Do you like zones with different levels, or all zones match your level?

olepi

In the early MMORPG's, zones were level fixed, so there was a beginner zone, an intermediate zone, a high-level zone, etc. As a new character, you couldn't go to the high-level zone without getting instantly killed. Once you out-leveled a zone, there was little reason to go back.

Some games had a mix, so that a low-level zone might have a camp of higher mobs in it.

New games, like ESO, have made it so that all zones appear the same to the character. This means a new character can go almost anywhere, and you can't out-level a zone once you finish it. But it also makes it kind of monotonous, since you can't venture into a super dangerous higher zone for fun.

My optimum case would be zones that appear the same, except with a caveat. If you are lvl 10, for example, and go into a higher level zone, say a lvl 50 zone, the mobs appear +1 level to you for every 10 levels. So a lvl 10 character in a 50 zone would see +4 mobs. That preserves the danger of going into a zone that is too high, but still allows you to explore everywhere.

I also like the mix, where you might suddenly stumble upon a camp of higher mobs in a lower level zone. So even though you are in a lvl 10 zone, with a lvl 10 toon, you might encounter a camp of +4 mobs.

Sovrath

I prefer it mixed.

I can't stand "zones" that are for a small level range because it makes it so that once it's finished players don't go there anymore.

Nanfoodle

I would love to see an MMO make some starter zones that teach you the game quickly and all over zones have a mix of trash mobs and hard mobs, some world bosses etc. I think past starter zones, games should have a horizontal progression. I dont think we should out level any zone but starter zones. I want the whole game to be challenging. 

alkarionlog

olepi said:

In the early MMORPG's, zones were level fixed, so there was a beginner zone, an intermediate zone, a high-level zone, etc. As a new character, you couldn't go to the high-level zone without getting instantly killed. Once you out-leveled a zone, there was little reason to go back.

Some games had a mix, so that a low-level zone might have a camp of higher mobs in it.

New games, like ESO, have made it so that all zones appear the same to the character. This means a new character can go almost anywhere, and you can't out-level a zone once you finish it. But it also makes it kind of monotonous, since you can't venture into a super dangerous higher zone for fun.

My optimum case would be zones that appear the same, except with a caveat. If you are lvl 10, for example, and go into a higher level zone, say a lvl 50 zone, the mobs appear +1 level to you for every 10 levels. So a lvl 10 character in a 50 zone would see +4 mobs. That preserves the danger of going into a zone that is too high, but still allows you to explore everywhere.

I also like the mix, where you might suddenly stumble upon a camp of higher mobs in a lower level zone. So even though you are in a lvl 10 zone, with a lvl 10 toon, you might encounter a camp of +4 mobs.

hardly, some classes or way of play could still kill said mobs with ease. I was sused in most MMO killing mobs 5 lvls higher withhout a problem, this makes things even easier if is a high dps class

there really no way to control

lotrlore

This thread is literally an article topic I was writing for next week...lol

Nanfoodle

lotrlore said:

This thread is literally an article topic I was writing for next week...lol

We will call this a warm up for your discussion =-)

olepi

Nanfoodle said:

lotrlore said:

This thread is literally an article topic I was writing for next week...lol

We will call this a warm up for your discussion =-)

Ooops, sorry

Examples of games with a mix: Ryzom, Vanguard. In Ryzom, you can be killing herds of prey mobs, when the predators swoop in and kill them and you.

In Vanguard, I remember being in a zone of equal level and stumbling across a ruin that was full of much higher mobs requiring a group or a very high level player.

To me, that is the best; although the "One Tamriel" ESO method of equalizing zones is good, I'd add a mix to it.

Nanfoodle

olepi said:

Nanfoodle said:

lotrlore said:

This thread is literally an article topic I was writing for next week...lol

We will call this a warm up for your discussion =-)

Ooops, sorry

Examples of games with a mix: Ryzom, Vanguard. In Ryzom, you can be killing herds of prey mobs, when the predators swoop in and kill them and you.

In Vanguard, I remember being in a zone of equal level and stumbling across a ruin that was full of much higher mobs requiring a group or a very high level player.

To me, that is the best; although the "One Tamriel" ESO method of equalizing zones is good, I'd add a mix to it.

Also remember hunting crocks in EQ and Sand Giants being a huge pain in the butt. Was funny sometimes all the level 10 players would just lose it and 20-30 of us would kill a Sand Giant and 1/2 of us would be dead at the end but we didnt care, had to have revenge lol. 

botrytis

This has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum.....

TwistedSister77

My preference is to have higher level zones you can't go into unless apprenticed by another higher level player, but lower level ones that scale back up to you so the content isn't meaningless once you are higher level.

But if I had only the choice of scaling or static, definitely scaling.

Amathe

I like zones with certain levels, with wandering mobs at higher levels. 

iixviiiix

 Why don't OP think about other reason to play than killing mobs ? Why do you need to kill mob to advance ?

Have to say that as a player , i prefer other way to advance than combat type .

Emeraq

Because of my lack of ability to play games like ESO, I hated the change to not being able to out level zones, it made some of my story quests practically uncompletable for me because I am just not great at the combat in this game, and it's something that I would find myself doing in singleplayer RPG's as well, leveling up just to be able to make up for my lack of ability/skill.. So with that said I prefer mobs to have a set level (or level range) per zone/area.

Nanfoodle

iixviiiix said:

 Why don't OP think about other reason to play than killing mobs ? Why do you need to kill mob to advance ?

This is a discussion more about mobs you would need to avoid to do anything, from questing, exploring to killing mobs. Having mobs in a zone you cant kill alone or at your level teamed, adds a feeling of danger to the zone. Even if you never get killed by these higher level mobs, it can still add a sense of thrill to a zone. Thats missing from allot of newer MMOs. 

Sovrath

iixviiiix said:

 Why don't OP think about other reason to play than killing mobs ? Why do you need to kill mob to advance ?

Have to say that as a player , i prefer other way to advance than combat type .

Well, traditionally these games have been about "adventure."

And of course based off of Dungeons and Dragons table top games.

I would agree that there should be other ways to advance but fighting monsters and dungeon delving is part of the dna of these games.

Amathe

I also like there being newbie areas, teens areas,  20s area, and so on. It gives those areas a unique identity and character, and lets you meet people at your own level, which helps you make friends.

olepi

This gets a bit more complicated with a sandbox game like Ryzom. In that game, you can be multiple levels at the same time. For example, lvl 50 healer, lvl 100 melee, lvl 150 magic.

You can fight at any of those levels. If you use a lvl 150 spell to kill a lvl 50 mob, you get no xp of course. But you can participate as a lvl 50 healer in a team fighting much higher mobs in a higher zone.

VengeSunsoar

I like a mix of levels. I don't mind having instance areas scaled to me. But I hate having the whole zone or world scaled to me. That is one of my biggest pet peeves about SWTOR.

cheyane

I like how Everquest did it. Having high level mobs in lower level areas and this makes us watchout  and be careful. I used to always keep an eye out for the griffen in Commonlands . Even then I have been caught unawares while trapped in the merchant window and griffens have x-ray vision.

I don't enjoy the mob's level matching yours system as it was dreadfully boring.

cameltosis

I don't like levels (or, at least, levels used to represent vertical progression) in multiplayer games: they're a single player mechanic and always cause way too many problems in a multiplayer game.

So, if you are basing your game around vertical progression and then designing your zones with that in mind, you've already lost me as a customer. I really couldn't care less if zones are just for a small level range, or a large level range, because it'll all be obsolete within a few months of launch anyway.

Tuor7

Scaling mostly destroys my sense of progression. For example, 59 levels later, that level 1 Young Wolf is now a level 60 Young Wolf. Same aggro radius. Same time to kill, only now dropping (or protecting in the case of crafting resources) trivial items.

Oh, and if you want to come back and get some payback on a particularly annoying mob? Too had. It will still be particularly annoying. It makes all of the work I've done feel pointless.

So, I hate scaling and always will.

AlBQuirky

Sovrath said:

I prefer it mixed.

I can't stand "zones" that are for a small level range because it makes it so that once it's finished players don't go there anymore.

In today's MMOs, I agree.

I prefer leveled zones that anyone, right from the get-go, can go anywhere, but danger is paramount. I loved EQ1's zone scheme. Every zone, from newbie outside city zones to upper level zones, had danger in the forms of wondering higher level mobs. Orc Centurians (level 3-5) killing noobies outside of Freeport or Qeynos, Sand Giants in the Deserts, Hill Giants and Griffons in The Commonlands... Almost every zone one ventured to one had to stay alert.

The difference between now and back then is that players played together, not as soloists, as they do today. Higher level characters had reasons to sit around in lower level zones to kill the higher level mobs that brought havoc to the zones. Now, players don't care as it's all about them. I recall healing camps that some guilds held, even

Zones that "stay at my level" help me feel like I'm treadmilling big time. No more going back to kill that one mob that kept killing at a lower level for revenge. No "feeling of power" as all mobs are always my equals. No real feeling of progression as you adventure into a world of sameness, all centered on my character's progress. I recall early on in GW2 seeing mobs across a "zone line" (through a cave, if I recall correctly) and their level being higher than mine. "Cool!", I thought, "let's test myself here." When I zoned in, they dropped to my level. Basically, I want a mix of easy and hard fights, not all equal to my level

Amaranthar

Tuor7 said:

Scaling mostly destroys my sense of progression. For example, 59 levels later, that level 1 Young Wolf is now a level 60 Young Wolf. Same aggro radius. Same time to kill, only now dropping (or protecting in the case of crafting resources) trivial items.

Oh, and if you want to come back and get some payback on a particularly annoying mob? Too had. It will still be particularly annoying. It makes all of the work I've done feel pointless.

So, I hate scaling and always will.

That's pretty much how I feel about Level based progression, too. Same thing, really. 

Wizardry

Scaling was i THINK first done in EQ2 and was proven  to be a terrible idea.Not that SOE did a poor job implementing it,only so much you can do anyhow.

It was such a bad idea,that zone SOE used to test the idea "Splitpaw"  became very quickly an empty zone.

Personally i am tired of levels,not that levels can't still be viable but the bad habits i keep seeing in design tell me we'd be better off getting rid of levels.Devs use levels to simplify the game design,put you on rails,not a fan.

Zones,again why would we look at a map as a "level based map,it SHOULD be a part of a world and look and feel like a world at ALL times.This is also why i can't stand instance zones and raid zones,all of that removes the feeling of both a mmo and a rpg.

Ungood

I kinda like how GW2 did it, where Zones leveled up, so you needed to level UP to be able to explore more zones, but you were down-leveled so you could always go back to the other zones.

This way, unlike traditional MMO's, as you leveled up, your world grew, as opposed to shrunk.

Po_gg

botrytis said:

This has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum.....

Pretty much this. Apparently OP missed all those lengthy threads about scaling...

(he also missed step zero, the "levels or no levels", and jumped right into the levels side)

My take on it, just to repeat myself from those threads: scaling can be a good tool, the issue is with forced scaling.

Best scenario: mixed levels in the world, with players can set and adjust their fun (challenge). Aka scaling in the hands of players.

Like CO, or some extent DDO (not in the open world).

Close second: (since the above is rare) mixed levels in the world, with players can set and adjust their fun within instances/raids. Like LotRO or DDO.

Then the "traditional" fix levels on the world and within instances/raids as well, but at least players can skip areas if they want a bit more challenge.

You could put here countless examples.

Below that a dumber version of the above, where players can't even skip zones... RaiderZ was like that, had to follow the yellow brick road. Restricted, but still better than the last tier.

And at the rock bottom, the "never touch again" pile with their forced scaling. One Tamriel, SW:TOR, Neverwinter post-Mod16, etc.