Somebody is confusing level progression with ability progression.
EVE has indeed a shitload of abilities, but every single character is level 1. What abilities are useful are dependant on the spaceship you're flying or plan to. Same with TSW, same with all ability based mmos.
Just because something does not have levels, it doesn't mean it does not have progress. Let me give you an example.
In a level based system you accumulate experience until you level, then the game gives you 2 points to distribute to any skill you like (or usually do it automatically) once the experience threshold is reached.
In an ability based system, the abilities themselves raise by usage the more are used. So your bow skill goes up because you shoot arrows.
I really don't understand how people can't wrap their minds around mmorpgs without artificial levels. Noone played the ones that existed? If not, just think the ability system like the Skyrim system, only you scrap the level count and rework the skill tree so you distribute points the higher your actual skill is.
Originally posted by Squeak69 oh joy another secret world game, cause that system worked so well, wait has anyone seen a good free form system yet that didn't turn into copy past best build eltist style.
Age of Wushu. The EQN system seems more akin to Wushu than TSW. Not sure if it will have the same depth, but I'm more than willing to wait and see.
This is merely an artificial way to restrict content and extend the life of a game. Plus you get to get extra money from the people that can't be bothered with the unlocks.
If I make a shooter that gives you one weapon ever 1M of damage you do, does this put levels into the shooter or a pseudo progression into a very horizontal game?
Or to put it differently. I'll give you a fry pan at level 1 in WoW (a level based game) and at level 90 (or whatever the cap is these days). Level 1 will do nothing to the level 90 guy, the other guy will insta-kill the level 1.
Unlock the same pan on a shooter (microtransactions) and they are both exactly identical, despite the first guy never doing the "exp" progression.
Also you can only start with 1 of 8 classes out of 40 or so, so u need 2 unlock those other quests so there more progression aswell.
Not for nothing but Rift tried this with their class system when it first launched and people hated it. At first you had to find your class. People bitched so they changed it to doin a quest to unlock your quest. People bitched. So then they changed it again so that you could just pick what you wanted when you wanted it. EQN launch is a life time away atm and i would bet that this gets changed before or quickly after launch.
Devs need to start making the games they want to play, not what the small minority of people bitching bout it cause we all know theyll leave the the next big game that comes out usualy bitching that the game is to easy now and no challenge. because there retarted hehe.
Originally posted by Squeak69 oh joy another secret world game, cause that system worked so well, wait has anyone seen a good free form system yet that didn't turn into copy past best build eltist style.
As opposed to what? Pigeon holling you to a particular build from the start? I agree that The Secret World ability system is not perfect, but it's miles more versatile than the typical levelling based system of most western mmorpgs and pretty much all eastern ones.
Even Skyrim doesn't really have levels, but merely checkpoints where you can distribute your ability points. In any case, the info provided by SOE is so ... vague, that they could be using any type of system. In this respect lack of levels is not something new for rpgs in general, though most mmorpg players coming from mainstream mmo backgrounds do seem surprised by the concept.
I have said this before and I will forever say it, compareing a single player game to a multi player game dose not work.
That's where you're wrong. The new focus is solo MMOs and your solo-ability within them.
Originally posted by Squeak69 oh joy another secret world game, cause that system worked so well, wait has anyone seen a good free form system yet that didn't turn into copy past best build eltist style.
You kidding me all WoW type treadmill mmorpgs are flavor of the month same builds. At least with skill base levels players can pick and choose what they want to level and what they want to specialize in. The ones not wanting an UO/EVE/SWG similar game with sandbox features are those that still want the WoW treadmill experience. Those people want to be able to out level and out gear everyone else so they can't fight back instead of using their own player skills.
The reason why GW2 no gear treadmill grind failed, was because they didn't have an end game and all their other content got boring very quickly. Their bread and butter realm vs realm and competitive arena matches didn't have proper rewards. Pve was pretty stale running from point to point doing the same alert over and over even though it was the same thing.
The developers need to realize; that the game need a fully fledged out world with tons of player driver content and game driven ones. There needs to be incentive for a player to log in every day whether it is killing a giant mob boss wrecking havoc, wiping out all the noobs in a lowbie zone, or winning a RVR and a guild trying to maintain their keep, achieving meaningful rewards.
If you don't have a treadmill grind ; developers need to make sure there are enough things to do for each play style, whether explorer, pvper or pver.
Another point I want to make is that the Thempark mmorpg players are bored of their WoW or WoW clone so they try and change a sandbox game to represent what they want. Sandbox games for the most part are not for the casual or those who want hand holding.
Originally posted by angzt
what i find quite amusing:
shooters - having lvls now! you gain exp per round and lvl up your acc, you get access to better weapons and whatnot....
mmo - no more lvls! we progress different! lvls are uncool! totaly!
seriously? am i the only one who noticed the disturbance in the force here
I enjoy the leveling up and achievements in fps games, because the guns are in most cases balanced. I can kill a level 100 rank player in bf3 as a rank 1 if I am skillful enough. Sure I might not have as many options as that player early on but I can still kill without hinderance.
Now Planetside 2 is more teetering on P2W with some weapons like the shotguns. Sure you can unlock it over time but that player whom paid cash can get it now and wreck face. Overall though; the game is pretty balanced and I find the leveling system alright, but not as good as Planetside 1.
Thank god no levels, this is starting to look interesting. Levels are the most annoying ancient artificially content limiting and obsoleting system today.
With levels you cant even enter a hihg level zone unless you want to get one shotted. With levels the past zones becomes obsolete and meaningless, a waste of space and useless landmass that creates an illusion on the world map that the world is big, when in fact the world is only as big as the end game zones are.
With levels maxed players become demigods and others become mice. You are a famous warrior who have conquered armies of evil orcs, just to be one shotted by a beggar with a wooden pole, because he happens to be 20 levels higher than you. You get one shotted on PvP areas constantly by high level players, with no means to fight back, because of levels.
Levels are stupid. They are fine, even excellent in singleplayer RPG's where they belong. Your character progresses at a good pace with the story, it's a tailored experience that suits singleplayer RPG. It's shit in mmorpgs however, stupid, unlogical, and limiting. There's no other players in singleplayer games so you wont run into the plethora of problems that levels cause in massive multiplayer games.
You can have a ton of alternate ways to progress in these games, meaningful ways, which does not put you at an absolute disadvantage towards other players like a leveling system does.
UO and skill based systems have been around for as long as level based, but more people seem to like level based progression or it wouldn't dominate the mmorpg scene. You say it makes more sense for everyone to start a game at max power with nowhere to go with developing their character and able to do any content with nothing to look forward to? Nice in theory i guess, but most would get bored with it. Thats why skill based (no level) games don't seem to work out. Most gamers like to start out weak and progress to be more powerful, to start out struggling to fight rats and end up defeating dragons. I'm not saying skill/no lev systems couldn't work, but it would have to offer something in it's place (actually level based games need to offer more imo, as gamers seem to be tiring of many common game mechanics). But i don't see no level systems being a better alternative.
I see people say this all the time, but never seem to offer these alternatives. And grinding vanity items doesn't seem any better than grinding raid gear. The only game I've raided in was EQ and I didn't do it for the gear, I did it for the challenge and fun of working with guildmates and fighting new and tougher mobs, so never really saw the fun in repetitious gear grind.
Originally posted by Xasapis Some people associate levels with progression. Lack of levels doesn't mean lack of progression. There are different mmoprgs out there without a level system that feature progression, from the old Ultima Online, to the recent The Secret World.
Just because it's not called levels, that doesn't mean it doesn't have levels. Ultima Online had a shit load of little levels, you just didn't realize it. If you have to do something repeatedly, so that the game then lets you become more powerful, you're leveling. It even had gear and skills that were locked behind levels (you had to have a certain strength to blacksmith, for instance). Whereas EQ had no level or strength requirements for blacksmithing.
EQNext also has levels. They work to unlock skills (something EQ, Diablo, WoW etc etc has). It may not give you more hit points, they've already said you need to level a class to equip certain gear.
Really try to think outside of the box. Don't just take words for their face value.
Leveling has been around in gaming since Pen and Paper D&D and probably earlier. Its old, outdated, and used up. Maybe an MMO without levels hasnt worked out well in the past. But that doesnt mean it wont work now or later on down the line. It depends on how its set up more then anything.
I am willing to give it a chance to see if it works. And dont want to speculate until I see it in action.
What is the difference between skill and level based systems? Seriously. You acquire xp by killing things in both systems. You either assign "points" (acquired through skills or levels) to certain boxes, trees, or are assigned them automatically as your skill/level rises. Character power increases, and content becomes obsolete in both systems. A newbie player is vastly less powerful in both systems, making them non-viable for playing endgame content or with higher lvl/skill characters.
I think it's hard to say how much vertical progression EQN will actually have. We still don't know what exactly these tiers do and how much gear-progression there will be.
I think it would be great if EQN would really limit the vertical progression as much as possible. If you ask me, the level- treadmill is the core problem a truly next-gen mmo has to overcome. look at the 10 good reasons why MMOs do not need vertical progression.
Since Everquest, many mmo with levering has merely used the mechanism for learning the robes before reaching the endgame.
But even if Eq had dropped levels, there would still be AA progression, raiding tiers to gear up for and faction grinding to complete before you could hope to beat that next horrible monster.
Levels works well with zones. At this lvl og to that zone and so forth. In many games the result has been that you had no reason to return to a zone once you had outleveled it. So a lot of content become useless once you pass a certain level.
With monsters relocating based on the state og the environment, it will be hard to control the level-requirements. And since they are just a tutorial progression indicator, it may seem smart to replace the mechanic with another one better suited.
Progression requires skill. You dont need a nummer to prove it.... And thats the end of buying powerleveling too. Why support that business if you dont need levels.
What is the difference between skill and level based systems? Seriously. You acquire xp by killing things in both systems. You either assign "points" (acquired through skills or levels) to certain boxes, trees, or are assigned them automatically as your skill/level rises. Character power increases, and content becomes obsolete in both systems. A newbie player is vastly less powerful in both systems, making them non-viable for playing endgame content or with higher lvl/skill characters.
This seems like a great deal of semantics to me.
Because one is a class based system and the other isn't.
If I am just leveling skills, then I can be an Elf using a sword and a fireball spell because I level both those skills.
If I am leveling a class, then unless there's a class to allow that, then it's not allowed - thus my freedom is curtailed to the Characters on offer. Also because everyone is going to be one of 8 (or whatever) classses - it makes for some boring gameplay and the longevity of the game itself suffers.
A good example of where this has worked out brilliantly is Eve Online - no classes or levels, just skills.
Having pre-requisite skills makes the game "last longer" too. Being able to not get the fireball spell until you have the flame spell to skill level X, creates a good amount of individual character goals (What I call the "small game").
In games like everquest or world of warcraft, that "small game" is defined only by what level you are and what gear you got.
They concentrated only on the "Larger game" which was how your guild went, what boss they were up to, raiding in general.
Basically the goals were group goals and not individual goals - they removed those with dungeon keys when burning crusade came out.
It adds a level of depth to the individual, and means if you run into someone in a PVP encounter, you have no idea what you might be up against either. An elf in a robe doesn't mean he's a mage
What is the difference between skill and level based systems? Seriously. You acquire xp by killing things in both systems. You either assign "points" (acquired through skills or levels) to certain boxes, trees, or are assigned them automatically as your skill/level rises. Character power increases, and content becomes obsolete in both systems. A newbie player is vastly less powerful in both systems, making them non-viable for playing endgame content or with higher lvl/skill characters.
This seems like a great deal of semantics to me.
Because one is a class based system and the other isn't.
If I am just leveling skills, then I can be an Elf using a sword and a fireball spell because I level both those skills.
If I am leveling a class, then unless there's a class to allow that, then it's not allowed - thus my freedom is curtailed to the Characters on offer. Also because everyone is going to be one of 8 (or whatever) classses - it makes for some boring gameplay and the longevity of the game itself suffers.
A good example of where this has worked out brilliantly is Eve Online - no classes or levels, just skills.
Having pre-requisite skills makes the game "last longer" too. Being able to not get the fireball spell until you have the flame spell to skill level X, creates a good amount of individual character goals (What I call the "small game").
In games like everquest or world of warcraft, that "small game" is defined only by what level you are and what gear you got.
They concentrated only on the "Larger game" which was how your guild went, what boss they were up to, raiding in general.
Basically the goals were group goals and not individual goals - they removed those with dungeon keys when burning crusade came out.
It adds a level of depth to the individual, and means if you run into someone in a PVP encounter, you have no idea what you might be up against either. An elf in a robe doesn't mean he's a mage
I think you are misrepresenting the system
They have stated there will be ~ 40 class when the game goes live
with 8 to chose form the start and the rest to be discovered during game play
Whats more they are allowing the blending of classes (their form of multiclassing)
This sounds more like the classes represent a bundle of skills that you can learn as a set and mix with other class skill sets
They have a foot in the class system and a foot in the skill based systems
What is the difference between skill and level based systems? Seriously. You acquire xp by killing things in both systems. You either assign "points" (acquired through skills or levels) to certain boxes, trees, or are assigned them automatically as your skill/level rises. Character power increases, and content becomes obsolete in both systems. A newbie player is vastly less powerful in both systems, making them non-viable for playing endgame content or with higher lvl/skill characters.
This seems like a great deal of semantics to me.
Because one is a class based system and the other isn't.
If I am just leveling skills, then I can be an Elf using a sword and a fireball spell because I level both those skills.
If I am leveling a class, then unless there's a class to allow that, then it's not allowed - thus my freedom is curtailed to the Characters on offer. Also because everyone is going to be one of 8 (or whatever) classses - it makes for some boring gameplay and the longevity of the game itself suffers.
A good example of where this has worked out brilliantly is Eve Online - no classes or levels, just skills.
Having pre-requisite skills makes the game "last longer" too. Being able to not get the fireball spell until you have the flame spell to skill level X, creates a good amount of individual character goals (What I call the "small game").
In games like everquest or world of warcraft, that "small game" is defined only by what level you are and what gear you got.
They concentrated only on the "Larger game" which was how your guild went, what boss they were up to, raiding in general.
Basically the goals were group goals and not individual goals - they removed those with dungeon keys when burning crusade came out.
It adds a level of depth to the individual, and means if you run into someone in a PVP encounter, you have no idea what you might be up against either. An elf in a robe doesn't mean he's a mage
I think you are misrepresenting the system
They have stated there will be ~ 40 class when the game goes live
with 8 to chose form the start and the rest to be discovered during game play
Whats more they are allowing the blending of classes (their form of multiclassing)
This sounds more like the classes represent a bundle of skills that you can learn as a set and mix with other class skill sets
They have a foot in the class system and a foot in the skill based systems
Sounds a bit odd, I admit.
TBH I thought someone was just not sure what a skill based system WAS, so I was explaining and just jumped in
This whole thing is SONY, and frankly they have a pretty good track record with dumbing things down for casual players from my perspective. (Planetside)
Sounds like it might be one of those 8 skill only on your bar systems or some such thing. I guess we will see - personally, I don't see why you'd do that and limit people in that way. I think it'd be a shame to introduce classes when they are progressing so much more of the gameplay and engine.
I actually fail to comprehend the ideas of most developers out there.
Eve Online is in its' 11th year now and no end in sight as an example - World of Hypecraft is dying, all other class based MMO's are dying or dead - the idea of building for casual play and dumbing things down has run its' course imo.
Actually, I just looked up top, and it says Pay type Free - I might've got confused between this and ESO, I thought it was going to be subscription based ?
If not - my guess is we'll end up with the 8 skills max on your bar deal - I think that's a total shame.
I, for one, welcome a level-less system. Not because I want it all right naowz, but because content becomes obsolete for higher level characters with the existing level-based system.
FFXIV is actually showing me how it works (even with a level-based system), because you;ll multi-class and level up another class - essentially seeing every starting zone, just on a single character. I still feel they limited themselves too much, but there are many alternatives to quest-based leveling, so it's not a total separation - that is, players will still be able to go through a low-level zone for class number 4 or 5.
In all honesty, one game I played was relevant to the level-less system, which was actually very enjoyable - SWG. I missed UO, sadly. In SWG, I could increase my skill in any profession (or even a combination of professions) in pretty much any planet. The simplicity was, you didn't want to go to certain areas without rank 150 rifleman or something, but otherwise, you were pretty free to go wherever.
I just feel that 80% of the content in a game shouldn't be defunct just by having hit XYZ experience - that any zone (except perhaps a tutorial, less than 2% of content) should be able to offer challenges. Otherwise, you have the endless gear-grind top-tier raiding in the same areas, over and over again until you can queue action bars in your sleep, or macro 1-1-1-1- ad infinitum.
That games have gone that way, to me, is sad. 80% of development work will be for (at best) 20% of your player base, and you end up with a WOW-like system where awesome content is never again seen after you outlevel it (I personally enjoyed the level 20 instances in WOW, and wish they had recycled these somehow at higher levels).
Honestly, those who want a rush-to-cap, gear grind raid experience have no dearth of games to choose from. TOR, WOW, EQ2, pretty much every game after 2004 save for GW2 have this system (and GW2 just made the end-game PVE somewhat pointless).
While I'm not sure if SOE will actually accomplish what they are saying (in fact, I have taken everything said with a healthy dose of salt), the fact is, I do like the general direction they are going. "We've done things the same way for too long; let's do what we've always wanted to try" is enough to get me to support their aims, if not their direction.
Comments
Somebody is confusing level progression with ability progression.
EVE has indeed a shitload of abilities, but every single character is level 1. What abilities are useful are dependant on the spaceship you're flying or plan to. Same with TSW, same with all ability based mmos.
Just because something does not have levels, it doesn't mean it does not have progress. Let me give you an example.
what i find quite amusing:
shooters - having lvls now! you gain exp per round and lvl up your acc, you get access to better weapons and whatnot....
mmo - no more lvls! we progress different! lvls are uncool! totaly!
seriously? am i the only one who noticed the disturbance in the force here?
"believe me, mike.. i calculated the odds of this working against the odds that i was doing something incredibly stupid and i did it anyway!"
Age of Wushu. The EQN system seems more akin to Wushu than TSW. Not sure if it will have the same depth, but I'm more than willing to wait and see.
Shooters don't have levels, never did.
This is merely an artificial way to restrict content and extend the life of a game. Plus you get to get extra money from the people that can't be bothered with the unlocks.
If I make a shooter that gives you one weapon ever 1M of damage you do, does this put levels into the shooter or a pseudo progression into a very horizontal game?
Or to put it differently. I'll give you a fry pan at level 1 in WoW (a level based game) and at level 90 (or whatever the cap is these days). Level 1 will do nothing to the level 90 guy, the other guy will insta-kill the level 1.
Unlock the same pan on a shooter (microtransactions) and they are both exactly identical, despite the first guy never doing the "exp" progression.
Devs need to start making the games they want to play, not what the small minority of people bitching bout it cause we all know theyll leave the the next big game that comes out usualy bitching that the game is to easy now and no challenge. because there retarted hehe.
That's where you're wrong. The new focus is solo MMOs and your solo-ability within them.
Discuss. Reason. Society.
Become a Dragon. Take your world back.
That's kind of a ridiculous statement. You name to older games that didn't have levels and then newer games have levels therefore they are outdated?
In any event, I don't agree with your assessment. Levels are "one type" of system and a system that works very well if the game is developed around,.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Not sure where you got that idea. D&D never had level limits, there's even a one hundred level module out there.
You kidding me all WoW type treadmill mmorpgs are flavor of the month same builds. At least with skill base levels players can pick and choose what they want to level and what they want to specialize in. The ones not wanting an UO/EVE/SWG similar game with sandbox features are those that still want the WoW treadmill experience. Those people want to be able to out level and out gear everyone else so they can't fight back instead of using their own player skills.
The reason why GW2 no gear treadmill grind failed, was because they didn't have an end game and all their other content got boring very quickly. Their bread and butter realm vs realm and competitive arena matches didn't have proper rewards. Pve was pretty stale running from point to point doing the same alert over and over even though it was the same thing.
The developers need to realize; that the game need a fully fledged out world with tons of player driver content and game driven ones. There needs to be incentive for a player to log in every day whether it is killing a giant mob boss wrecking havoc, wiping out all the noobs in a lowbie zone, or winning a RVR and a guild trying to maintain their keep, achieving meaningful rewards.
If you don't have a treadmill grind ; developers need to make sure there are enough things to do for each play style, whether explorer, pvper or pver.
Another point I want to make is that the Thempark mmorpg players are bored of their WoW or WoW clone so they try and change a sandbox game to represent what they want. Sandbox games for the most part are not for the casual or those who want hand holding.
I enjoy the leveling up and achievements in fps games, because the guns are in most cases balanced. I can kill a level 100 rank player in bf3 as a rank 1 if I am skillful enough. Sure I might not have as many options as that player early on but I can still kill without hinderance.
Now Planetside 2 is more teetering on P2W with some weapons like the shotguns. Sure you can unlock it over time but that player whom paid cash can get it now and wreck face. Overall though; the game is pretty balanced and I find the leveling system alright, but not as good as Planetside 1.
MurderHerd
UO and skill based systems have been around for as long as level based, but more people seem to like level based progression or it wouldn't dominate the mmorpg scene. You say it makes more sense for everyone to start a game at max power with nowhere to go with developing their character and able to do any content with nothing to look forward to? Nice in theory i guess, but most would get bored with it. Thats why skill based (no level) games don't seem to work out. Most gamers like to start out weak and progress to be more powerful, to start out struggling to fight rats and end up defeating dragons. I'm not saying skill/no lev systems couldn't work, but it would have to offer something in it's place (actually level based games need to offer more imo, as gamers seem to be tiring of many common game mechanics). But i don't see no level systems being a better alternative.
I see people say this all the time, but never seem to offer these alternatives. And grinding vanity items doesn't seem any better than grinding raid gear. The only game I've raided in was EQ and I didn't do it for the gear, I did it for the challenge and fun of working with guildmates and fighting new and tougher mobs, so never really saw the fun in repetitious gear grind.
Just because it's not called levels, that doesn't mean it doesn't have levels. Ultima Online had a shit load of little levels, you just didn't realize it. If you have to do something repeatedly, so that the game then lets you become more powerful, you're leveling. It even had gear and skills that were locked behind levels (you had to have a certain strength to blacksmith, for instance). Whereas EQ had no level or strength requirements for blacksmithing.
EQNext also has levels. They work to unlock skills (something EQ, Diablo, WoW etc etc has). It may not give you more hit points, they've already said you need to level a class to equip certain gear.
Really try to think outside of the box. Don't just take words for their face value.
Leveling has been around in gaming since Pen and Paper D&D and probably earlier. Its old, outdated, and used up. Maybe an MMO without levels hasnt worked out well in the past. But that doesnt mean it wont work now or later on down the line. It depends on how its set up more then anything.
I am willing to give it a chance to see if it works. And dont want to speculate until I see it in action.
What is the difference between skill and level based systems? Seriously. You acquire xp by killing things in both systems. You either assign "points" (acquired through skills or levels) to certain boxes, trees, or are assigned them automatically as your skill/level rises. Character power increases, and content becomes obsolete in both systems. A newbie player is vastly less powerful in both systems, making them non-viable for playing endgame content or with higher lvl/skill characters.
This seems like a great deal of semantics to me.
I think it's hard to say how much vertical progression EQN will actually have. We still don't know what exactly these tiers do and how much gear-progression there will be.
I think it would be great if EQN would really limit the vertical progression as much as possible. If you ask me, the level- treadmill is the core problem a truly next-gen mmo has to overcome. look at the 10 good reasons why MMOs do not need vertical progression.
Since Everquest, many mmo with levering has merely used the mechanism for learning the robes before reaching the endgame.
But even if Eq had dropped levels, there would still be AA progression, raiding tiers to gear up for and faction grinding to complete before you could hope to beat that next horrible monster.
Levels works well with zones. At this lvl og to that zone and so forth. In many games the result has been that you had no reason to return to a zone once you had outleveled it. So a lot of content become useless once you pass a certain level.
With monsters relocating based on the state og the environment, it will be hard to control the level-requirements. And since they are just a tutorial progression indicator, it may seem smart to replace the mechanic with another one better suited.
Progression requires skill. You dont need a nummer to prove it.... And thats the end of buying powerleveling too. Why support that business if you dont need levels.
There are plenty of Facebook item mall P2W games that have levels.
NO levels is perfectly fine.
There are great examples of lvl based systems and equally great non lvl based systems, in MMOs and table top RPGs
Give them time to put out some details of substance on this one before assuming its a fail
Because one is a class based system and the other isn't.
If I am just leveling skills, then I can be an Elf using a sword and a fireball spell because I level both those skills.
If I am leveling a class, then unless there's a class to allow that, then it's not allowed - thus my freedom is curtailed to the Characters on offer. Also because everyone is going to be one of 8 (or whatever) classses - it makes for some boring gameplay and the longevity of the game itself suffers.
A good example of where this has worked out brilliantly is Eve Online - no classes or levels, just skills.
Having pre-requisite skills makes the game "last longer" too. Being able to not get the fireball spell until you have the flame spell to skill level X, creates a good amount of individual character goals (What I call the "small game").
In games like everquest or world of warcraft, that "small game" is defined only by what level you are and what gear you got.
They concentrated only on the "Larger game" which was how your guild went, what boss they were up to, raiding in general.
Basically the goals were group goals and not individual goals - they removed those with dungeon keys when burning crusade came out.
It adds a level of depth to the individual, and means if you run into someone in a PVP encounter, you have no idea what you might be up against either. An elf in a robe doesn't mean he's a mage
My EVE YouTube Channel
I think you are misrepresenting the system
They have stated there will be ~ 40 class when the game goes live
with 8 to chose form the start and the rest to be discovered during game play
Whats more they are allowing the blending of classes (their form of multiclassing)
This sounds more like the classes represent a bundle of skills that you can learn as a set and mix with other class skill sets
They have a foot in the class system and a foot in the skill based systems
Sounds a bit odd, I admit.
TBH I thought someone was just not sure what a skill based system WAS, so I was explaining and just jumped in
This whole thing is SONY, and frankly they have a pretty good track record with dumbing things down for casual players from my perspective. (Planetside)
Sounds like it might be one of those 8 skill only on your bar systems or some such thing. I guess we will see - personally, I don't see why you'd do that and limit people in that way. I think it'd be a shame to introduce classes when they are progressing so much more of the gameplay and engine.
I actually fail to comprehend the ideas of most developers out there.
Eve Online is in its' 11th year now and no end in sight as an example - World of Hypecraft is dying, all other class based MMO's are dying or dead - the idea of building for casual play and dumbing things down has run its' course imo.
Especially without a free to play model.
My EVE YouTube Channel
Actually, I just looked up top, and it says Pay type Free - I might've got confused between this and ESO, I thought it was going to be subscription based ?
If not - my guess is we'll end up with the 8 skills max on your bar deal - I think that's a total shame.
My EVE YouTube Channel
I, for one, welcome a level-less system. Not because I want it all right naowz, but because content becomes obsolete for higher level characters with the existing level-based system.
FFXIV is actually showing me how it works (even with a level-based system), because you;ll multi-class and level up another class - essentially seeing every starting zone, just on a single character. I still feel they limited themselves too much, but there are many alternatives to quest-based leveling, so it's not a total separation - that is, players will still be able to go through a low-level zone for class number 4 or 5.
In all honesty, one game I played was relevant to the level-less system, which was actually very enjoyable - SWG. I missed UO, sadly. In SWG, I could increase my skill in any profession (or even a combination of professions) in pretty much any planet. The simplicity was, you didn't want to go to certain areas without rank 150 rifleman or something, but otherwise, you were pretty free to go wherever.
I just feel that 80% of the content in a game shouldn't be defunct just by having hit XYZ experience - that any zone (except perhaps a tutorial, less than 2% of content) should be able to offer challenges. Otherwise, you have the endless gear-grind top-tier raiding in the same areas, over and over again until you can queue action bars in your sleep, or macro 1-1-1-1- ad infinitum.
That games have gone that way, to me, is sad. 80% of development work will be for (at best) 20% of your player base, and you end up with a WOW-like system where awesome content is never again seen after you outlevel it (I personally enjoyed the level 20 instances in WOW, and wish they had recycled these somehow at higher levels).
Honestly, those who want a rush-to-cap, gear grind raid experience have no dearth of games to choose from. TOR, WOW, EQ2, pretty much every game after 2004 save for GW2 have this system (and GW2 just made the end-game PVE somewhat pointless).
While I'm not sure if SOE will actually accomplish what they are saying (in fact, I have taken everything said with a healthy dose of salt), the fact is, I do like the general direction they are going. "We've done things the same way for too long; let's do what we've always wanted to try" is enough to get me to support their aims, if not their direction.
Everquest SNext.
No levels, we have Slevels!
And you don't need to grind for experience, we are using a far more advanced system we call "SEexperience" (punn intended because it's so good!).
Also we got rid of the old class system, you can learn EVERYTHING in our SClass-system!
Uh and btw, we also went to the SMoon.
"believe me, mike.. i calculated the odds of this working against the odds that i was doing something incredibly stupid and i did it anyway!"