Most MMORPGs are tolerated through the levelling to get to the end game;
Why should most players have to tolerate 1 system just to get to another system they like? Doesnt make alot of sense to me.
Part of this is the player's fault. Why buy a game where you hate 99% of the content?
Granted, I think this problem is going away. You've got games where you instantly have tiered PvP available. You've got games where the whole point is farming/crafting with no PvP whatsoever. In some ways it is a good time to be a gamer.
In short, there is probably a title out there where you start, and indeed the entire game, is what you'd consider endgame.
That spurs a thought: Maybe 'endgame' is a dead concept?
I don't think endgame is dead as a concept.
In my mind, I liken the MMO situation to education versus work in real life.
The leveling process is like going to school. You feel like you are learning a lot, you certainly acquire a lot of knowledge, but it's ultimately pretty easy and not very useful by itself.
But then you graduate and enter the "real" world. This is where you learn to apply all that useless knowledge you picked up in school. This is not really about learning new skills in a controlled environment, it's about learning how to apply knowledge and critical thinking to actual problems. This is endgame.
I can enviage MMORPGs which are pure endgame, or pure leveling, but I don't think either would be particularly successful.
Pure endgame, with no leveling, would be awesome but extremely overwhelming for new players. It'd be like starting a new technical job......with no prior training. Like being a server administrator without ever having touched a server before. Its possible, you can learn on the job......but most people would just quit.
Pure leveling, with no endgame, would be easy but short sighted. We have a ton of single player RPGs like this already. They can be fun, the first time, but unless u care about story they can be extremely disappointing. Like, you spend 40+ hours learning all these skills, building up an amazing gear set, creating a connection with your character......and then the game ends before you get to do anything.
This brings up a question to consider. Is there any kind of game play that doesn't eventually hit that hard >END<? Developers cannot keep up with content demands as it is, we've seen that. What else is there to do? What doesn't hit that "end-wall"?
Creative Simulations :P
I don't know what you'd actually call it officially, but games like Cities: Skylines, Planet Zoo etc.
The underlying simulation gives you some focus, but ultimately these are just creative sandboxes, leaving you free to do whatever u want. the more tool the devs give you, the more creative you can get and the longer the game lasts.
Of course, your own creativity may run out (or your patience...), which is usually what happens to me with these sorts of games. Then they release a DLC, I get inspired again, and lose another 100+ hours building a new zoo :P
"Creative Simulations"
This.
If you create a "World", players will take that and run with it. Their own imaginations and input will far exceed what the Devs can produce.
The key: is to restrict abuses that some players would use it for. There are answers here, in a variety of ways. It requires a much more Social World than we've seen to date. And players will latch onto that social world, either strongly or simply by accepting a loose "citizenship", because it gives them meaning, a place within said World, advantages and protections without having their time encroached upon unless they want to.
I think the problem is the quests, lots of different classes and still same quests for all of them. instead of making creative gameplay to each role, creators adapting the roles to suit the main story so every class could playthrough it alone. soon they will realize that every role suppose to have its own story
I think the problem is the quests, lots of different classes and still same quests for all of them. instead of making creative gameplay to each role, creators adapting the roles to suit the main story so every class could playthrough it alone. soon they will realize that every role suppose to have its own story
I mean, there are games like that, both single and multi player. The problem is that due to demands of today's gamers, this skyrockets the dev cost of a game. It is unsustainable and can even devastate a game. Wildstar? SWTOR? Even Tabula Rasa.
I think the problem is the quests, lots of different classes and still same quests for all of them. instead of making creative gameplay to each role, creators adapting the roles to suit the main story so every class could playthrough it alone. soon they will realize that every role suppose to have its own story
I mean, there are games like that, both single and multi player. The problem is that due to demands of today's gamers, this skyrockets the dev cost of a game. It is unsustainable and can even devastate a game. Wildstar? SWTOR? Even Tabula Rasa.
I think both game devs and players should just keep tryin'... and tryin' and tryin' and tryin' and tryin' and tryin' and tryin'
That was a little joke. Those who have read my posts know that I've been rather incessant about it. You should have been paying attention over the last few years. I'm talked out, and I'm not sure I care anymore. The lowest common denominator were made the winners. For a fee, of course. What a joke this industry is.
Well, games can suffer really hard from over-complexity. Take sword as an example: +damage; +racial bonus; +strenght (that gives 0,1789 point to damage); +tactical mastery; +strategical mastery.; critical mastery; +tactical mitigation; +critical mitigation; +strategical mitigation; +critical hit bonus (gives 0,18% chance to apply 5% chance of critical hitting target if your strenght is at least 781). -enemy armour lvl; -enemy evade rating; -enemy parry rating; -Weird Enemy Land debuff; -enemy racial bonus; -enemy land poison debuff; -random debuff [all these are known to developers only]. Not to mention your own parry, evade, strategical defense, tactical defense also are important. Your weapon can have three talent trees, so you have to choose between sword mastery (+1 str) or martial expert (+1 damage), or even grumpy mastery (+1 health), but only one of them. Try not to forget health power, mana...also vitality (which indirectly influences healrth power), mana efficiency (indirectly influences mana), mana mastery (incompatible with mana efficiency). Then you should know you could some Crystals to your equipment to maximize statuses...just keep in mind statuses are capped.
That's only simple, non-magic weapon. But hey, there are also staves and ranged weapons as well. And few types of armour, each with their own pre-designed values you cannot change.
Simply enough, huh? To make things worse, if you run dungeon, you have RNG and it may never ever give you that Pretty Sword of Owning....while giving same sword to one who always runs and always throws sword away.
MMOs should be simple. +2 damage is +2 damage no matter what.
Levels: It
irks me to no end that my level 35 paladin cannot kill a level 39 wisp
no matter what I do - but the moment I hit level 41 I can mow through a
hoard of wisps and they don't even damage me. [...]
I like levels. Never seen a good system without them. Same for hitpoints etc.
I mean, we don't read about the famous
battles of the ancient past where warriors changed their armor right in
the middle of combat, nor that they had 10 different weapons of each
type to make use of the best options vs. opponents. (Some, yes, maybe 3
weapon types.)
The medieval times lasted for a thousand years over a very large area in both Europe and Asia, and all kinds of armor and weapons have been present during this time.
But yes, changing armor during a fight is definitely not a thing. Even donning a simple ancient to early medieval times chain shirt takes a moment during which you are completely exposed. Donning advanced plate armor takes minutes and needs the help of a second person. Sure, maybe if your current armor was hopelessly damaged and you had sufficient time and protection for changing and a backup armor somewhere. Maybe if you had a late medieval plate armor, which have been a system not a single set of armor, so maybe you would want in a pause in the battle to hide in a save place switch for example the helmet you would use. But in general, no way.
But weapon types, for any warrior who could afford a full set of equipment, then three weapons is more like the lower border.
Because really everyone had a dagger, which are much more devastating weapons in reallife than they are in computer games. It was a musthave, quick to draw, and ideal in close quarters and later ideal to attack gaps in plate armor. The only real drawback is the nonexistent range.
Likewise basically everyone had a sword. Thats because swords can again be quickly drawn from a sheath, and swords offer good defense in melee, too, so they are a great backup and self defense weapon to have.
These are the two weapons you can usually expect on a warrior except for the earliest and poorest kinds, such as vikings. Those might only carry a Waraxe because a Sword would have been too expensive for them to afford. They also might only wear a helmet and a shield, but no actual armor yet, since they might not be rich enough to afford even just a chain shirt either.
Leaves the main weapon, which cannot be sheathed. Thats typically a bow or spear in early medieval times, though all kinds of variants would occur later, including early types of guns, the mighty pike as a counter for knights with lances, or the mighty Greatsword, the climax of medieval weapon making and a weapon types that really demanded flawless steel in order to not to break easily all the time.
Depending upon how they would carry that, they might even sometimes have both a polearm and a ranged weapon, though thats rather an exception. Typically a bowman even had to compromise in regards to armor, since the heaviest kinds would get in the way of the archery. Crossbows and early guns however could be carried alongside a polearm of choice.
Finally you could also store a more blunt and topheavy type of weapon in your girdle. Like a Waraxe, War Hammer, or Mace.
Levels: It
irks me to no end that my level 35 paladin cannot kill a level 39 wisp
no matter what I do - but the moment I hit level 41 I can mow through a
hoard of wisps and they don't even damage me. [...]
I like levels. Never seen a good system without them. Same for hitpoints etc.
You're not really addressing Wargfoot's point. The idea that the power progression is so strong that what he related is common, without Scaling, is a huge problem. (And Scaling itself is another problem.)
It's damage includes: - Player socialization. Divisions that divide the player base all along their journey. - The concept of being in a world with all those other players. - It affects Exploration to a big degree. - It ruins any worldly economy. The economic system becomes a purely level-grind situation, and there's almost no game play to the economy itself.
In effect, you totally lose any semblance of being in a "world." It's just a game. Worse, it's a "do this and win" situation, there is no losing, no choices, no options, and no LIFE to the game.
The problem is the Power Gaps between levels. It's not the Class Based System itself. I also think that the Class systems need to be reworked in some ways. It's too restrictive, and doesn't allow for any real customization. Why not allow players, once they have their class, to pick any specific abilities from any other class that doesn't clash with their chosen class, up to a defined number. (Say, 5?)
For the record, I still like the Skills Based System that UO had in its beginnings better than anything else. But I could easily play a Class Based game if those gaps in power were reduced to make the game world much more open, and remove all of those problems.
This really echoes my growing disdain for levels and things like skill trees, attributes etc.
Much like you said, Levels are fake progression, I the player never have to learn a thing or improve in anyway, it is just number go up scaling, if number high, you win, if number too low, you lose.
It doesn't give me a sense of progression that I get from gaining new abilities that open up new options, a la metroidvanias. Or learning new mechanics to take on tougher challenges, see fighting games and soulslikes.
About metagaming, Most of it is just common sense, if you read skill descriptions you can clearly see the synergies with other skills and talents the developers intended.
Like, I wonder if I should invest my attributes in strength if I want to use melee weapons, when the only real use of strength as an attribute is to increase melee damage. ? Not much of a real decision to be made.
Same for gear, talents etc., most have pretty clear and obvious uses and combinations, it is not as open it seems and that is why you end up with the same character builds over and over.
Honestly, most MMOs and RPGs alike could greatly simplify their stat, skill, gear talents whatever systems and actually INCREASE the meaningful options given to the player.
Make the real choices simple and direct instead of obfuscating them behind menus and math.
To compound these issues, non MMO and non RPG games have adopted these mechanics which make them oversaturated and highlight how pointless these can be. Every game is open world and has character progression and gear now.
I don't think power gaps, or even disparity between gear and player are the issue here. The current trend is SCALING. I like scaling, in general. But ad hoc, across the board we see an entire gamut of playstyles. I'd say this is good, but the whole 'crafted' experience (how do you not craft a game) goes out the window. I still prefer clear cut /areas, clear cut /roles, clear cut /levels. If my pc is shoehorned into ANYTHING, I'm deeply disappointed.
I don't think power gaps, or even disparity between gear and player are the issue here. The current trend is SCALING. I like scaling, in general. But ad hoc, across the board we see an entire gamut of playstyles. I'd say this is good, but the whole 'crafted' experience (how do you not craft a game) goes out the window. I still prefer clear cut /areas, clear cut /roles, clear cut /levels. If my pc is shoehorned into ANYTHING, I'm deeply disappointed.
I feel power gaps are an issue because:
PvP (or better yet PKS) become a huge issue.
It is difficult to join friends who've advanced beyond your 'level'.
Also, instead of finding a tool for a specific task (say, a sliver mace to kill undead) you simply get a new version of your sword (level appropriate) that is still doing the same tired 10% damage against level appropriate enemies.
So with horizontal progression, IMHO, you actually end up with more game variety. Teh possibilities here are endless.
I don't think power gaps, or even disparity between gear and player are the issue here. The current trend is SCALING. I like scaling, in general. But ad hoc, across the board we see an entire gamut of playstyles. I'd say this is good, but the whole 'crafted' experience (how do you not craft a game) goes out the window. I still prefer clear cut /areas, clear cut /roles, clear cut /levels. If my pc is shoehorned into ANYTHING, I'm deeply disappointed.
" If my pc is shoehorned into ANYTHING, I'm deeply disappointed."
"but the whole 'crafted' experience (how do you not craft a game) goes out the window. I still prefer clear cut /areas, clear cut /roles, clear cut /levels."
I don't think power gaps, or even disparity between gear and player are the issue here. The current trend is SCALING. I like scaling, in general. But ad hoc, across the board we see an entire gamut of playstyles. I'd say this is good, but the whole 'crafted' experience (how do you not craft a game) goes out the window. I still prefer clear cut /areas, clear cut /roles, clear cut /levels. If my pc is shoehorned into ANYTHING, I'm deeply disappointed.
I feel power gaps are an issue because:
PvP (or better yet PKS) become a huge issue.
It is difficult to join friends who've advanced beyond your 'level'.
Also, instead of finding a tool for a specific task (say, a sliver mace to kill undead) you simply get a new version of your sword (level appropriate) that is still doing the same tired 10% damage against level appropriate enemies.
So with horizontal progression, IMHO, you actually end up with more game variety. Teh possibilities here are endless.
Nothing wrong with liking what you like, though.
I agree. I wanted to add, or point out, that "power gaps" also hit the economy, as game play. There's no competition and no challenge when gear and loot follows the big power gaps experience. It ruins any economic game play and turns it into just another leveling experience with big gaps, linked directly to those levels based on things other than economics.
As an addendum, I, personally want a well crafted world. The lore, mechanics, environment... set in stone. My love is in character creation. Doesn't matter how little/how much. The world itself, and it's lore, I'd prefer to be lovingly crafted. My character, MY Avatar is mine. I want full control over that. I feel a crafted game with personal characters is what MMO's are about.
Levels: It
irks me to no end that my level 35 paladin cannot kill a level 39 wisp
no matter what I do - but the moment I hit level 41 I can mow through a
hoard of wisps and they don't even damage me. [...]
I like levels. Never seen a good system without them. Same for hitpoints etc.
You're not really addressing Wargfoot's point.
Indeed I didnt, because I didnt wanted to.
I'm not going to argue with a person that, for example, doesnt like roleplaying games. I like roleplaying games. You dont ? Your perogative. As it is mine to like them, even if you dont.
Likewise, I like levels. And I'm not going to argue with people who dont. There is no point. I cannot "solve" this problem because its simply a matter of taste. All systems I know that lack level are lackluster and dont really offer satisfying increases in power. Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines is one of my all time favorite games, but Its rulesystem is very meh. You need to study it in very great detail to be good at it and your power level varies wildly depending upon your build.
It's damage includes: - Player socialization. Divisions that divide the player base all along their journey. - The concept of being in a world with all those other players. - It affects Exploration to a big degree. -
It ruins any worldly economy. The economic system becomes a purely
level-grind situation, and there's almost no game play to the economy
itself.
Those are pretty absurd conclusions.
Vanguard for example had mentoring so a maxlevel character could still help lowlevels without killing their xp gains.
Second point is just plain invalid anyway.
Yes thats the very idea. You cant just go anywhere.
Getting a good economy is not a priority to me. Also, I know exactly just one single game that ever managed a good economy: EVE. Thats also why I dont want to play EVE, since its primarily an economy simulator, and thats not my thing.
Levels: It
irks me to no end that my level 35 paladin cannot kill a level 39 wisp
no matter what I do - but the moment I hit level 41 I can mow through a
hoard of wisps and they don't even damage me. [...]
I like levels. Never seen a good system without them. Same for hitpoints etc.
You're not really addressing Wargfoot's point.
Indeed I didnt, because I didnt wanted to.
I'm not going to argue with a person that, for example, doesnt like roleplaying games. I like roleplaying games. You dont ? Your perogative. As it is mine to like them, even if you dont.
Likewise, I like levels. And I'm not going to argue with people who dont. There is no point. I cannot "solve" this problem because its simply a matter of taste. All systems I know that lack level are lackluster and dont really offer satisfying increases in power. Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines is one of my all time favorite games, but Its rulesystem is very meh. You need to study it in very great detail to be good at it and your power level varies wildly depending upon your build.
It's damage includes: - Player socialization. Divisions that divide the player base all along their journey. - The concept of being in a world with all those other players. - It affects Exploration to a big degree. -
It ruins any worldly economy. The economic system becomes a purely
level-grind situation, and there's almost no game play to the economy
itself.
Those are pretty absurd conclusions.
Vanguard for example had mentoring so a maxlevel character could still help lowlevels without killing their xp gains.
Second point is just plain invalid anyway.
Yes thats the very idea. You cant just go anywhere.
Getting a good economy is not a priority to me. Also, I know exactly just one single game that ever managed a good economy: EVE. Thats also why I dont want to play EVE, since its primarily an economy simulator, and thats not my thing.
I have to call bs on the eve econ. I played for 14 years and its anything but good. Its controlled by a few super rich blobs and manipulated by ccp/pearl abyss all the time....good I had a good lol from that one...
Levels: It
irks me to no end that my level 35 paladin cannot kill a level 39 wisp
no matter what I do - but the moment I hit level 41 I can mow through a
hoard of wisps and they don't even damage me. [...]
I like levels. Never seen a good system without them. Same for hitpoints etc.
You're not really addressing Wargfoot's point.
Indeed I didnt, because I didnt wanted to.
I'm not going to argue with a person that, for example, doesnt like roleplaying games. I like roleplaying games. You dont ? Your perogative. As it is mine to like them, even if you dont.
Likewise, I like levels. And I'm not going to argue with people who dont. There is no point. I cannot "solve" this problem because its simply a matter of taste. All systems I know that lack level are lackluster and dont really offer satisfying increases in power. Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines is one of my all time favorite games, but Its rulesystem is very meh. You need to study it in very great detail to be good at it and your power level varies wildly depending upon your build.
It's damage includes: - Player socialization. Divisions that divide the player base all along their journey. - The concept of being in a world with all those other players. - It affects Exploration to a big degree. -
It ruins any worldly economy. The economic system becomes a purely
level-grind situation, and there's almost no game play to the economy
itself.
Those are pretty absurd conclusions.
Vanguard for example had mentoring so a maxlevel character could still help lowlevels without killing their xp gains.
Second point is just plain invalid anyway.
Yes thats the very idea. You cant just go anywhere.
Getting a good economy is not a priority to me. Also, I know exactly just one single game that ever managed a good economy: EVE. Thats also why I dont want to play EVE, since its primarily an economy simulator, and thats not my thing.
Ok wait. You're going to pull out a special case exception to try to argue my point of overall effects on socialization?
Second, why is that invalid? Because you yourself don't care about it? It's still true whether you care or not.
Third, "You cant just go anywhere." In fact, you either can't, or it's useless, to go to a huge percentage of the game world at any given level. In a game has 60 levels, and the zones broken up into 5 level groupings, you can only go to 8.3% of the game world. If there's 80 levels, you can only go to 6.25% of the world. That's some lousy exploration.
Finally, just because you don't care about economic game play, that doesn't make my point wrong.
I could see some arguing the fact Eve's economy can be controlled as 'good'. If it cannot be controlled, then it is just the bottomless well of goods/services that occur in every other game.
I know nothing about Eve, just the 'good economy' question got me wondering what that would even look like.
I could see some arguing the fact Eve's economy can be controlled as 'good'. If it cannot be controlled, then it is just the bottomless well of goods/services that occur in every other game.
I know nothing about Eve, just the 'good economy' question got me wondering what that would even look like.
In a real sense the same issue exists for real world economies.
You have to set a goal for what the economy should do to have a measure of if it is good or not
I think some players want to play the economy as you would monopoly or a strategy game, being able to control aspects of it and weaponize it against competitors Basically capitalist roleplay
And some just see it as a means to get access to items they can't find themselves Looking at more from the perspective of a consumer
I tend to view both real world and in game economies in similar ways, I just want to be able to get what I need and I don't want to be bothered by it The economy should run so smoothly I should never have to even think about it. If I have to spend time thinking about market forces, inflation etc. just to buy what I need I am going to have a bad time.
I had a friend who cornered the market in WOW (1) by purchasing everything at a price point or below and remarketing it for a profit. I think that kind of thing could be interesting but the rest of the game has a huge impact on whether or not that is 'fun' - more so than the ability to do such a thing.
If someone wants to do that with wool, for example, the game needs to make wool available as a gatherable item. Allow a user to control access to one avenue of getting the commodity, but now all avenues.
Anyways, an interesting topic with tons of room for theory, I think.
NOTES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1: Or so he said, I dunno if that is even possible - he claimed this awhile ago.
I could see some arguing the fact Eve's economy can be controlled as 'good'. If it cannot be controlled, then it is just the bottomless well of goods/services that occur in every other game.
I know nothing about Eve, just the 'good economy' question got me wondering what that would even look like.
The only game I played with a "good" economy was SWG, but it still had problems. I'm not sure what would make an economy good, but here are a few characteristics I personally think make a good economy.
1) Has to be engaging for both buyers and sellers
If only one side of the equation is serviced, the economy won't work well.
2) What gets crafted shouldn't be undermined by loot.
There is no point in crafting something if what can be looted is better.
3) No global auction house
This becomes a bit technical, but a global AH results in an "information-complete" market. A buyer can simply search ALL items, then they can just pick the cheapest and buy it. Such a system greatly benefits large corporations and hardcore players, whilst shitting on the casuals. So, in order to have an economy that is genuinely engaging for all, you can't have an information-complete market. If you want a real-world example, just look at what the internet and Amazon has done to the average high street.
4) What gets sold needs to be differentiated
In other words, crafters need a way to have their stuff stand out. If every weaponsmith can only craft identical swords, the economy gets boring.
5) Players need repeated reasons to engage with the economy
SWG achieved this via item degradation, so every month or two you'd need to replace your sword or armour. Full-loot games achieve this via getting looted and losing your stuff. But, however you achieve it, players need a reason to keep coming back to the economy.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Comments
This.
If you create a "World", players will take that and run with it.
Their own imaginations and input will far exceed what the Devs can produce.
The key:
is to restrict abuses that some players would use it for.
There are answers here, in a variety of ways.
It requires a much more Social World than we've seen to date.
And players will latch onto that social world, either strongly or simply by accepting a loose "citizenship", because it gives them meaning, a place within said World, advantages and protections without having their time encroached upon unless they want to.
Once upon a time....
and tryin'
and tryin'
and tryin'
and tryin'
and tryin'
and tryin'
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
That was a little joke. Those who have read my posts know that I've been rather incessant about it.
You should have been paying attention over the last few years. I'm talked out, and I'm not sure I care anymore.
The lowest common denominator were made the winners. For a fee, of course.
What a joke this industry is.
Once upon a time....
+damage; +racial bonus; +strenght (that gives 0,1789 point to damage); +tactical mastery; +strategical mastery.; critical mastery; +tactical mitigation; +critical mitigation; +strategical mitigation; +critical hit bonus (gives 0,18% chance to apply 5% chance of critical hitting target if your strenght is at least 781).
-enemy armour lvl; -enemy evade rating; -enemy parry rating; -Weird Enemy Land debuff; -enemy racial bonus; -enemy land poison debuff; -random debuff [all these are known to developers only].
Not to mention your own parry, evade, strategical defense, tactical defense also are important. Your weapon can have three talent trees, so you have to choose between sword mastery (+1 str) or martial expert (+1 damage), or even grumpy mastery (+1 health), but only one of them. Try not to forget health power, mana...also vitality (which indirectly influences healrth power), mana efficiency (indirectly influences mana), mana mastery (incompatible with mana efficiency). Then you should know you could some Crystals to your equipment to maximize statuses...just keep in mind statuses are capped.
That's only simple, non-magic weapon. But hey, there are also staves and ranged weapons as well. And few types of armour, each with their own pre-designed values you cannot change.
Simply enough, huh? To make things worse, if you run dungeon, you have RNG and it may never ever give you that Pretty Sword of Owning....while giving same sword to one who always runs and always throws sword away.
MMOs should be simple. +2 damage is +2 damage no matter what.
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
...
...
...
You're not really addressing Wargfoot's point.
The idea that the power progression is so strong that what he related is common, without Scaling, is a huge problem.
(And Scaling itself is another problem.)
It's damage includes:
- Player socialization. Divisions that divide the player base all along their journey.
- The concept of being in a world with all those other players.
- It affects Exploration to a big degree.
- It ruins any worldly economy. The economic system becomes a purely level-grind situation, and there's almost no game play to the economy itself.
In effect, you totally lose any semblance of being in a "world."
It's just a game.
Worse, it's a "do this and win" situation, there is no losing, no choices, no options, and no LIFE to the game.
The problem is the Power Gaps between levels.
It's not the Class Based System itself.
I also think that the Class systems need to be reworked in some ways.
It's too restrictive, and doesn't allow for any real customization.
Why not allow players, once they have their class, to pick any specific abilities from any other class that doesn't clash with their chosen class, up to a defined number. (Say, 5?)
For the record, I still like the Skills Based System that UO had in its beginnings better than anything else. But I could easily play a Class Based game if those gaps in power were reduced to make the game world much more open, and remove all of those problems.
Once upon a time....
Much like you said,
Levels are fake progression, I the player never have to learn a thing or improve in anyway, it is just number go up scaling, if number high, you win, if number too low, you lose.
It doesn't give me a sense of progression that I get from gaining new abilities that open up new options, a la metroidvanias. Or learning new mechanics to take on tougher challenges, see fighting games and soulslikes.
About metagaming,
Most of it is just common sense, if you read skill descriptions you can clearly see the synergies with other skills and talents the developers intended.
Like, I wonder if I should invest my attributes in strength if I want to use melee weapons, when the only real use of strength as an attribute is to increase melee damage. ?
Not much of a real decision to be made.
Same for gear, talents etc., most have pretty clear and obvious uses and combinations, it is not as open it seems and that is why you end up with the same character builds over and over.
Honestly, most MMOs and RPGs alike could greatly simplify their stat, skill, gear talents whatever systems and actually INCREASE the meaningful options given to the player.
Make the real choices simple and direct instead of obfuscating them behind menus and math.
To compound these issues, non MMO and non RPG games have adopted these mechanics which make them oversaturated and highlight how pointless these can be.
Every game is open world and has character progression and gear now.
- PvP (or better yet PKS) become a huge issue.
- It is difficult to join friends who've advanced beyond your 'level'.
Also, instead of finding a tool for a specific task (say, a sliver mace to kill undead) you simply get a new version of your sword (level appropriate) that is still doing the same tired 10% damage against level appropriate enemies.So with horizontal progression, IMHO, you actually end up with more game variety. Teh possibilities here are endless.
Nothing wrong with liking what you like, though.
" If my pc is shoehorned into ANYTHING, I'm deeply disappointed."
"but the whole 'crafted' experience (how do you not craft a game) goes out the window. I still prefer clear cut /areas, clear cut /roles, clear cut /levels."
This sounds conflicting.
Once upon a time....
I wanted to add, or point out, that "power gaps" also hit the economy, as game play.
There's no competition and no challenge when gear and loot follows the big power gaps experience.
It ruins any economic game play and turns it into just another leveling experience with big gaps, linked directly to those levels based on things other than economics.
Once upon a time....
You're going to pull out a special case exception to try to argue my point of overall effects on socialization?
Second, why is that invalid? Because you yourself don't care about it?
It's still true whether you care or not.
Third, "You cant just go anywhere."
In fact, you either can't, or it's useless, to go to a huge percentage of the game world at any given level. In a game has 60 levels, and the zones broken up into 5 level groupings, you can only go to 8.3% of the game world. If there's 80 levels, you can only go to 6.25% of the world.
That's some lousy exploration.
Finally, just because you don't care about economic game play, that doesn't make my point wrong.
Once upon a time....
I could see some arguing the fact Eve's economy can be controlled as 'good'. If it cannot be controlled, then it is just the bottomless well of goods/services that occur in every other game.
I know nothing about Eve, just the 'good economy' question got me wondering what that would even look like.
You have to set a goal for what the economy should do to have a measure of if it is good or not
I think some players want to play the economy as you would monopoly or a strategy game, being able to control aspects of it and weaponize it against competitors
Basically capitalist roleplay
And some just see it as a means to get access to items they can't find themselves
Looking at more from the perspective of a consumer
I tend to view both real world and in game economies in similar ways, I just want to be able to get what I need and I don't want to be bothered by it
The economy should run so smoothly I should never have to even think about it.
If I have to spend time thinking about market forces, inflation etc. just to buy what I need I am going to have a bad time.
If someone wants to do that with wool, for example, the game needs to make wool available as a gatherable item. Allow a user to control access to one avenue of getting the commodity, but now all avenues.
Anyways, an interesting topic with tons of room for theory, I think.
NOTES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Or so he said, I dunno if that is even possible - he claimed this awhile ago.