If these level-hating posts were "I'd like to see the genre try something different" that'd be fine.
...but to say levels are "terrible" indicates a fundamental lack of design sense.
Suppose a game has 6000+ quests and the possibility to complete 99% of these quest. Now suppose the game has a immersion factor that makes the lore and story doing the quests worth doing. Suppose also that by the time you have done 25% of the quests your character has hit max level and the other 75% of the quests are basically no challenge but you do the quests to bide your time and gain some alternative experience until next release. Now again suppose that on the next live update the developers make a way for you to mentor yourself to any level so you can gain some other benefit and have some challenge. Did they not just remove levels?
EQ2 developers started thinking outside the box that even a level based game can have no levels. I think it is a good move.
Well that's not removing levels.
Games with sidekick/mentor systems still have levels.
They simply "fix" the biggest shortcoming of a level system: playerbase fragmentation.
It is a step in the right direction though since a self mentored system allows one to go back and enjoy something they missed. It is not a fix all by any means but it is a start.
i mean you can have a lvl cap of 100 but if it takes you 10 minutes opposing to a lvl cap of 50 wich takes you 2 weeks. the lower lvl cap would be better then ?
you should rephrase you question i geus. How long should it take to reach the lvl cap
You're right. I should have phrased that a little more clearly. Though, I was implying that the pacing wouldn't be absurd. My point is that I prefer not to go extremely long periods of time between leveling. I mentioned that I enjoy level progression, so a game that takes 3 months to reach a cap of 20 wouldn't be as fun to me.
Originally posted by Quirhid
How 'bout 3446?
-Just kidding. I agree with xeniar and Disdena. The number is completely arbitrary and unimportant.
I don't think that levels are completely arbitrary. I feel that it can define the spectrum of a game. I'm not saying that every game should or shouldn't have levels, but i disagree that they server no purpose.
Originally posted by Malcanis
"Levels" (And "classes") are a horrible concept that MMOs need to throw in the fire ASAP.
While I'm not a big fan of classes, either, I don't think that any concept should be defenestrated. I feel variety is good.
Without levels and/or skills and/or gear to constantly improve, boredom will set in much faster. There is lots of research into the effectiveness of this hook, and is kind of the dirty little not so secret of modern game design. If anything this concept is getting more prevelant not less, and even those that say they don't like it would probably play less if it weren't required.
Even in games where it isn't obvious, the concepts of leveling are there. Platformers where stages get harder and introduce new things and abilities, Civ4 which unlocks new gameplay as time moves forward, RTS games where you need to build things in order to build other things, FPS's now much more focussed on leveling, almost every RPG ever made, adventure games where as your inventory increases you can do more things and solve harder problems, etc.
Those that say to get rid of all of these leveling concepts simply are asking for a much duller game, or should simply look into the esport niche (which isn't completely devoid of leveling either).
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
For me, a game with a low level cap is a little bit of a turn off. I'm kind of old school in the sense that I enjoy level progression more than end-game content. Personally, I would probably go with 100. It's not so low that levels would take too long to achieve, yet allows for some a solid amount of time before the cap is reached..... but not so much time that I can never imagining reaching it. I've thought about no cap, but it's nice to have something to shoot for.
Let me know that you guys think.
I think that depends on the type of game. If the developers want to concentrate on end-game, where raiding, dungeon crawling, and organized PvP is the focus, the level cap should be long enough to get all of your abilities and learn how to use them before hitting the end-game content. The more complex the class-system and variety of skills, the longer the cap. For example, a game like WoW could use a much lower level cap than it currently has, because you learn how to optimally use each move much faster than you get new abilities.
For a game that is focused on the journey, the level cap should be high, with alternate paths of advancement at max level. That's because the fun of that sort of game is the progression, and max level should provide different ways to continue to advance your character, such as Alternate Advancement, multi-classing, and PvP ranks. I think EQ2's system, and DAoC's system are good examples of alternate advancement at level cap.
In reference to the first paragraph, there should be a focus on the end game content and less focus on progression. Developers should also focus on one end-game activity, instead of trying to have several. This is because balance is a problem and you can't balance classes for both PvE and PvP without watering one or the other down. Just look at the homogeniety of WoW's class system nowadays because of PvP. Every class plays pretty similar. Every class has some sort of damage mitigation, dps, healing, and crowd control. It's better, whether focusing on PvP end game or Raiding to balance classes based on well made groups. Everyone needs a strength that makes them unique to a party, and a weakness that requires another class to cover. This makes choosing a class more about what strengths you enjoy bringing to a group, and less about which class is the best. Which brings me to my next point. In said game, there shouldn't be a lot of classes, just enough to allow one each in a group setting so that no class is left out. This also aleviates the problem of elitist attitude concerning which class is best suited for each role in a group. A Warrior (tank), Rogue (melee physical dps), Ranger (ranged physical dps), Wizard (ranged elemental dps), Sorceror (crowd control), and a Cleric (healing) is sufficient. No pets, as pets makes things imbalanced. I've yet to play a game where a pet class wasn't overpowered compared to other classes, making them the ideal choice for soloing in PvE or PvP.
In reference to the second paragraph, this game should be all about variety. Balancing should be less of an issue, where making choices is the name of the game. That's because choice is what make progression fun. Choosing how you level up, where you level up, how to specialize your character, and etc. Battlegrounds like DAoC should be a fun way to level up, group grinding and dungeon crawling should be a viable way to level up, and quests should be fewer in number, but higher quality and worth doing. Quests should be a diversion from your normal method of leveling up, be that adventuring alone, grouping up in PvE, or grouping up in PvP.
I agree with xeniar. Number of levels means absolutely nothing. What matters is:
How long does it take to get from level 1 to the cap?
How much does your power increase with each level up?
I think a leveled progression track is better than making each level harder to achieve. So if the cap is 100, it should take equally as long to reach each level, in turn you gain a 1% increase in power and ability at each level. People burn out in level based progression at later levels is levels become exponentially harder to achieve as you progress.
"Levels" (And "classes") are a horrible concept that MMOs need to throw in the fire ASAP.
Whenever I watch a video of a new MMO or read a description of it, if I hear anywhere in that video/article anything that remotely sounds like, "The player will explore and gain levels to become more powerful..." I immediately want to set fire to a building and roast bits of curiously unidentifiable meat with the flames.
For me, a game with a low level cap is a little bit of a turn off. I'm kind of old school in the sense that I enjoy level progression more than end-game content. Personally, I would probably go with 100. It's not so low that levels would take too long to achieve, yet allows for some a solid amount of time before the cap is reached..... but not so much time that I can never imagining reaching it. I've thought about no cap, but it's nice to have something to shoot for.
Let me know that you guys think.
I think that depends on the type of game. If the developers want to concentrate on end-game, where raiding, dungeon crawling, and organized PvP is the focus, the level cap should be long enough to get all of your abilities and learn how to use them before hitting the end-game content. The more complex the class-system and variety of skills, the longer the cap. For example, a game like WoW could use a much lower level cap than it currently has, because you learn how to optimally use each move much faster than you get new abilities.
For a game that is focused on the journey, the level cap should be high, with alternate paths of advancement at max level. That's because the fun of that sort of game is the progression, and max level should provide different ways to continue to advance your character, such as Alternate Advancement, multi-classing, and PvP ranks. I think EQ2's system, and DAoC's system are good examples of alternate advancement at level cap.
In reference to the first paragraph, there should be a focus on the end game content and less focus on progression. Developers should also focus on one end-game activity, instead of trying to have several. This is because balance is a problem and you can't balance classes for both PvE and PvP without watering one or the other down. Just look at the homogeniety of WoW's class system nowadays because of PvP. Every class plays pretty similar. Every class has some sort of damage mitigation, dps, healing, and crowd control. It's better, whether focusing on PvP end game or Raiding to balance classes based on well made groups. Everyone needs a strength that makes them unique to a party, and a weakness that requires another class to cover. This makes choosing a class more about what strengths you enjoy bringing to a group, and less about which class is the best. Which brings me to my next point. In said game, there shouldn't be a lot of classes, just enough to allow one each in a group setting so that no class is left out. This also aleviates the problem of elitist attitude concerning which class is best suited for each role in a group. A Warrior (tank), Rogue (melee physical dps), Ranger (ranged physical dps), Wizard (ranged elemental dps), Sorceror (crowd control), and a Cleric (healing) is sufficient. No pets, as pets makes things imbalanced. I've yet to play a game where a pet class wasn't overpowered compared to other classes, making them the ideal choice for soloing in PvE or PvP.
In reference to the second paragraph, this game should be all about variety. Balancing should be less of an issue, where making choices is the name of the game. That's because choice is what make progression fun. Choosing how you level up, where you level up, how to specialize your character, and etc. Battlegrounds like DAoC should be a fun way to level up, group grinding and dungeon crawling should be a viable way to level up, and quests should be fewer in number, but higher quality and worth doing. Quests should be a diversion from your normal method of leveling up, be that adventuring alone, grouping up in PvE, or grouping up in PvP.
I agree. The cap definitely depends on the type of game. An end-game focused game doesn't need a very high level cap. My question was merely posed from my point of view of what I like in a game. If someone says that there should only be a level cap of 20 because he likes end-game content, that's great. I wasn't trying to stir the pot by posing this question. There's really no right or wrong answer, but many people seem to think there is.
Personally, I like more complex systems with long learning curves, where a high level character is an accomplishment instead of the norm. I've known tons of people that have played WoW, and the end-game content just never really appealed to me. Is there anything wrong with WoW? No. My only beef with WoW is that it's hurting originality in MMOs a bit. Its success has provoked many to copy the formula in the hopes of gaining popularity, which really isn't Blizzard's fault, but you end up having a bunch of games that look like WoW instead of trying new things. Unfortunately, MMOs are such large finiancial projects that straying too far from the status quo can be disastrous for a company.
As for the balancing issue, it seems like a classless system would require less tweaking from the developers (unless a skill is blantantly broken). Instead of classes, just have a series of skill tress that kind of act like a complex paper-rock-scissor format. For instance, if there is a combination of skills that works well and becomes popular, then it could be possible for several counter-builds to be made, and eventually, counter-builds of those, and so on. That way, the players, themselves, can balance out the game. You may not be able to come up with a build that's good for every situation, but that's part of what makes characters different. People tend to get too greedy, and want it all.
"Levels" (And "classes") are a horrible concept that MMOs need to throw in the fire ASAP.
Would have to agree,
Personally classes always carry the problem that there is with balance issues. Giving someone access to one thing without giving it to another will create these problems and they are significantly expressed in pvp, where egos collide.
You can make the "level" cap whatever you want honestly it doesn't matter at some point your characters progression will come to an end. What it is important is that it is you have fun while progressing. I really loved dark fall online except for the massive pking that was involved in that game, yes I was a carebear simply because I couldn't keep up and be competitive with the people at the top who were constantly ganking me. However the game was enjoyable to play and I progressed my character in countless ways and in any way I saw fit.
Not all MMO's can be sandboxs but they can take aspects from it and improve honestly. I have to give rift props for allowing bigger customizations in character creation where you can specialize on what you want but still be able to choose what your secondary roles are. I don't know how effective this translates into the game but the soul and the idea behind it are really the future for new MMO's (In my opinion).
Although i agree with the quote above I think people aren't ready to leave it behind, levels and classes provide them with a comfortable nostalgia they are familar with. The thing is however in most sandbox games you can create your own classes it just doesn't have a universal identifiable title. (I.E, Rogue warrior etc etc).
"Levels" (And "classes") are a horrible concept that MMOs need to throw in the fire ASAP.
totally agree.
Same here. However, for some reason, that is all people know and they seem to defend it like it is written in stone that it must be "levels" or nothing else works.
It comes down to what does one replace levels with as a carrot that will keep players? The game has to have a reason to keep players and leveling is one of the easiest to implement.
Hypothetically, one could make a game that is actually fun to play, instead of merely a vehicle to very gradually increase numbers on a character sheet.
"Levels" (And "classes") are a horrible concept that MMOs need to throw in the fire ASAP.
Whenever I watch a video of a new MMO or read a description of it, if I hear anywhere in that video/article anything that remotely sounds like, "The player will explore and gain levels to become more powerful..." I immediately want to set fire to a building and roast bits of curiously unidentifiable meat with the flames.
Levels are just a simplified way of handling experience.
The real problem is that level increase your hitpoints and make it harder to kill stuff over your level and easier for the ones below. Cut out those 2 things and they aren't as bad.
There are 3 simple ways to handle experince:
1. Levels, Xp from killing mobs.
2. Point based system. You get points every know and then because of XP or achivements.
3. Skills. You raise them by using them.
All these system actually works fine. The real problems with levels are that the devs decided to make the gap between old characters and new characters too large, don't confuse it with the levelsystem.
The real problem with levels and classes is that they restrict players with customizing their characters.
It comes down to what does one replace levels with as a carrot that will keep players? The game has to have a reason to keep players and leveling is one of the easiest to implement.
Hypothetically, one could make a game that is actually fun to play, instead of merely a vehicle to very gradually increase numbers on a character sheet.
I don't think most people stay for levels. In most modern MMOs you max out after a few weeks anyways, people play for years.
Loot and friends are the 2 main reasons people play so long.
The loot part is actually kinda sad, there should be a lot more reasons to have fun than just getting loot.
Guildwars lets you max out a character in a few days and loot is not the reason people play it either. And still are many people playing it after many years.
If these level-hating posts were "I'd like to see the genre try something different" that'd be fine.
...but to say levels are "terrible" indicates a fundamental lack of design sense.
To say that levels aren't terrible indicates a fundamental lack of design sense. (See how I gave just as much supporting evidence and reasoning as you did?)
Here's the "different" I'd like the genre to try: for the PvE content to be primarily based around problem solving, character development (as in faction alignment, moral choices, etc), exploration and content revelation rather than "Kill 10 Rats".
By all means of course have some combat content, fighting stuff is thrilling and dangerous and fun. Oh wait, when it's all that happens, and it's essentially risk-free and predictable, it's not thrilling, it's certainly not "dangerous" and pretty soon it's not even all that much fun.
Rescue a child or take a message to the keep that bandits are attacking a village?
Discover the location of the legendary mandrake root needed to save the good wise King - and find out that the mandrake is sentient and good.
Find the cave in the high mountains where your father died - and how he died. You find the orc tribe that killed him hidden in the caves. You choose between stealthily assassinating their champion, poisoning their water source, or attacking them alongside your friends... or maybe you decide to investigate a little further and find out their side of the story....
Story. Character. World. These have been completely neglected in favour of a kind of purely stats-driven co-op RTS where all that anyone really needs to know abotu you is your DPS, damage type and tank.
-Just kidding. I agree with xeniar and Disdena. The number is completely arbitrary and unimportant.
I don't think that levels are completely arbitrary. I feel that it can define the spectrum of a game. I'm not saying that every game should or shouldn't have levels, but i disagree that they server no purpose.
I wasn't talking about levels but the number of them. The number is unimportant unless we are talking about very low figures. It doesn't matter if it is 50 or 100. What matters is what you get from each level and how much effort does it take to get there.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I wasn't talking about levels but the number of them. The number is unimportant unless we are talking about very low figures. It doesn't matter if it is 50 or 100. What matters is what you get from each level and how much effort does it take to get there.
It actually matters little if there is 10 levels either, and as low as 5 probably works as well.
The original idea was that you slowly will become better and that you get some new abilities later.
Many levels is only good if you have a zillion skills to keep track on, so you get one at a time and learn how to use them. But generally don't you really use that many skills.
All skills you rarely use is a pointless waste of time anyways and should be purged. That leaves you with 15 or 20 skills in most games. Gaining 2 new skills each level would not be too hard for most people.
It is all about how long time it takes to max out. As an old D&D player 50 levels sounds way too many for me.
Loot and friends are the 2 main reasons people play so long.
The loot part is actually kinda sad, there should be a lot more reasons to have fun than just getting loot.
Got to remember, though, that loot is actually levels for max level characters. You spend all of your time in the early part of an MMO developing your character through levelling. Once there's no more levelling the traditional EQ-style MMO offers little in the way of progression other than gear. Yeah some games have AA etc. but after a while even that gets maxed and then what else is there to do but chase shiny items than make you 0.0001% better than you were before you looted them.
As an idea, inspired by my time in Eve, I wonder if there could be a game without levels or game-mechanic-character-progression, and rather progression was based on player skill. Probably would be too hardcore at the start while you were learning how to play, and therefore people would leave, but it would be fun to have a game that you play to get better at, not just because the game tells you you're better because you're now level 100 instead of 99 or you have +5 strength instead of +4.
Inspired by Eve because that game is all about player skill. You could have a bigger more expensive ship and millions more skill points than some other guy, but he can still be better than you in his little ship if he knows how to play better.
I wasn't talking about levels but the number of them. The number is unimportant unless we are talking about very low figures. It doesn't matter if it is 50 or 100. What matters is what you get from each level and how much effort does it take to get there.
It actually matters little if there is 10 levels either, and as low as 5 probably works as well.
The original idea was that you slowly will become better and that you get some new abilities later.
Many levels is only good if you have a zillion skills to keep track on, so you get one at a time and learn how to use them. But generally don't you really use that many skills.
All skills you rarely use is a pointless waste of time anyways and should be purged. That leaves you with 15 or 20 skills in most games. Gaining 2 new skills each level would not be too hard for most people.
It is all about how long time it takes to max out. As an old D&D player 50 levels sounds way too many for me.
Under 10 would count as the very low figures I talked about. It would certainly be... interesting, but I agree with you. I would even go with the 5 level cap too. Make every level count.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
-Just kidding. I agree with xeniar and Disdena. The number is completely arbitrary and unimportant.
I don't think that levels are completely arbitrary. I feel that it can define the spectrum of a game. I'm not saying that every game should or shouldn't have levels, but i disagree that they server no purpose.
I wasn't talking about levels but the number of them. The number is unimportant unless we are talking about very low figures. It doesn't matter if it is 50 or 100. What matters is what you get from each level and how much effort does it take to get there.
I see. I still think the number is somewhat important, though (at least for me). For instance, if a game takes four months to reach max level, I would rather have leveled 100 times than 50. As I mentioned, I'm kind of old school in the sense that I find level progression enjoyable. I just thought that 100 seemed like a good number to me. I mean, yeah, it's a little arbitrary and unimportant, but if the cap is too low, then I don't really get that sense of pregression, and if it's too high, then it diminishes the fulfillment of each level. That's really all my point is; I was just curious what other people thought.... I think I bit off a little more than I can chew with that question.
Originally posted by Loke666
Originally posted by Quirhid
I wasn't talking about levels but the number of them. The number is unimportant unless we are talking about very low figures. It doesn't matter if it is 50 or 100. What matters is what you get from each level and how much effort does it take to get there.
It actually matters little if there is 10 levels either, and as low as 5 probably works as well.
The original idea was that you slowly will become better and that you get some new abilities later.
Many levels is only good if you have a zillion skills to keep track on, so you get one at a time and learn how to use them. But generally don't you really use that many skills.
All skills you rarely use is a pointless waste of time anyways and should be purged. That leaves you with 15 or 20 skills in most games. Gaining 2 new skills each level would not be too hard for most people.
It is all about how long time it takes to max out. As an old D&D player 50 levels sounds way too many for me.
To be honest, I like having some skills that are only applicable in certain scenarios. I think it adds a bit of strategy to a game when the same set of skills doesn't work on every foe. I've played games where I had to keep multiple macro sets for different situations, and I really enjoyed that. If my character build didn't allow me to take down a certain monster, then I had to party with someone that could. I feel that we've been a little spoiled with many modern games, where we don't even need to bee choosey about our battles as long as the mob wihtin the level range.
I guess I'm biased because I played classic WoW a couple months after release and all through classic up until about a month before Burning Crusade expansion was released. Needed a break at that time.
But yes, back to the point, I think lvl 60 is a nice end cap lvl. Seeing as lvl 50 is your typical startup cap lvl, it's not quite as charming =P
The people and the friends that we have lost, and the dreams that have faded, never forget them~
No lvls no classes, sick and tired of games that have them let the WoW and all the new generation(mainly console) have them and rest of us play the good games like sandbox skill based mmo's.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
The level cap should be dependant on the amount of content available in the game. If a company develops an MMO that's specifically meant to have months and months of content available, with most of it being after level cap, then the level cap can be low, with more of a "tutorial" feel.
If there's very little end-game content available, then the level cap should be higher as it'll keep people interested a bit longer, and keep them from finding out the dreaded secret too quickly, and giving time to develop some new content.
Or be like DCUO and have very little content, and a low level cap. Yeah...
I dont like levels at all if it comes with lvl based gear. Or the very slow obtaining of new skills. I also dont like it when in some MMO's, players do content when they are way too high lvl for it. I hate it when players debate that 'the game does really start at ' . So somehow you have to endure the game untill that point where it really starts? Retarded!
So I prefer a MMO that either scales for lvl and/or amount of players or has a low lvl cap. So that I can actually have a challenge in that game. And fun gameplay from the start.
As for optimal lvl cap. This is very dependant on how progression is planned and other mechanics. Just stating a number is meaningless.
To better emulate real life, there should be about 80 lvls, but the levels should work the opposite of the way they do in current mmo's.
It should start off with your character being able to do pretty much anything. Have tons of stamina, lots of health, pretty much any skill can be learned really easy and the game is just run around and kick ass fun. The levels at first take a long time to pass, but with each passing level, it's quicker and quicker to arrive at the next leveling point.
Once you hit level 40, you start to realize that any skills you didn't take before are going to take you four times as long to learn, and it takes a quarter of the time to hit your next level.
At level 50, you're profession changes from doing what skill you had done before, to teaching lower level players how to do it instead.
At level 60 you realize that you can't wear your armor anymore and have to start wearing cloth, and if you were wearing gladiator armor, everyone is secretly happy that you can't.
At level 65, you are no longer allowed to do your profession any more, but your happy about it because now you can do all the things you've wanted to do but never had the time. 15 minutes into level 65 you realize you can't do that stuff either.
At level 70, you are convinced that you're going to make a comeback, you've got alot of experience in the game, and you can play smarter.
At level 71, you're done with fooling yourself, and now spend most of your time wandering around looking for other high levels to talk to about how all these level 20's have it easy nowadays.
At level 75 you break a hip, you're movement speed is reduced to barely more then a crawl, you're not mobile enough to run around finding other players your level anymore, so you just yell at anybody that passes nearby.
At level 80 you realize that the slightest mistep could end up with permadeath so you just spend all your time in the forums.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
To better emulate real life, there should be about 80 lvls, but the levels should work the opposite of the way they do in current mmo's.
It should start off with your character being able to do pretty much anything. Have tons of stamina, lots of health, pretty much any skill can be learned really easy and the game is just run around and kick ass fun. The levels at first take a long time to pass, but with each passing level, it's quicker and quicker to arrive at the next leveling point.
Once you hit level 40, you start to realize that any skills you didn't take before are going to take you four times as long to learn, and it takes a quarter of the time to hit your next level.
At level 50, you're profession changes from doing what skill you had done before, to teaching lower level players how to do it instead.
At level 60 you realize that you can't wear your armor anymore and have to start wearing cloth, and if you were wearing gladiator armor, everyone is secretly happy that you can't.
At level 65, you are no longer allowed to do your profession any more, but your happy about it because now you can do all the things you've wanted to do but never had the time. 15 minutes into level 65 you realize you can't do that stuff either.
At level 70, you are convinced that you're going to make a comeback, you've got alot of experience in the game, and you can play smarter.
At level 71, you're done with fooling yourself, and now spend most of your time wandering around looking for other high levels to talk to about how all these level 20's have it easy nowadays.
At level 75 you break a hip, you're movement speed is reduced to barely more then a crawl, you're not mobile enough to run around finding other players your level anymore, so you just yell at anybody that passes nearby.
At level 80 you realize that the slightest mistep could end up with permadeath so you just spend all your time in the forums.
Comments
It is a step in the right direction though since a self mentored system allows one to go back and enjoy something they missed. It is not a fix all by any means but it is a start.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
You're right. I should have phrased that a little more clearly. Though, I was implying that the pacing wouldn't be absurd. My point is that I prefer not to go extremely long periods of time between leveling. I mentioned that I enjoy level progression, so a game that takes 3 months to reach a cap of 20 wouldn't be as fun to me.
I don't think that levels are completely arbitrary. I feel that it can define the spectrum of a game. I'm not saying that every game should or shouldn't have levels, but i disagree that they server no purpose.
While I'm not a big fan of classes, either, I don't think that any concept should be defenestrated. I feel variety is good.
Without levels and/or skills and/or gear to constantly improve, boredom will set in much faster. There is lots of research into the effectiveness of this hook, and is kind of the dirty little not so secret of modern game design. If anything this concept is getting more prevelant not less, and even those that say they don't like it would probably play less if it weren't required.
Even in games where it isn't obvious, the concepts of leveling are there. Platformers where stages get harder and introduce new things and abilities, Civ4 which unlocks new gameplay as time moves forward, RTS games where you need to build things in order to build other things, FPS's now much more focussed on leveling, almost every RPG ever made, adventure games where as your inventory increases you can do more things and solve harder problems, etc.
Those that say to get rid of all of these leveling concepts simply are asking for a much duller game, or should simply look into the esport niche (which isn't completely devoid of leveling either).
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
I think that depends on the type of game. If the developers want to concentrate on end-game, where raiding, dungeon crawling, and organized PvP is the focus, the level cap should be long enough to get all of your abilities and learn how to use them before hitting the end-game content. The more complex the class-system and variety of skills, the longer the cap. For example, a game like WoW could use a much lower level cap than it currently has, because you learn how to optimally use each move much faster than you get new abilities.
For a game that is focused on the journey, the level cap should be high, with alternate paths of advancement at max level. That's because the fun of that sort of game is the progression, and max level should provide different ways to continue to advance your character, such as Alternate Advancement, multi-classing, and PvP ranks. I think EQ2's system, and DAoC's system are good examples of alternate advancement at level cap.
In reference to the first paragraph, there should be a focus on the end game content and less focus on progression. Developers should also focus on one end-game activity, instead of trying to have several. This is because balance is a problem and you can't balance classes for both PvE and PvP without watering one or the other down. Just look at the homogeniety of WoW's class system nowadays because of PvP. Every class plays pretty similar. Every class has some sort of damage mitigation, dps, healing, and crowd control. It's better, whether focusing on PvP end game or Raiding to balance classes based on well made groups. Everyone needs a strength that makes them unique to a party, and a weakness that requires another class to cover. This makes choosing a class more about what strengths you enjoy bringing to a group, and less about which class is the best. Which brings me to my next point. In said game, there shouldn't be a lot of classes, just enough to allow one each in a group setting so that no class is left out. This also aleviates the problem of elitist attitude concerning which class is best suited for each role in a group. A Warrior (tank), Rogue (melee physical dps), Ranger (ranged physical dps), Wizard (ranged elemental dps), Sorceror (crowd control), and a Cleric (healing) is sufficient. No pets, as pets makes things imbalanced. I've yet to play a game where a pet class wasn't overpowered compared to other classes, making them the ideal choice for soloing in PvE or PvP.
In reference to the second paragraph, this game should be all about variety. Balancing should be less of an issue, where making choices is the name of the game. That's because choice is what make progression fun. Choosing how you level up, where you level up, how to specialize your character, and etc. Battlegrounds like DAoC should be a fun way to level up, group grinding and dungeon crawling should be a viable way to level up, and quests should be fewer in number, but higher quality and worth doing. Quests should be a diversion from your normal method of leveling up, be that adventuring alone, grouping up in PvE, or grouping up in PvP.
I think a leveled progression track is better than making each level harder to achieve. So if the cap is 100, it should take equally as long to reach each level, in turn you gain a 1% increase in power and ability at each level. People burn out in level based progression at later levels is levels become exponentially harder to achieve as you progress.
Whenever I watch a video of a new MMO or read a description of it, if I hear anywhere in that video/article anything that remotely sounds like, "The player will explore and gain levels to become more powerful..." I immediately want to set fire to a building and roast bits of curiously unidentifiable meat with the flames.
I agree. The cap definitely depends on the type of game. An end-game focused game doesn't need a very high level cap. My question was merely posed from my point of view of what I like in a game. If someone says that there should only be a level cap of 20 because he likes end-game content, that's great. I wasn't trying to stir the pot by posing this question. There's really no right or wrong answer, but many people seem to think there is.
Personally, I like more complex systems with long learning curves, where a high level character is an accomplishment instead of the norm. I've known tons of people that have played WoW, and the end-game content just never really appealed to me. Is there anything wrong with WoW? No. My only beef with WoW is that it's hurting originality in MMOs a bit. Its success has provoked many to copy the formula in the hopes of gaining popularity, which really isn't Blizzard's fault, but you end up having a bunch of games that look like WoW instead of trying new things. Unfortunately, MMOs are such large finiancial projects that straying too far from the status quo can be disastrous for a company.
As for the balancing issue, it seems like a classless system would require less tweaking from the developers (unless a skill is blantantly broken). Instead of classes, just have a series of skill tress that kind of act like a complex paper-rock-scissor format. For instance, if there is a combination of skills that works well and becomes popular, then it could be possible for several counter-builds to be made, and eventually, counter-builds of those, and so on. That way, the players, themselves, can balance out the game. You may not be able to come up with a build that's good for every situation, but that's part of what makes characters different. People tend to get too greedy, and want it all.
"Levels" (And "classes") are a horrible concept that MMOs need to throw in the fire ASAP.
Would have to agree,
Personally classes always carry the problem that there is with balance issues. Giving someone access to one thing without giving it to another will create these problems and they are significantly expressed in pvp, where egos collide.
You can make the "level" cap whatever you want honestly it doesn't matter at some point your characters progression will come to an end. What it is important is that it is you have fun while progressing. I really loved dark fall online except for the massive pking that was involved in that game, yes I was a carebear simply because I couldn't keep up and be competitive with the people at the top who were constantly ganking me. However the game was enjoyable to play and I progressed my character in countless ways and in any way I saw fit.
Not all MMO's can be sandboxs but they can take aspects from it and improve honestly. I have to give rift props for allowing bigger customizations in character creation where you can specialize on what you want but still be able to choose what your secondary roles are. I don't know how effective this translates into the game but the soul and the idea behind it are really the future for new MMO's (In my opinion).
Although i agree with the quote above I think people aren't ready to leave it behind, levels and classes provide them with a comfortable nostalgia they are familar with. The thing is however in most sandbox games you can create your own classes it just doesn't have a universal identifiable title. (I.E, Rogue warrior etc etc).
Agreed. Give me SWG skill base MMO any day! Let you be a Smuggler one day, the next a bio machanic, the following a Doc.
Hypothetically, one could make a game that is actually fun to play, instead of merely a vehicle to very gradually increase numbers on a character sheet.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
This.
Think EQ, forever on each level. minimal but worthy power gains. I only got to lvl 64 and it took years.
Levels are just a simplified way of handling experience.
The real problem is that level increase your hitpoints and make it harder to kill stuff over your level and easier for the ones below. Cut out those 2 things and they aren't as bad.
There are 3 simple ways to handle experince:
1. Levels, Xp from killing mobs.
2. Point based system. You get points every know and then because of XP or achivements.
3. Skills. You raise them by using them.
All these system actually works fine. The real problems with levels are that the devs decided to make the gap between old characters and new characters too large, don't confuse it with the levelsystem.
The real problem with levels and classes is that they restrict players with customizing their characters.
I don't think most people stay for levels. In most modern MMOs you max out after a few weeks anyways, people play for years.
Loot and friends are the 2 main reasons people play so long.
The loot part is actually kinda sad, there should be a lot more reasons to have fun than just getting loot.
Guildwars lets you max out a character in a few days and loot is not the reason people play it either. And still are many people playing it after many years.
To say that levels aren't terrible indicates a fundamental lack of design sense. (See how I gave just as much supporting evidence and reasoning as you did?)
Here's the "different" I'd like the genre to try: for the PvE content to be primarily based around problem solving, character development (as in faction alignment, moral choices, etc), exploration and content revelation rather than "Kill 10 Rats".
By all means of course have some combat content, fighting stuff is thrilling and dangerous and fun. Oh wait, when it's all that happens, and it's essentially risk-free and predictable, it's not thrilling, it's certainly not "dangerous" and pretty soon it's not even all that much fun.
Rescue a child or take a message to the keep that bandits are attacking a village?
Discover the location of the legendary mandrake root needed to save the good wise King - and find out that the mandrake is sentient and good.
Find the cave in the high mountains where your father died - and how he died. You find the orc tribe that killed him hidden in the caves. You choose between stealthily assassinating their champion, poisoning their water source, or attacking them alongside your friends... or maybe you decide to investigate a little further and find out their side of the story....
Story. Character. World. These have been completely neglected in favour of a kind of purely stats-driven co-op RTS where all that anyone really needs to know abotu you is your DPS, damage type and tank.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I wasn't talking about levels but the number of them. The number is unimportant unless we are talking about very low figures. It doesn't matter if it is 50 or 100. What matters is what you get from each level and how much effort does it take to get there.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It actually matters little if there is 10 levels either, and as low as 5 probably works as well.
The original idea was that you slowly will become better and that you get some new abilities later.
Many levels is only good if you have a zillion skills to keep track on, so you get one at a time and learn how to use them. But generally don't you really use that many skills.
All skills you rarely use is a pointless waste of time anyways and should be purged. That leaves you with 15 or 20 skills in most games. Gaining 2 new skills each level would not be too hard for most people.
It is all about how long time it takes to max out. As an old D&D player 50 levels sounds way too many for me.
Got to remember, though, that loot is actually levels for max level characters. You spend all of your time in the early part of an MMO developing your character through levelling. Once there's no more levelling the traditional EQ-style MMO offers little in the way of progression other than gear. Yeah some games have AA etc. but after a while even that gets maxed and then what else is there to do but chase shiny items than make you 0.0001% better than you were before you looted them.
As an idea, inspired by my time in Eve, I wonder if there could be a game without levels or game-mechanic-character-progression, and rather progression was based on player skill. Probably would be too hardcore at the start while you were learning how to play, and therefore people would leave, but it would be fun to have a game that you play to get better at, not just because the game tells you you're better because you're now level 100 instead of 99 or you have +5 strength instead of +4.
Inspired by Eve because that game is all about player skill. You could have a bigger more expensive ship and millions more skill points than some other guy, but he can still be better than you in his little ship if he knows how to play better.
Under 10 would count as the very low figures I talked about. It would certainly be... interesting, but I agree with you. I would even go with the 5 level cap too. Make every level count.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I see. I still think the number is somewhat important, though (at least for me). For instance, if a game takes four months to reach max level, I would rather have leveled 100 times than 50. As I mentioned, I'm kind of old school in the sense that I find level progression enjoyable. I just thought that 100 seemed like a good number to me. I mean, yeah, it's a little arbitrary and unimportant, but if the cap is too low, then I don't really get that sense of pregression, and if it's too high, then it diminishes the fulfillment of each level. That's really all my point is; I was just curious what other people thought.... I think I bit off a little more than I can chew with that question.
To be honest, I like having some skills that are only applicable in certain scenarios. I think it adds a bit of strategy to a game when the same set of skills doesn't work on every foe. I've played games where I had to keep multiple macro sets for different situations, and I really enjoyed that. If my character build didn't allow me to take down a certain monster, then I had to party with someone that could. I feel that we've been a little spoiled with many modern games, where we don't even need to bee choosey about our battles as long as the mob wihtin the level range.
I quite like lvl 60 actually.
I guess I'm biased because I played classic WoW a couple months after release and all through classic up until about a month before Burning Crusade expansion was released. Needed a break at that time.
But yes, back to the point, I think lvl 60 is a nice end cap lvl. Seeing as lvl 50 is your typical startup cap lvl, it's not quite as charming =P
The people and the friends that we have lost, and the dreams that have faded, never forget them~
No lvls no classes, sick and tired of games that have them let the WoW and all the new generation(mainly console) have them and rest of us play the good games like sandbox skill based mmo's.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
The level cap should be dependant on the amount of content available in the game. If a company develops an MMO that's specifically meant to have months and months of content available, with most of it being after level cap, then the level cap can be low, with more of a "tutorial" feel.
If there's very little end-game content available, then the level cap should be higher as it'll keep people interested a bit longer, and keep them from finding out the dreaded secret too quickly, and giving time to develop some new content.
Or be like DCUO and have very little content, and a low level cap. Yeah...
I dont like levels at all if it comes with lvl based gear. Or the very slow obtaining of new skills. I also dont like it when in some MMO's, players do content when they are way too high lvl for it. I hate it when players debate that 'the game does really start at ' . So somehow you have to endure the game untill that point where it really starts? Retarded!
So I prefer a MMO that either scales for lvl and/or amount of players or has a low lvl cap. So that I can actually have a challenge in that game. And fun gameplay from the start.
As for optimal lvl cap. This is very dependant on how progression is planned and other mechanics. Just stating a number is meaningless.
To better emulate real life, there should be about 80 lvls, but the levels should work the opposite of the way they do in current mmo's.
It should start off with your character being able to do pretty much anything. Have tons of stamina, lots of health, pretty much any skill can be learned really easy and the game is just run around and kick ass fun. The levels at first take a long time to pass, but with each passing level, it's quicker and quicker to arrive at the next leveling point.
Once you hit level 40, you start to realize that any skills you didn't take before are going to take you four times as long to learn, and it takes a quarter of the time to hit your next level.
At level 50, you're profession changes from doing what skill you had done before, to teaching lower level players how to do it instead.
At level 60 you realize that you can't wear your armor anymore and have to start wearing cloth, and if you were wearing gladiator armor, everyone is secretly happy that you can't.
At level 65, you are no longer allowed to do your profession any more, but your happy about it because now you can do all the things you've wanted to do but never had the time. 15 minutes into level 65 you realize you can't do that stuff either.
At level 70, you are convinced that you're going to make a comeback, you've got alot of experience in the game, and you can play smarter.
At level 71, you're done with fooling yourself, and now spend most of your time wandering around looking for other high levels to talk to about how all these level 20's have it easy nowadays.
At level 75 you break a hip, you're movement speed is reduced to barely more then a crawl, you're not mobile enough to run around finding other players your level anymore, so you just yell at anybody that passes nearby.
At level 80 you realize that the slightest mistep could end up with permadeath so you just spend all your time in the forums.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
^^ too funny