really amount to killing and quest that 90% involve killing.
It's not restrictive because if you want to use swords you are using swords already. You in turn get better at swords. If I don't want to use swords I use a staff or magic.
You can't do what you want in centralized experience. You do what the developer gives you to gain experience. If you have levels it's more limited to a few things what you can do. If you have classes you have even more restricts what you can do. If you gave gear restrictions you have even more restrictions.
In Morrowind I wanted to get better at Acrobatics.
I could not become better at Acrobatics through standard play.
What did Morrowind encourage me to do instead? Jump everywhere at all times.
That actually happened. It was my actual Morrowind experience. It was restrictive and stupid.
Meanwhile in other games I could simply used a centralized progression system to do whatever I wanted to earn XP, and dump points into the Acrobatics equivalent.
Your second paragraph essentially argues there aren't INFINITE WAYS to progress. Who cares? We're comparing your progression (ONE WAY to progress) vs. centralized progression (MANY WAYS to progress.)
So the bar to beat is one way, and by definition centralized progression beats that. (Because centralized implies there are at least 2 activities feeding into a central progression.)
Your arguments are all over the place Axe.
You are saying that in the proposed achievement system, there is only one way to progress - that is a flat out lie used to distort the argument. There are as many ways to progress as there are achievements. What you are saying is as absurd as me saying that a centralised XP system is restrictive because there is only one way to progress - earn XP!
Ultimately, it is implementation that matters. I prefer skill-based progression systems like Morrowind because I believe they offer me more freedom than centralised xp level-based systems. In a centralised xp level-based system, I'm restricted to a very narrow band of content in order to progress and the progression is usually linear.
In a skill-based system, I can progress in numerous ways and usually in a far greater variety of locations. Sure, if I want to progress my sword skill, I have to use a sword, but assuming I haven't capped out any skills then I have numerous additional ways to progress my character by switching weapons/armour/magic etc and progressing my character in a different direction. Centralised XP progression systems can't say the same thing.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Comments
- "In regular games, you can do YOUR CHOICE of many things to increase sword skill."
Well there's where the problem is. The argument is just a false assumption that he's basing the rest of his rant on.To put it simply, most games don't give you such freedom. You aren't picking your choice among many things in most themepark games, but instead following a given directive at any moment as to what you can/must do. In most side activities the XP gain, if any, has tended to be pretty minimal.
You have exceptions with the likes of Ryzom and GW2, but those are exceptions more so than the norm such as WoW and games that follow it where the only major XP is either grinding dungeons (killing) or quest chains (directed activities).
That's not freedom.
Even taking Ver's original approach and saying XP for a skill only comes from practicing that skill, the difference becomes that while the reward is more restricted, the choice of play is considerably less so.
Not to mention the concept of progress may very well be getting skewed by Axehilt, as he may be assuming that there is still a heavy hand of vertical progression where Ver refers to more horizontal progression.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Centralized progression only gives as much freedom as the content just as activity based. And the content you are talking about is restricted by levels, quest choices, developer choice. You will be required to kill because frankly a themepark without killing would be even more boring than they are.
There are so many activity based games that offer open gameplay it's silly.
- I pointed out your system involves less freedom.
- I supported that point with factual statements about precisely why it involves less freedom.
Yes, that does constitute "framing the argument" because all my statements revolve around the objective truth that your system involves less freedom. But obviously "framing the argument" is by no means a bad thing (unless you're the person attempting to say false things.)Centralized progress does give only as much freedom as the content allows. This is true. And usually that's a good chunk of freedom: rarely are you forced into questlines you don't like, and often a variety of activities are rewarded so you can gain your sword skill by crafting, exploring, etc.
Meanwhile your system always provides almost no freedom. Also true.
Basically you're trying to nitpick over the possibility of a lack of freedom, and I'm pointing out your system provides a consistent, definite lack of freedom. You cannot argue against the truth of this, so why try?
Up isn't down. It's up. Why are you such a big fan of arguing objectively false things?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This system let's you advance doing the same quest. Not sure how even bringing up quest helps your argument. You will max faster in this system. You will be able to pick and choose which quest you want when you want without level restrictions. You will be able to decide not to do any quest at all. You could only do dungeons or raids to max. You could grind NPCs.
Just because the progression is done through one method doesn't mean the gameplay surrounding it does. Because you know the majority vessel of progression in MMORPG is combat. You harp on it in another thread. Meaning even if max in say swordsmanship was a relatively 1000 kills running through the typical themepark you would reach that very quickly.
Freedom is based on choice in gameplay options and progression methods not progression action that you are stuck on.
I would like to point out several things:
1. A system by nature, inhibits or restrict freedom. When you design a system you are restricting the way a user or an object interacts in favor of certain (expected) results. A good example is the achievement system which you mentioned: Pick up / use a sword to gain access to sword skill (the restriction is, a player could not gain access to sword skill if the player picks up other weapon aside from a sword).
The catch is, the more complex or convoluted a system is the more restrictive it will become. Providing an alternative to that system will make that same system redundant or less effective.
2. Going by the logic above, 'grinding fatigue', is the result of a system. If you want to remove the phenomenon of grinding or people macro-ing, you should remove the system that enables them completely. For example, you could remove the system which gives xp when killing a monster, instead player can only gain exp from doing quest. Quest could be given daily with random specific task. Or you could spawn event related quest regularly or randomly. The achievements which related to skill/exp/attributes are based on player finishing those quest.
3. 'Fun' is subjective. Each person have different tastes. To create a system that could caters to all players demand is like trying to create a color which all people would pick as their favorite.
- Did I write that your system involved less freedom? Yes.
- Did I write that all non-centralized systems involve less freedom? No.
It turns out: I'm saying what I'm saying, and I'm not saying what I'm not saying.But sure let's look at Morrowind vs. WOW in terms of the freedom of their progression systems:
- Can you improve sword skill doing whatever you feel like in Morrowind? No. The game's progression system offers NO FREEDOM.
- Can you improve the equivalent in WOW by doing whatever you feel like in WOW? Yes, you have a much broader set of XP-generating activities in WOW.
To insist that the overall level of freedom in Morrowind is the result of its overly restrictive progression system is utter nonsense. You're taking a piece of Morrowind which was objectively restrictive (not free at all) and because it existed in a game that otherwise had good freedom you're pretending that the mechanic itself provided freedom. It's utter madness.Why can't people just think?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Don't you need to explore to get that +fire resist buff for raiding? Then grind mobs to get mob type buff for raid boss mob?
Assuming people want to get as strong as possible in their chose activity, don't they need to branch into other activities for buffs that help them in whatever activity they choose to do? Wouldn't that be really limiting, because quest chains can be skipped, but if you want the fire resistance achievement for exploring hell the only way to get it is to explore hell?
Wouldn't the min-maxers need to do every activity to max their power in their chosen activity?
And if you think WoW with developer forced content and strict classes and builds is freedom. No point in discussing further. We have different opinions of freedom.
The game was free in spite of the system, not because of it.
This thread is about one thing: your proposed system.
- When discussing your proposed system, we're discussing something that objectively limits freedom.
- When discussing things OUTSIDE of your proposed system, we're discussing things that might not be as limiting -- but at that point we're no longer discussing your proposed system.
My posts have focused on your system.Your posts have essentially said 'Ignore my system and focus on the fact that freedom could be achieved in spite of my system!'
Which of those sounds like 'arguing to argue' to you?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When discussing "things outside his proposed system" you have used very skewed arguments. The claim that such things as, say, WoW's system being less limiting because it uses global XP. You have chosen to cherry pick how you try to discuss the subject and the mechanics in order to dodge some rather blatant flaws in logic.
Is a system where global XP progresses all character skills more open in terms of what a person can theoretically do to progress a game as opposed to discrete skill gains? Semantically yes.
But here comes all the caveats.
- How the progression system works. If it's a game with lots of vertical progression there can be an issue with discrete skill gains and no global XP. However, if it's a more horizontal game then progressing in the skill trees that you actively practice works just fine as you are sculpting your character according to your play-style and not really at a loss compared to others.
This compounds with what other game systems get implemented along with it and there are many solutions if someone wants to implement more vertical progression or some degree of global experience to pad out some features.- How systems affect freedom of decision. The difference between a system with discrete skill gains, especially wen coupled with an open-ended world experience, means player choice actually is more open in ways that traditional themepark mechanics lack. What discrete skill gains loses in global gains it makes up for in freedom of choice on activities and user direction.
That's an important distinction because it's not simply a matter of better or worse, but trade-offs and asking what kind of freedom you want to experience in a game. Freedom to progress any skill at the cost of getting to choose what you're actually doing to gain that XP, or freedom to do what you want to do and gain XP specific to your preferred play.- How much such freedom global XP offers matters. To put it simply, the argument is built on making a mountain out of a molehill in the first place. Stopping to ask oneself "If a player has been given the option to play the aspects of the game they enjoy and are actively being rewarded for it, then are they actually missing out on anything?"
And the answer is no, they are not. Technically sure, there's a lot of things they aren't doing, but they have chosen specific things based on their level of interest, and forcing them to play something they don't have interest in is not a great design choice. Players aren't suffering for not gaining rewards on content they aren't caring to utilize.The extended argument of this is that it's a more natural system to progress along more discrete paths of experience than chopping trees and "ding" your cooking skill went up. You can model it so there is XP bleed into associated skills and activities, as that makes sense, but the idea of a horizontal progression system where you unlock specialized skills and your character stats grow to reflect your chosen playstyle, sculpting your class by the effect of your play, is very much an system and course of action that is driven by a players freedom of choice.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You're trying frame you're argument about a singular action vs. the whole picture of choices in how you want to play. You could be a mage, warrior, thief on one character because you're game play choices in advancement is based on doing what you want. Even if its only gain by a single action at a time you're still free to do that action while you play the gameplay freely.
Typically you're restricted in centralized level based games to do what the developer places in front of you to gain abilities... if you can at all. You don't even address the limitations and heavy restrictions of WoW with classes, levels, gated content and etc. For example if I am wizard in a World of Warcraft I can never use a sword. How is that freedom to someone who whants to be a sword weilding wizard? I could never practice with a staff as a Priest to be able to fight as well in melee as a warrior. That's not even going into the nature of forced developer content placed on a level schedule.
VG
For example I want to be better at traveling fast so that I can spend as little time traveling as possible. In your system, wouldn't I need to spend huge amount of extra time traveling around the world, to get achievements, so that I could be better at avoiding traveling.
Also I want to be better at resisting damage because I want to avoid it as much as possible, not because I'd want to get damaged as many times as possible. But in a system where I need to engage in an action to get more skilled, wouldn't I have to intentionally take more damage so that I would get achievements and take less damage?
Rats, generally, aren't the best swordfighters out there.
In Morrowind you are not free to do 2 or more activities to raise sword skill. You are restricted to exactly one activity: sword-swinging.
That's not freedom. If you felt it was "natural", that's irrelevant. It wasn't freedom. Period.
Can you "do what you want" to improve sword skill in Morrowind? No. It wasn't freedom.
Your thread is a progression system. We're talking about progression systems. So yes, the discussion is framed around progression systems. And in that context, your system is restrictive and lacks freedom.
In a centralized progression system can "do what you want". You do have freedom. That sort of progression system offers a high degree of freedom. Whether factors outside the progression system are constraining or not is completely irrelevant because we're discussing progression systems.
It's like you're totally incapable of splitting things out into their component parts. If I tied a 1-gram feather to a 200 lb weight and asked you how much just the feather weighed, you'd tell me "over 200 lbs."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
VG
You can't do what you want in centralized experience. You do what the developer gives you to gain experience. If you have levels it's more limited to a few things what you can do. If you have classes you have even more restricts what you can do. If you gave gear restrictions you have even more restrictions.
Even in WoW they gate your access to faster travel methods according to your overall level for a reason. In a skill system where you can specifically choose to improve your travel speed, you semantically could focus on doing just that and improve it foremost before it's an impediment to other stuff.
Similarly on resisting damage, gear is level restricted in vertical games for a reason and a lot of your damage resistance is consequently gated until you grind a silly amount of stuff.
The argument that you want to skip content to get the progress without the effort is a silly argument to make when talking about a system built on progression.
Besides which, that has a certain degree of assumptions about what the activities to improve a skill may be. For example to improve your defense you may very well not have a skill, and that may be entirely gear based. Evasion and blocking might be skills though, and those could involve more obstacle avoidance and tactful defensive skill use to negate damage rather than just being hit.
Also of note is that travel skills are generally of little concern. They actually have to get a much longer XP curve in many cases just because the amount of traveling done would mean they'd get capped shortly into the game if they followed the same curve as the rest of the content's progression. Even then it's remarkably easy to level traveling in most any game. For example a lot of people cheesed that skill in Morrowind and Oblivion both by either taping their controller or macroing they keyboards and going AFK.
It's super-difficult for developers to make that kinda skill hard or even moderately difficult to master because the nature of what it's attached to. It's also subsequently rather a non-issue.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I could not become better at Acrobatics through standard play.
What did Morrowind encourage me to do instead? Jump everywhere at all times.
That actually happened. It was my actual Morrowind experience. It was restrictive and stupid.
Meanwhile in other games I could simply used a centralized progression system to do whatever I wanted to earn XP, and dump points into the Acrobatics equivalent.
Your second paragraph essentially argues there aren't INFINITE WAYS to progress. Who cares? We're comparing your progression (ONE WAY to progress) vs. centralized progression (MANY WAYS to progress.)
So the bar to beat is one way, and by definition centralized progression beats that. (Because centralized implies there are at least 2 activities feeding into a central progression.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's just that jumping everywhere was easier and faster way to cheese the progression. You sought the path of least resistance, not the natural course of progression.
That's not restriction, that's metagaming taking advantage of a mechanic provided (the ability to spam an action to bypass the natural curve).
And you seem to enjoy taking advantage of the rather fuzzy definition you are using of "centralized xp" since you are describing a mechanic of choice where you will not necessarily be getting one. The freedom to allot your own skill points is offered in specific forms of play and it not bound to centralized nor restricted from a dominantly skill progression system, but is instead a secondary mechanic that defined the options a user has for sculpting their character.
Take for example both WoW and Diablo 3, two titles with centralized progression and very little choice of stat progression outside of gear, to which gear has an equal potential application in both systems.
Rather than making a precarious argument that only works if the stars align and people make all the wrong decisions in building one system while making all the right ones when building the other, it may be more fair to state reality next time.
The argument that's been given by you is more accurately summarized as "I don't like some of the side systems that are sometimes used in tandem with skill based progression systems and I refuse to think of anything beyond this one poorly constructed concept I have in my head." That's not a reasonable argument.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Nor has he even addressed the restrictions of levels, classes, forced developer content and etc. Just you can do things which really amount to killing and quest that 90% involve killing.
You are saying that in the proposed achievement system, there is only one way to progress - that is a flat out lie used to distort the argument. There are as many ways to progress as there are achievements. What you are saying is as absurd as me saying that a centralised XP system is restrictive because there is only one way to progress - earn XP!
Ultimately, it is implementation that matters. I prefer skill-based progression systems like Morrowind because I believe they offer me more freedom than centralised xp level-based systems. In a centralised xp level-based system, I'm restricted to a very narrow band of content in order to progress and the progression is usually linear.
In a skill-based system, I can progress in numerous ways and usually in a far greater variety of locations. Sure, if I want to progress my sword skill, I have to use a sword, but assuming I haven't capped out any skills then I have numerous additional ways to progress my character by switching weapons/armour/magic etc and progressing my character in a different direction. Centralised XP progression systems can't say the same thing.