When the US declares war on Iraq, they've already won. Yes they have to go through the time of getting 100-1 or 1000-1 kills to every US soldier death and completely destroying the country and then dealing with the aftermath of not wanting to just jump ship once they've killed Saddam and destabilized the country, but they've already won, everyone knows they've already won as soon as war is declared. There's no one sitting there going, man I think Iraq can pull this off.
By the way, incase you hadn't heard. The U.S. lost to Vietnam. Lulz, there goes your entire arguement.
I think the quotes take care of that one by itself, I don't even have to remark on how the US losing in Vietnam does not destroy my argument involving the US declaring war on Iraq.
I don't know...looks like you couldn't come up with a good response. They are obviously comparable wars considering the post I replied to. Vietnam isn't Iraq, but I doubt you'll find many people who thought the U.S. wasn't easily going to take that war. To this day people still insist that the U.S. clearly won, pointing to casualties, but the victory conditions weren't "kill more people." North Vietnam won what they were fighting for.
_________________________________ "Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..." -George "sniperg" Light
One method of diluting the power gap would be to make it so that a level 1 has the same hp as a max level character, or the max level character could have maybe 200 hp more with chosen talents or something.
Also make it so a level 1 can wear the most powerful gear in the game.
Make the combat system so a level 1 could still do good damage with a good weapon and the basic attacks.
The main difference between a level 1 and max level would be the amount of abilities they have. There would be very little damage abilities.
Abilities would be mostly utility things like better mitigation of damage types, healing powers, snares, stuns, knockbacks... etc
This way, a level 1 could still have a chance against a max level, but of coarse the max level still has the advantage. Put the max level against 3-5 level 1s and he'll probably lose.
*EDIT*- I also forgot to mention that there wouldn't be any increased chance to miss, or be dodged/blocked/whatever for the lower levels.
If you think about it, original SWG had a similar system, players pretty much all had the same hp no matter their skill level, and they could all get buffs.
I can't remember how armor was handled but I think all players could originally wear any armor.
One method of diluting the power gap would be to make it so that a level 1 has the same hp as a max level character, or the max level character could have maybe 200 hp more with chosen talents or something.
Also make it so a level 1 can wear the most powerful gear in the game.
Make the combat system so a level 1 could still do good damage with a good weapon and the basic attacks.
The main difference between a level 1 and max level would be the amount of abilities they have. There would be very little damage abilities.
Abilities would be mostly utility things like better mitigation of damage types, healing powers, snares, stuns, knockbacks... etc
This way, a level 1 could still have a chance against a max level, but of coarse the max level still has the advantage. Put the max level against 3-5 level 1s and he'll probably lose.
*EDIT*- I also forgot to mention that there wouldn't be any increased chance to miss, or be dodged/blocked/whatever for the lower levels.
If you think about it, original SWG had a similar system, players pretty much all had the same hp no matter their skill level, and they could all get buffs.
I can't remember how armor was handled but I think all players could originally wear any armor.
Yah I think something like this could work, depending on the game its in. Most people would probably see it as a bit too extreme, meaning too little power gap, but I like the basic premise. Thanks for posting an actual suggestion instead of jumping to a false conclusion about my OP like many others have .
One method of diluting the power gap would be to make it so that a level 1 has the same hp as a max level character, or the max level character could have maybe 200 hp more with chosen talents or something.
Also make it so a level 1 can wear the most powerful gear in the game.
Make the combat system so a level 1 could still do good damage with a good weapon and the basic attacks.
The main difference between a level 1 and max level would be the amount of abilities they have. There would be very little damage abilities.
Abilities would be mostly utility things like better mitigation of damage types, healing powers, snares, stuns, knockbacks... etc
This way, a level 1 could still have a chance against a max level, but of coarse the max level still has the advantage. Put the max level against 3-5 level 1s and he'll probably lose.
*EDIT*- I also forgot to mention that there wouldn't be any increased chance to miss, or be dodged/blocked/whatever for the lower levels.
If you think about it, original SWG had a similar system, players pretty much all had the same hp no matter their skill level, and they could all get buffs.
I can't remember how armor was handled but I think all players could originally wear any armor.
Yah I think something like this could work, depending on the game its in. Most people would probably see it as a bit too extreme, meaning too little power gap, but I like the basic premise. Thanks for posting an actual suggestion instead of jumping to a false conclusion about my OP like many others have .
You could also add in temporary power, for example, for each player/srtong mob one player kills his max hp raises by 10 up to some maximum. When the player dies, the extra hp gained from killing stuff is lost.
So a player with maxed out hp from killing stuff could now take out maybe 10 level 1s.
One method of diluting the power gap would be to make it so that a level 1 has the same hp as a max level character, or the max level character could have maybe 200 hp more with chosen talents or something.
Also make it so a level 1 can wear the most powerful gear in the game.
Make the combat system so a level 1 could still do good damage with a good weapon and the basic attacks.
The main difference between a level 1 and max level would be the amount of abilities they have. There would be very little damage abilities.
Abilities would be mostly utility things like better mitigation of damage types, healing powers, snares, stuns, knockbacks... etc
This way, a level 1 could still have a chance against a max level, but of coarse the max level still has the advantage. Put the max level against 3-5 level 1s and he'll probably lose.
*EDIT*- I also forgot to mention that there wouldn't be any increased chance to miss, or be dodged/blocked/whatever for the lower levels.
If you think about it, original SWG had a similar system, players pretty much all had the same hp no matter their skill level, and they could all get buffs.
I can't remember how armor was handled but I think all players could originally wear any armor.
Yah I think something like this could work, depending on the game its in. Most people would probably see it as a bit too extreme, meaning too little power gap, but I like the basic premise. Thanks for posting an actual suggestion instead of jumping to a false conclusion about my OP like many others have .
You could also add in temporary power, for example, for each player/srtong mob one player kills his max hp raises by 10 up to some maximum. When the player dies, the extra hp gained from killing stuff is lost.
So a player with maxed out hp from killing stuff could now take out maybe 10 level 1s.
This sounds like something that would be better suited as an ability that can be learned rather than part of the system. Something like "Slayer's Vigor." A good idea nonetheless though .
One thing I thought of before I even posted this that could give players something to work for if a more "broad" advancement system is used and thus the "deep" advancement systems currently used in MMORPGs would not be present is the concept of "cooperative skills."
This would mean that players could learn special skills that could only be performed in tandem with another player. These skills could either be their own separate abilities (like a ritual spell), or just combinations of pre-existing individual skills that, when performed together, are more powerful than the sum of their parts. Think Chrono Trigger team attacks if you are familiar with that.
The twist would be that you would have the learn the cooperative skill for each individual player that you wanted to perform it with. You could also allow the player to learn a cooperative skill that they could perform with any member of their guild, but maybe require that they learn it with 2 or 3 individuals in that guild first.
This would provide LOTS of advancement opportunities for players. If a wizard character learned "Blaze" and his fighter buddy learned "Slash," then together they could learn "Blazing Slash" that would do more damage then them simply using the skills separately. The combinations could be virtually limitless. it would provide players with a multitude of ways to advance their character even if they are already maxed out as an individual.
I like the idea of group moves, but that sounds more like a grouping incentive rather than a power gap solution.
player A with Blaze or Slash, is always gonna do better than player B who doesn't have either, if we're talking power levels.
Yah it's not really meant as a power-gap solution, more as something to fill the in "gap" that would be left if said power-gap were to be removed. After all, removing the power-gap may mean removing the tiered content structure currently seen in most MMO's, but could be perceived to leave a big gap in terms of providing people goals to work towards.
It's true that you can still allow people to advance broad-wise, acquiring skills and such, but it would probably take more development time to make so many unique skills that would compensate for the "addictive playtime" lost through removing the power-gap. Cooperative abilities are simply a way to "stretch out" the skills that the developers make into more than they really are. It basically gives players something else to work towards since the tiered content and level stratification will be removed.
It also encourages building relationships and cooperation which I think should be cornerstones of any MMORPG design.
“No, real life does not support the power gap theory: real life I don't care how hard you train, any idiot can still kill you in one shot if you arent paying attentionIn power gap games a newb can swing a sword at you for hours and you wouldnt even know they exist….” NinjaVega
I agree with your arguments: indeed level gap is a problem that should be discussed and addressed. However, I was talking about a general tendency and not about “extreme” situations like ambushing, sleeping (AFK) during a battle archer, or a newbie attaching for hours a “silent” veteran. Moreover, as I’ve said emulating RL situations in a game might be not that productive or entertaining. On the other hand comparison with RL can provide somewhat interesting ideas for discussion. For instance OP wrote:
“I would argue that the only feeling of advancement comes from learning NEW skills, not simply making already existing ones more powerful.”
Yes, but in RL specialization, sometimes called “professional cretinism”, knowing everything about nothing is far more often than superficial knowledge about everything.
“Whats being advocated is balance in the gain of power, not complete removal of rewards or power ups.” NinjaVega
“We only want the MASSIVE and HARMFUL power gap between new and experienced players to be reduced so that everyone can play together both cooperatively and competitively.” Creslin321 (OP).
Absolutely! But how this could be achieved without loosing an entertaining component of a game? Decreasing the steepness of the advancement/leveling might result in boring not noticeable progress. Implementing “a wide VARIETY of skills” instead of significant development of few ones could come to the same situation of a huge power gap because that addresses the process, the way of advancement not the result. The strength of “weak” fighters was in their quantity and tactics/organization. See “Deadliest Warrior”, Roman Centurion vs Rajput. Romans conquered the world not because they were physically stronger or significantly better equipped but because they were better organized and used clever flexible tactics. Therefore IMO the proposed implementation of more advanced grouping options in MMOs could be a solution of the discussed problem.
Someone already said it in the first page. In themepark game this is necessary. Because they dont' want you to go to the highest tier area, get the best gear and skip everything else.
It only work in sandbox game where all the content is present to you in the beginning and you are free to go where you want.
If a game is revolved around killing dragon for sword to kill bigger dragon for bigger sword to kill bigger dragon... It make sense to have power gap. Since if I can kill the biggest dragon in the game with a level 1 sword, I wont' bother to kill the smaller dragon before it.
Comparison with real life actually supports the “power gap” solution.
To train a longbow archer (or a ninja) required years of “grinding”. In order to collect enough money to purchase an expensive plate armor and a battle horse it was necessary to serve nearly the whole life for a sovereign (unless you were from a rich noble family).
In a one-to-one fight in the frame of a massive battle a veteran has a huge advantage over a usually badly equipped recruit. Historical massive battles are also not an exception: compare in action losses of Russian just mobilized divisions with the casualties of opposing them experienced German troops during WWII (nearly 8 to 1).
Training was really boring and tedious (just recall Sir Walter Scott’s novels: kids, future archers, had stand holding a heavy stick in front of them for hours).
Nothing has changed in modern warfare, e.g. years of hard and expensive training of a fighter pilot.
There is a serious difference between RL and games: games should entertain (there is nothing entertaining in military service – it is a hard and dangerous job). Moreover, in reality military training is organized in “groups” (training camps/schools), not via quests. One-to-one fights is a relatively rare event: formations, collective actions of highly specialized units determine the outcome of a battle. So far I haven’t seen any attempts (of players or developers, they have different reasons for that) to organize somehow massive battles in MMOs.
It is not an easy task to find a doable from the technical/programming point of view and fair for a veteran as well for a new player entertaining balanced solution.
I agree with the original poster and also with the guy I quoted here. There is too much of a "power gap" between high level and low level characters, but it should not be abolished. As this guy points out, in real combat, there is a major gap between the abilities of inexperienced troops and veterans. It's just not as much as in a typical MMORPG. Consider this, in WoW or any other game you care to consider, would combat between complete newbies and extremely high level veterans result in a casualty ratio of 8 to 1 that the poster I quoted cited for WWII combat between veteran and inexperienced troops? In WoW, could a level 1 or even a level 5 newbie EVER kill a level 70 character? If combat of that kind resulted in a hugely lopsided outcome anywhere near 8 to 1, then I'd say that sounds realistic. If the "power gap" is much greater than this, or much less, then it is unrealistic.
My philosophy in game design, which I have some experience at, is that realism usually makes better games. Or at least, it makes the kind of games I personally prefer.
I really like the point the poster I quoted made that real wars generally involve large battles, not one-on-one combat. Furthermore, the thing that makes a general more powerful than a sergeant and harder to kill is not that he can take more bullets and keep fighting or even that he has better aim or a better gun. It's the fact that the general has more troops under his command who will fight with him and protect him.
So there are realistic ways for an extremely experienced soldier or player to be vulnerable to a one shot kill yet be virtually unkillable because enemies have to get through so many guards to get that one shot that hardly ever happens.
I think there is a lot of potential in games where players progress not only by developing skills and getting better equipment, but by accumulating followers, henchmen, employees, troops, etc. These can be NPCs, but it works better if they are players. It has the potential to greatly increase and improve player interactions which is the main advantage of an MMO over a one player game. I know there are some games that do this, but there is room for lots and lots of improvement. I have explored some of this in my games, but I hope to have the opportunity to do much more.
“No, real life does not support the power gap theory: real life I don't care how hard you train, any idiot can still kill you in one shot if you arent paying attentionIn power gap games a newb can swing a sword at you for hours and you wouldnt even know they exist….” NinjaVega I agree with your arguments: indeed level gap is a problem that should be discussed and addressed. However, I was talking about a general tendency and not about “extreme” situations like ambushing, sleeping (AFK) during a battle archer, or a newbie attaching for hours a “silent” veteran. Moreover, as I’ve said emulating RL situations in a game might be not that productive or entertaining. On the other hand comparison with RL can provide somewhat interesting ideas for discussion. For instance OP wrote: “I would argue that the only feeling of advancement comes from learning NEW skills, not simply making already existing ones more powerful.” Yes, but in RL specialization, sometimes called “professional cretinism”, knowing everything about nothing is far more often than superficial knowledge about everything. “Whats being advocated is balance in the gain of power, not complete removal of rewards or power ups.” NinjaVega “We only want the MASSIVE and HARMFUL power gap between new and experienced players to be reduced so that everyone can play together both cooperatively and competitively.” Creslin321 (OP). Absolutely! But how this could be achieved without loosing an entertaining component of a game? Decreasing the steepness of the advancement/leveling might result in boring not noticeable progress. Implementing “a wide VARIETY of skills” instead of significant development of few ones could come to the same situation of a huge power gap because that addresses the process, the way of advancement not the result. The strength of “weak” fighters was in their quantity and tactics/organization. See “Deadliest Warrior”, Roman Centurion vs Rajput. Romans conquered the world not because they were physically stronger or significantly better equipped but because they were better organized and used clever flexible tactics. Therefore IMO the proposed implementation of more advanced grouping options in MMOs could be a solution of the discussed problem.
Hi and thanks for posting an intelligent argument. I do agree that if you take the standard WoW-esque game and simply remove the massive power-gap it will not work. Those games were designed specifically with level-stratification in mind. It takes different game design to fit a game with less of a power gap, more of an open-world. UO was the best at doing this to my knowledge, but I am sure that it could be done better nowadays with all of the technological advancements if a well funded developer really tried.
You could even have a game that has many of the features of WoW such as rich character advancement, cool skills, talent system etc but remove the power gap. You just need to design the world to be open from day 1. There would still be challenges, hard monsters, and there would still be advancement. You just wouldn't have the enforced level stratification that you see in games now. If you're a newb, you could try to fight a high level MOB...you will probably get owned due to lack of skills, stats and gear, but you may give it a bloody nose at least.
Also, I really like your idea about advanced grouping options. I would like to hear this expanded further if you don't mind...just more specifics of what you are thinking. My philosophy about MMO's is that cooperation and competition between players are the two things that MMO's have over single player RPGs, and these should really be at the core of any design element in an MMO. That's why I hate the power gap so much, because it is so detrimental to these two core elements. It makes an MMORPG more like a single player RPG.
I like the idea of group moves, but that sounds more like a grouping incentive rather than a power gap solution.
player A with Blaze or Slash, is always gonna do better than player B who doesn't have either, if we're talking power levels.
Yah it's not really meant as a power-gap solution, more as something to fill the in "gap" that would be left if said power-gap were to be removed. After all, removing the power-gap may mean removing the tiered content structure currently seen in most MMO's, but could be perceived to leave a big gap in terms of providing people goals to work towards.
It's true that you can still allow people to advance broad-wise, acquiring skills and such, but it would probably take more development time to make so many unique skills that would compensate for the "addictive playtime" lost through removing the power-gap. Cooperative abilities are simply a way to "stretch out" the skills that the developers make into more than they really are. It basically gives players something else to work towards since the tiered content and level stratification will be removed.
It also encourages building relationships and cooperation which I think should be cornerstones of any MMORPG design.
I think you could still have tiered content with a low power gap, for instance, there could be some mobs that are just too strong to take out with a low amount of abilities, or low quality gear. Just don't bunch them all up in one zone/area so it's a more open feeling game.
Also, making cooperative skills would require just as much time as making completely new skills as far as development goes, because the combined skills essentially are new skills.
It also might be problematic finding groups with people that share the same combo skills. And if combo skills were marginally better than the skills used by themselves people would always want a group capable of combo skills.
So it might encourage people who have the combo skills to group, it would also discourage many people to group if the players don't have the combo skills.
I dont think reducing the gap need to be the same as not rewarding vets (as someone said). I dont think OP means that you should hand out everything to everyone from day one, or that someone should be as good from day one as a vet who have worked his a$$ off for half a year. If you are not better after half a year than a day one noob, then you dont have any achievement system at all. Thats a bit different from "reducing the gap". Reduce and neutralize isnt the same thing.
I think most people want their character to grow in strength over time. But does it has to be so huge gap? I mean, already after like 5 levels you have grown to deity status compared to someone who is still level 1 - you can kill enemis a level 1 cant even hurt, and would kill him in a couple of hits. Do the difference really need to be even bigger than that? Or that big in the first place. Its not just about enemies who are too hard for you, but enemies you are forbidden to even put up a fight against.
The gap is so out of hand, that it has no limit. When I level up I will get more hit points, more skills, better skills, I can use better weapons with better damage and armor with better defense, etc. I get stronger, more agile, wiser, etc, and every item I equip usually increase those stats even more. Only one item at high level can increase, lets say Dexterity more than a low level character have in total. As this wasnt enough, you even top that with a level system where the level it self is a power who overrule everything else.
Problem as I see it (also explained by OP and other posters in this thread) is that your growing power is an illusion - you grow in power, but still not. Compared to an enemy on your own level, you are not really any more powerful at level 20 than at level 10. In some games you are as most powerful at level 1, and after that you need more and more hits to kill your enemis. Is this really rewarding, or how you want to be rewarded?
In CoH/CoV you have events, when alien or zombie hordes spawn in public. They kind of have no level, so anyone at any level can take part in those events and kill stuff. Noobs still have a big disadvantage. They run out of endurance, they have less good skills, fewer skills, less effective enhancements, and so on. So the vets have really, really being rewarded for their work, and can survive and kill off baddies much more effective than a noob. I think this is how it could work, if the gap was not so huge.
In my opinion, its much more rewarding to show off your power in team with people who are not as powerful as you, compared to teams where everyone is equal in strenght. In the same way I like to be impressed by the vets (and I´m not talking about being ganked in pvp by someone who thanks to the system is invincible to me). That motivates me to "one day be as powerful as playernamehere".
The "power gap" is not the problem. It's the maturity gap.
The maturity gap is when someone logs on to a new game and expects their character to be as powerful as one that someone else has been improving on for 6 months to a year or more. Or else that they should be able to do in 3 days what took that guy six months.
Instead of settling in and improving their character the same way as that other guy did, the player with the maturity deficit demands the game be made easier and the whole playing field leveled so that the guy who has been playing for a year or more has nothing to show for it.
Now there are "buddy systems' and similar devices whereby players many levels apart can group together. That's fine. But suggesting that newbies should be on par with veterans of a game is just the latest iteration of "I don't want to play I just want everything handed to me now."
Great post; This is why the OPs argument really does not hold up...
I just don't understand people who do not want to play games the way I do...
Fixed.
That could apply to the OP's side of the debate as well, could it not?
Both sides, in their own way, are arguing for MMOs to be more in line with the way they want to play them.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Why should it be that way? Why should decision making lack any impact on the character's performance in battle?
Why can't David beat Goliath?
Because current technology can't replicate chance/fate/luck. These games are all based on dice rolls of one form or another. Until we move away from that, where numbers no longer matter (or matter as much), you and the OP will never get what you're asking for.
Why should it be that way? Why should decision making lack any impact on the character's performance in battle?
Why can't David beat Goliath?
Because current technology can't replicate chance/fate/luck. These games are all based on dice rolls of one form or another. Until we move away from that, where numbers no longer matter (or matter as much), you and the OP will never get what you're asking for.
I don't really think that has much to do with what we are asking for. All we want is for games to feature a smaller gap in power. Maybe so a max level person is 10 times as powerful as a low level character, as opposed to 999999 times.
Also, there are successful games out right now that don't have large power gaps. UO being one, I believe EVE is another, though I haven't played it personally. Also...isn't a dice roll more or less the same thing as chance/fate/luck? As in, if David rolls 100 and Goliath rolls a 1, David wins? Not that I'm supporting letting dice rolls decide everything...just wanted to point that out.
Why should it be that way? Why should decision making lack any impact on the character's performance in battle?
Why can't David beat Goliath?
Because current technology can't replicate chance/fate/luck. These games are all based on dice rolls of one form or another. Until we move away from that, where numbers no longer matter (or matter as much), you and the OP will never get what you're asking for.
I don't really think that has much to do with what we are asking for. All we want is for games to feature a smaller gap in power. Maybe so a max level person is 10 times as powerful as a low level character, as opposed to 999999 times.
Also, there are successful games out right now that don't have large power gaps. UO being one, I believe EVE is another, though I haven't played it personally. Also...isn't a dice roll more or less the same thing as chance/fate/luck? As in, if David rolls 100 and Goliath rolls a 1, David wins? Not that I'm supporting letting dice rolls decide everything...just wanted to point that out.
If you want to use the David vs Goliath analogy, you have to remember that the power gap was not as large as one would believe. David had been using a slingshot for a long time working as a shepherd. A talented, trained slinger can be very deadly. So David was in no way a newbie. He was simply a different class than Goliath.
Actually if you understood the analogy he was trying to make at all, you would understand that a comparable situation to a modern MMORPG would be if the professional team showed up and won without swinging a bat or even attempting to play defense. It is not the same, the highschool team will clearly lose because the professional team understands the game more and when they perform skillfully they will come out on top. It still takes effort. If the professional team does nothing, they will lose. That scenario doesn't play out the same in a modern MMO.
Yeah, it's clear that a super-power is going to win in a war against a smaller country, but the super-power still has to put forth tons of effort to win that war to come out on top as much as expected. Especially in the case with war, performing their best and really thinking about everything they do is important because, if they don't people will die.
By the way, incase you hadn't heard. The U.S. lost to Vietnam. Lulz, there goes your entire arguement. Try telling me you think Vietnam was comparable to the U.S. at the time.
So, you're saying that a high level player being attacked by lower level players - or players of any level - never has to swing their sword, cast a spell, or do anything to win? They just stand there, and the lowbies attacking them drop like flies automatically, just by virtue of being much higher level?
Ahhh.... not in any MMO I've ever played.
Even if it's to cast a "thorn armor" type of spell where the attacker is damaged every time they hit you, that's still effort required on the higher level player's part to cast that spell on themself.
If you're going to use examples like "still having to play the game in order to beat a high school team", then you can't characterize it as an accurate analogy of a higher level player being able to stand there and not do anything to win against lower level players attacking them.
The higher level player would be able to likely one or two-shot the lower level player... but they'd still have to make the effort. Which, based on the professional versus high school example, is exactly the same thing. The professional team wouldn't have to try very hard to win... but they'd still have to make the effort. Same thing with a higher level player defeating a lower level one.
While I fully understand the point that's intended to be made here, the choice of analogies doesn't quite work.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
All we want is for games to feature a smaller gap in power. Maybe so a max level person is 10 times as powerful as a low level character .....
Woot! At max level I can look forward to fighting mobs that are 10 times as powerful as the ones in Goldshire. Maybe they will be epic boars.
And if I play for 5 years? My reward is I am 10 times more powerful than a guy who just rolled 2 minutes ago.
Plus if you get a group of level 1 noobs they can group up and kill level 40 mobs.
Brilliant! I can't believe I didn't see the merits of this idea earlier.
Yeah, the epic boar example is pretty ridiculous...it's also absolutely true.
Think about the different enemies you fight in an MMORPG. At level 1-10 you fight green orcs. At level 11-20 you fight blue orcs. But at level 21-30 you fight the dreaded red orc! Sound familiar? MMORPG level developers never have time to make different models for each level tier so they just recycle them. At least with a flatter power gap they wouldn't be forced to stretch one model across 6 different level tiers...an orc would be an orc, always around the same power level.
And what is so horrible about low level players being able to group up and kill a higher level MOB? Is this going to break the game somehow? You're thinking in very narrow terms. There are more to MMORPGs then strict WoW-esque level stratification. It's possible to open the entire world up to players and not limit them to just one or two areas at any given time.
The higher level player would be able to likely one or two-shot the lower level player... but they'd still have to make the effort. Which, based on the professional versus high school example, is exactly the same thing. The professional team wouldn't have to try very hard to win... but they'd still have to make the effort.
I think you are grossely underestimating the amount of effort that professional atheletes put into their job. Even in the scenario where the high level character does have to attack before 1 or 2 shotting their opponent, that little ounce of effort is not comparable to the amount the professional baseball team would have to put forth to beat a highschool baseball team.
Have you ever been incredibly exceptional at something? You might whipe the floor with someone in some sport, and people might remark, "he didn't even have to try," but that is simply not the case. By the very fact that you destroy your opponent you have demonstrated the exceptional amount of effort that went into the task. People think "he makes it look so easy," but the reality is that there's a lot of work that goes into that. If there wasn't a lot of work that went into it, then you wouldn't destroy your opponent.
You think Michael Jordan can make a couple shots and then give up against me (or you) in a match of 21 and he'd still win? I'm not an exceptional basketball player, but I would still win if he put forth that little effort because those couple shots don't equate to 21 points. Sure, he probably could beat me 21 to 0 without missing a shot, but then it's plainly obvious that he put something more than a minimal amount of effort forth to win.
Of course, he will have a huge advantage because he's much more atheltic than I am, when it comes to basketball he's smarter than I am and he's clearly a very talented player (or was at least), but he's not going to win for simply showing up and shooting a single jumper. He's going to win because he puts forth a ton of effort.
All we want is for games to feature a smaller gap in power. Maybe so a max level person is 10 times as powerful as a low level character .....
Woot! At max level I can look forward to fighting mobs that are 10 times as powerful as the ones in Goldshire. Maybe they will be epic boars.
And if I play for 5 years? My reward is I am 10 times more powerful than a guy who just rolled 2 minutes ago.
Plus if you get a group of level 1 noobs they can group up and kill level 40 mobs.
Brilliant! I can't believe I didn't see the merits of this idea earlier.
In what current MMO does it take 5 years to reach max power? At most, it might take you a year, and that's if you play casualy, like 2 hours a day.
There's no reason at all a max level player should have rights to one shot someone who just stepped into the game. He'll most likely still kill them which should be enough to satisfy.
10 times as powerful isn't enough? You must seriously suck if a player 10 times weaker than you still poses a threat.
So 10 level 1s can kill you... so what? They should be able to. There's no reason why an infinite amount of level 1s shouldn't be able to kill a max level character.
Do you really need the power of one shotting noobs to stroke your ego? So you spent time to max your character, grats, big acheivement.
Plus if you get a group of level 1 noobs they can group up and kill level 40 mobs.
Brilliant! I can't believe I didn't see the merits of this idea earlier.
Wait, why are you talking about Raids? Oh, I see, you didn't even realize you mentioned one of the current staples of a modern mmorpg - Raiding. Do you know how raiding started? It started with EQ, when the Devs created mobs that were "impossible" for the players to beat. They were there for lore or atmosphere, whatever...either way the players set out to prove they were not "impossible" to defeat and did so by being incredibly crafty, skillful and smart. They didn't walk up to these monsters, all right-click simultaneously and win because their stats and gear dictated so. They came up with chain-healing and other methods, planned out their attack and made key decisions that allowed them to do something that was suppose to be impossible.
Then it got turned into a game feature.
Welcome to the club of "People that have proven themselves wrong in this thread."
Actually if you understood the analogy he was trying to make at all, you would understand that a comparable situation to a modern MMORPG would be if the professional team showed up and won without swinging a bat or even attempting to play defense. It is not the same, the highschool team will clearly lose because the professional team understands the game more and when they perform skillfully they will come out on top. It still takes effort. If the professional team does nothing, they will lose. That scenario doesn't play out the same in a modern MMO.
Yeah, it's clear that a super-power is going to win in a war against a smaller country, but the super-power still has to put forth tons of effort to win that war to come out on top as much as expected. Especially in the case with war, performing their best and really thinking about everything they do is important because, if they don't people will die.
By the way, incase you hadn't heard. The U.S. lost to Vietnam. Lulz, there goes your entire arguement. Try telling me you think Vietnam was comparable to the U.S. at the time.
So, you're saying that a high level player being attacked by lower level players - or players of any level - never has to swing their sword, cast a spell, or do anything to win? They just stand there, and the lowbies attacking them drop like flies automatically, just by virtue of being much higher level?
Ahhh.... not in any MMO I've ever played.
Even if it's to cast a "thorn armor" type of spell where the attacker is damaged every time they hit you, that's still effort required on the higher level player's part to cast that spell on themself.
If you're going to use examples like "still having to play the game in order to beat a high school team", then you can't characterize it as an accurate analogy of a higher level player being able to stand there and not do anything to win against lower level players attacking them.
The higher level player would be able to likely one or two-shot the lower level player... but they'd still have to make the effort. Which, based on the professional versus high school example, is exactly the same thing. The professional team wouldn't have to try very hard to win... but they'd still have to make the effort. Same thing with a higher level player defeating a lower level one.
While I fully understand the point that's intended to be made here, the choice of analogies doesn't quite work.
Happened in EQ...one automatic counter attack from a higher level player could kill you if you were low level.
Comments
I don't know...looks like you couldn't come up with a good response. They are obviously comparable wars considering the post I replied to. Vietnam isn't Iraq, but I doubt you'll find many people who thought the U.S. wasn't easily going to take that war. To this day people still insist that the U.S. clearly won, pointing to casualties, but the victory conditions weren't "kill more people." North Vietnam won what they were fighting for.
_________________________________
"Fixed it. Because that wall of text attacked me, killed me and looted my body..."
-George "sniperg" Light
One method of diluting the power gap would be to make it so that a level 1 has the same hp as a max level character, or the max level character could have maybe 200 hp more with chosen talents or something.
Also make it so a level 1 can wear the most powerful gear in the game.
Make the combat system so a level 1 could still do good damage with a good weapon and the basic attacks.
The main difference between a level 1 and max level would be the amount of abilities they have. There would be very little damage abilities.
Abilities would be mostly utility things like better mitigation of damage types, healing powers, snares, stuns, knockbacks... etc
This way, a level 1 could still have a chance against a max level, but of coarse the max level still has the advantage. Put the max level against 3-5 level 1s and he'll probably lose.
*EDIT*- I also forgot to mention that there wouldn't be any increased chance to miss, or be dodged/blocked/whatever for the lower levels.
If you think about it, original SWG had a similar system, players pretty much all had the same hp no matter their skill level, and they could all get buffs.
I can't remember how armor was handled but I think all players could originally wear any armor.
Yah I think something like this could work, depending on the game its in. Most people would probably see it as a bit too extreme, meaning too little power gap, but I like the basic premise. Thanks for posting an actual suggestion instead of jumping to a false conclusion about my OP like many others have
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You could also add in temporary power, for example, for each player/srtong mob one player kills his max hp raises by 10 up to some maximum. When the player dies, the extra hp gained from killing stuff is lost.
So a player with maxed out hp from killing stuff could now take out maybe 10 level 1s.
This sounds like something that would be better suited as an ability that can be learned rather than part of the system. Something like "Slayer's Vigor." A good idea nonetheless though
.
One thing I thought of before I even posted this that could give players something to work for if a more "broad" advancement system is used and thus the "deep" advancement systems currently used in MMORPGs would not be present is the concept of "cooperative skills."
This would mean that players could learn special skills that could only be performed in tandem with another player. These skills could either be their own separate abilities (like a ritual spell), or just combinations of pre-existing individual skills that, when performed together, are more powerful than the sum of their parts. Think Chrono Trigger team attacks if you are familiar with that.
The twist would be that you would have the learn the cooperative skill for each individual player that you wanted to perform it with. You could also allow the player to learn a cooperative skill that they could perform with any member of their guild, but maybe require that they learn it with 2 or 3 individuals in that guild first.
This would provide LOTS of advancement opportunities for players. If a wizard character learned "Blaze" and his fighter buddy learned "Slash," then together they could learn "Blazing Slash" that would do more damage then them simply using the skills separately. The combinations could be virtually limitless. it would provide players with a multitude of ways to advance their character even if they are already maxed out as an individual.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I like the idea of group moves, but that sounds more like a grouping incentive rather than a power gap solution.
player A with Blaze or Slash, is always gonna do better than player B who doesn't have either, if we're talking power levels.
Yah it's not really meant as a power-gap solution, more as something to fill the in "gap" that would be left if said power-gap were to be removed. After all, removing the power-gap may mean removing the tiered content structure currently seen in most MMO's, but could be perceived to leave a big gap in terms of providing people goals to work towards.
It's true that you can still allow people to advance broad-wise, acquiring skills and such, but it would probably take more development time to make so many unique skills that would compensate for the "addictive playtime" lost through removing the power-gap. Cooperative abilities are simply a way to "stretch out" the skills that the developers make into more than they really are. It basically gives players something else to work towards since the tiered content and level stratification will be removed.
It also encourages building relationships and cooperation which I think should be cornerstones of any MMORPG design.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
“No, real life does not support the power gap theory: real life I don't care how hard you train, any idiot can still kill you in one shot if you arent paying attentionIn power gap games a newb can swing a sword at you for hours and you wouldnt even know they exist….” NinjaVega
I agree with your arguments: indeed level gap is a problem that should be discussed and addressed. However, I was talking about a general tendency and not about “extreme” situations like ambushing, sleeping (AFK) during a battle archer, or a newbie attaching for hours a “silent” veteran. Moreover, as I’ve said emulating RL situations in a game might be not that productive or entertaining. On the other hand comparison with RL can provide somewhat interesting ideas for discussion. For instance OP wrote:
“I would argue that the only feeling of advancement comes from learning NEW skills, not simply making already existing ones more powerful.”
Yes, but in RL specialization, sometimes called “professional cretinism”, knowing everything about nothing is far more often than superficial knowledge about everything.
“Whats being advocated is balance in the gain of power, not complete removal of rewards or power ups.” NinjaVega
“We only want the MASSIVE and HARMFUL power gap between new and experienced players to be reduced so that everyone can play together both cooperatively and competitively.” Creslin321 (OP).
Absolutely! But how this could be achieved without loosing an entertaining component of a game? Decreasing the steepness of the advancement/leveling might result in boring not noticeable progress. Implementing “a wide VARIETY of skills” instead of significant development of few ones could come to the same situation of a huge power gap because that addresses the process, the way of advancement not the result. The strength of “weak” fighters was in their quantity and tactics/organization. See “Deadliest Warrior”, Roman Centurion vs Rajput. Romans conquered the world not because they were physically stronger or significantly better equipped but because they were better organized and used clever flexible tactics. Therefore IMO the proposed implementation of more advanced grouping options in MMOs could be a solution of the discussed problem.
Someone already said it in the first page. In themepark game this is necessary. Because they dont' want you to go to the highest tier area, get the best gear and skip everything else.
It only work in sandbox game where all the content is present to you in the beginning and you are free to go where you want.
If a game is revolved around killing dragon for sword to kill bigger dragon for bigger sword to kill bigger dragon... It make sense to have power gap. Since if I can kill the biggest dragon in the game with a level 1 sword, I wont' bother to kill the smaller dragon before it.
So it really depends on the game.
I agree with the original poster and also with the guy I quoted here. There is too much of a "power gap" between high level and low level characters, but it should not be abolished. As this guy points out, in real combat, there is a major gap between the abilities of inexperienced troops and veterans. It's just not as much as in a typical MMORPG. Consider this, in WoW or any other game you care to consider, would combat between complete newbies and extremely high level veterans result in a casualty ratio of 8 to 1 that the poster I quoted cited for WWII combat between veteran and inexperienced troops? In WoW, could a level 1 or even a level 5 newbie EVER kill a level 70 character? If combat of that kind resulted in a hugely lopsided outcome anywhere near 8 to 1, then I'd say that sounds realistic. If the "power gap" is much greater than this, or much less, then it is unrealistic.
My philosophy in game design, which I have some experience at, is that realism usually makes better games. Or at least, it makes the kind of games I personally prefer.
I really like the point the poster I quoted made that real wars generally involve large battles, not one-on-one combat. Furthermore, the thing that makes a general more powerful than a sergeant and harder to kill is not that he can take more bullets and keep fighting or even that he has better aim or a better gun. It's the fact that the general has more troops under his command who will fight with him and protect him.
So there are realistic ways for an extremely experienced soldier or player to be vulnerable to a one shot kill yet be virtually unkillable because enemies have to get through so many guards to get that one shot that hardly ever happens.
I think there is a lot of potential in games where players progress not only by developing skills and getting better equipment, but by accumulating followers, henchmen, employees, troops, etc. These can be NPCs, but it works better if they are players. It has the potential to greatly increase and improve player interactions which is the main advantage of an MMO over a one player game. I know there are some games that do this, but there is room for lots and lots of improvement. I have explored some of this in my games, but I hope to have the opportunity to do much more.
Hi and thanks for posting an intelligent argument. I do agree that if you take the standard WoW-esque game and simply remove the massive power-gap it will not work. Those games were designed specifically with level-stratification in mind. It takes different game design to fit a game with less of a power gap, more of an open-world. UO was the best at doing this to my knowledge, but I am sure that it could be done better nowadays with all of the technological advancements if a well funded developer really tried.
You could even have a game that has many of the features of WoW such as rich character advancement, cool skills, talent system etc but remove the power gap. You just need to design the world to be open from day 1. There would still be challenges, hard monsters, and there would still be advancement. You just wouldn't have the enforced level stratification that you see in games now. If you're a newb, you could try to fight a high level MOB...you will probably get owned due to lack of skills, stats and gear, but you may give it a bloody nose at least.
Also, I really like your idea about advanced grouping options. I would like to hear this expanded further if you don't mind...just more specifics of what you are thinking. My philosophy about MMO's is that cooperation and competition between players are the two things that MMO's have over single player RPGs, and these should really be at the core of any design element in an MMO. That's why I hate the power gap so much, because it is so detrimental to these two core elements. It makes an MMORPG more like a single player RPG.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think you could still have tiered content with a low power gap, for instance, there could be some mobs that are just too strong to take out with a low amount of abilities, or low quality gear. Just don't bunch them all up in one zone/area so it's a more open feeling game.
Also, making cooperative skills would require just as much time as making completely new skills as far as development goes, because the combined skills essentially are new skills.
It also might be problematic finding groups with people that share the same combo skills. And if combo skills were marginally better than the skills used by themselves people would always want a group capable of combo skills.
So it might encourage people who have the combo skills to group, it would also discourage many people to group if the players don't have the combo skills.
I dont think reducing the gap need to be the same as not rewarding vets (as someone said). I dont think OP means that you should hand out everything to everyone from day one, or that someone should be as good from day one as a vet who have worked his a$$ off for half a year. If you are not better after half a year than a day one noob, then you dont have any achievement system at all. Thats a bit different from "reducing the gap". Reduce and neutralize isnt the same thing.
I think most people want their character to grow in strength over time. But does it has to be so huge gap? I mean, already after like 5 levels you have grown to deity status compared to someone who is still level 1 - you can kill enemis a level 1 cant even hurt, and would kill him in a couple of hits. Do the difference really need to be even bigger than that? Or that big in the first place. Its not just about enemies who are too hard for you, but enemies you are forbidden to even put up a fight against.
The gap is so out of hand, that it has no limit. When I level up I will get more hit points, more skills, better skills, I can use better weapons with better damage and armor with better defense, etc. I get stronger, more agile, wiser, etc, and every item I equip usually increase those stats even more. Only one item at high level can increase, lets say Dexterity more than a low level character have in total. As this wasnt enough, you even top that with a level system where the level it self is a power who overrule everything else.
Problem as I see it (also explained by OP and other posters in this thread) is that your growing power is an illusion - you grow in power, but still not. Compared to an enemy on your own level, you are not really any more powerful at level 20 than at level 10. In some games you are as most powerful at level 1, and after that you need more and more hits to kill your enemis. Is this really rewarding, or how you want to be rewarded?
In CoH/CoV you have events, when alien or zombie hordes spawn in public. They kind of have no level, so anyone at any level can take part in those events and kill stuff. Noobs still have a big disadvantage. They run out of endurance, they have less good skills, fewer skills, less effective enhancements, and so on. So the vets have really, really being rewarded for their work, and can survive and kill off baddies much more effective than a noob. I think this is how it could work, if the gap was not so huge.
In my opinion, its much more rewarding to show off your power in team with people who are not as powerful as you, compared to teams where everyone is equal in strenght. In the same way I like to be impressed by the vets (and I´m not talking about being ganked in pvp by someone who thanks to the system is invincible to me). That motivates me to "one day be as powerful as playernamehere".
Very interesting point. After reading your post I must admit that I agree completely, yet I've never had that thought.
That could apply to the OP's side of the debate as well, could it not?
Both sides, in their own way, are arguing for MMOs to be more in line with the way they want to play them.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Because current technology can't replicate chance/fate/luck. These games are all based on dice rolls of one form or another. Until we move away from that, where numbers no longer matter (or matter as much), you and the OP will never get what you're asking for.
I don't really think that has much to do with what we are asking for. All we want is for games to feature a smaller gap in power. Maybe so a max level person is 10 times as powerful as a low level character, as opposed to 999999 times.
Also, there are successful games out right now that don't have large power gaps. UO being one, I believe EVE is another, though I haven't played it personally. Also...isn't a dice roll more or less the same thing as chance/fate/luck? As in, if David rolls 100 and Goliath rolls a 1, David wins? Not that I'm supporting letting dice rolls decide everything...just wanted to point that out.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
If you want to use the David vs Goliath analogy, you have to remember that the power gap was not as large as one would believe. David had been using a slingshot for a long time working as a shepherd. A talented, trained slinger can be very deadly. So David was in no way a newbie. He was simply a different class than Goliath.
So, you're saying that a high level player being attacked by lower level players - or players of any level - never has to swing their sword, cast a spell, or do anything to win? They just stand there, and the lowbies attacking them drop like flies automatically, just by virtue of being much higher level?
Ahhh.... not in any MMO I've ever played.
Even if it's to cast a "thorn armor" type of spell where the attacker is damaged every time they hit you, that's still effort required on the higher level player's part to cast that spell on themself.
If you're going to use examples like "still having to play the game in order to beat a high school team", then you can't characterize it as an accurate analogy of a higher level player being able to stand there and not do anything to win against lower level players attacking them.
The higher level player would be able to likely one or two-shot the lower level player... but they'd still have to make the effort. Which, based on the professional versus high school example, is exactly the same thing. The professional team wouldn't have to try very hard to win... but they'd still have to make the effort. Same thing with a higher level player defeating a lower level one.
While I fully understand the point that's intended to be made here, the choice of analogies doesn't quite work.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Woot! At max level I can look forward to fighting mobs that are 10 times as powerful as the ones in Goldshire. Maybe they will be epic boars.
And if I play for 5 years? My reward is I am 10 times more powerful than a guy who just rolled 2 minutes ago.
Plus if you get a group of level 1 noobs they can group up and kill level 40 mobs.
Brilliant! I can't believe I didn't see the merits of this idea earlier.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Yeah, the epic boar example is pretty ridiculous...it's also absolutely true.
Think about the different enemies you fight in an MMORPG. At level 1-10 you fight green orcs. At level 11-20 you fight blue orcs. But at level 21-30 you fight the dreaded red orc! Sound familiar? MMORPG level developers never have time to make different models for each level tier so they just recycle them. At least with a flatter power gap they wouldn't be forced to stretch one model across 6 different level tiers...an orc would be an orc, always around the same power level.
And what is so horrible about low level players being able to group up and kill a higher level MOB? Is this going to break the game somehow? You're thinking in very narrow terms. There are more to MMORPGs then strict WoW-esque level stratification. It's possible to open the entire world up to players and not limit them to just one or two areas at any given time.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think you are grossely underestimating the amount of effort that professional atheletes put into their job. Even in the scenario where the high level character does have to attack before 1 or 2 shotting their opponent, that little ounce of effort is not comparable to the amount the professional baseball team would have to put forth to beat a highschool baseball team.
Have you ever been incredibly exceptional at something? You might whipe the floor with someone in some sport, and people might remark, "he didn't even have to try," but that is simply not the case. By the very fact that you destroy your opponent you have demonstrated the exceptional amount of effort that went into the task. People think "he makes it look so easy," but the reality is that there's a lot of work that goes into that. If there wasn't a lot of work that went into it, then you wouldn't destroy your opponent.
You think Michael Jordan can make a couple shots and then give up against me (or you) in a match of 21 and he'd still win? I'm not an exceptional basketball player, but I would still win if he put forth that little effort because those couple shots don't equate to 21 points. Sure, he probably could beat me 21 to 0 without missing a shot, but then it's plainly obvious that he put something more than a minimal amount of effort forth to win.
Of course, he will have a huge advantage because he's much more atheltic than I am, when it comes to basketball he's smarter than I am and he's clearly a very talented player (or was at least), but he's not going to win for simply showing up and shooting a single jumper. He's going to win because he puts forth a ton of effort.
In what current MMO does it take 5 years to reach max power? At most, it might take you a year, and that's if you play casualy, like 2 hours a day.
There's no reason at all a max level player should have rights to one shot someone who just stepped into the game. He'll most likely still kill them which should be enough to satisfy.
10 times as powerful isn't enough? You must seriously suck if a player 10 times weaker than you still poses a threat.
So 10 level 1s can kill you... so what? They should be able to. There's no reason why an infinite amount of level 1s shouldn't be able to kill a max level character.
Do you really need the power of one shotting noobs to stroke your ego? So you spent time to max your character, grats, big acheivement.
Wait, why are you talking about Raids? Oh, I see, you didn't even realize you mentioned one of the current staples of a modern mmorpg - Raiding. Do you know how raiding started? It started with EQ, when the Devs created mobs that were "impossible" for the players to beat. They were there for lore or atmosphere, whatever...either way the players set out to prove they were not "impossible" to defeat and did so by being incredibly crafty, skillful and smart. They didn't walk up to these monsters, all right-click simultaneously and win because their stats and gear dictated so. They came up with chain-healing and other methods, planned out their attack and made key decisions that allowed them to do something that was suppose to be impossible.
Then it got turned into a game feature.
Welcome to the club of "People that have proven themselves wrong in this thread."
Happened in EQ...one automatic counter attack from a higher level player could kill you if you were low level.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?