Grinding Time - On MMORPG Character Advancement 74
An anonymous reader alerted us that "Starglade has an editorial about character development systems, where the author discusses the two most common types of character improvement (classes & levelling, and skill based improvement), and makes some suggestions for future systems in MMORPGs."
The level grind (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that all things considered, it's probably the "least bad" way of handling character advancement in a MMORPG. Ultimately, a sense of advancement is one of the best ways of keeping players interested in a game. If you could max out a character after a couple of days, you'd probably lose interest in the game pretty quickly. No matter how wonderful the quests and other content might be, you're going to start thinking "but why should I bother"? Moreover, given that it takes the developers a considerable amount of time to design quest-related content, you're never going to be able to get enough quests to allow them to replace the level-grind as a long-term option. The challenge for developers is to make the level grind as painless and even enjoyable as possible.
My MMORPG of choice is Final Fantasy XI. I think I can maybe shed some light on what I mean by pointing at some of the things it does right and wrong with regards to the level grind. First of all, the jobs system is a huge plus; being able to change to one job without losing my work in another is a huge plus and means that if I need a break from the level grind on my main job and there aren't any job specific quests I can go and do with it, I can switch to another job for a while and do some of the quests for that. I don't "do" crafting myself, but the skill system there seems fairly sensible; you gain skill in it by actually practicing making stuff, but there's a cap placed on your skill by your character's level, so advancing tradeskills requires a mix of practicing crafting and level grinding. The weapon skill system is similar; a level 50 character who's never used an axe before will be no better at using an axe than a level 1 character, although due to his high level, he'll learn more quickly if he tries. The requirement to form parties is also a big plus, in my opinion. Only one of the jobs in the game (Beastmaster) is capable of levelling up past about level 20 without being in a party. Personally, I don't get why people would play a MMORPG and then spend most of their time solo; if I wanted to do that, I'd be playing Morrowind. Interaction with party memebers is one of the best ways to take the sting out of the level grind, even if it can become time-consuming to put parties together at the higher levels (50+).
That's the good stuff. Now for the areas where I think there's room for improvement. By far my biggest gripe is the fact that you'll never be fighting anything other than the same few types of enemies on the level grind. There's a huge bestiary in the game, with some really great monsters, but as most players are so risk-averse, they'll happily go from levels 1-60 fighting nothing but bats, worms, crabs and beetles. Just to point out how stupid this gets; a level 60 beetle has the exact same abilities as its level 1 cousin. The only difference is that it gets higher stats. It would be nice if the game would force you to fight more exotic and difficult creatures as you got more advanced and if... shock horror... fights actually started to need more skill at the higher levels. As it is, the only times I get to fight the more challenging creatures are when I'm on a quest. Also, I'd like to see smaller penalties for dying. It's not so bad at the lower levels; a death there might set you back about 5 minutes worth of levelling. But a death above level 50 can set you back an hour or more of work. This contributes to players being so risk-averse. I understand the need for some kind of penalty for dying, but I think that being over harsh takes a lot of the fun out of things.
Anyway, to wrap up, the level grind is here to stay, but developers have a duty to do whatever they can to make it as fun as possible.
Re:The level grind (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize, some people want to play FFXI because they played every single other game in the series, but they don't have the multiple hours to invest in one sitting that organizing a party requires? I have heard many horror stories of people waiting HOURS to find a group that would let them in. Hours of sitting doing nothing is fun?
What if said person wants to level their main job, not do a quest or start a sub-job, but no groups are available?
Ever think of time zone issues, where they might play on off-peak times where the server population is lower?
As a game ages and the average population's level range is higher, who are latecomers going to group with?
I'm not flaming, just there's a lot of downside to the "you have to have the perfect group to advance" style of MMORPG that I thought would die with EverQuest but was reborn in FFXI. If all conditions are perfect grouping is wonderful, but how often does that happen? Having no other option is, in my opinion, terribly narrow-minded design.
Re:The level grind (Score:3, Insightful)
The problems of getting into
Re:The level grind (Score:1)
Forced grouping to level is just a play design I despise. I don't mind that grouping for optional things like raids is required. It's natural a tough opponent would require more manpower. But one little goblin requries a whole group of the right classes? Rubbish.
Grouping is fine in an MMORPG and should be promoted, but smaller parties, duos, and soloing should be a completely viabl
Re: Grouping (Score:1)
I played FFXI (Score:2)
I leveled Monk up to 31, Paladin up to 43, Warrior up to 21 and Thief up to 14.
The game just sucks at the higher levels. You spend so often killing the same stupid bullshit that you become an expert -
"[Warrior,] this is a crawler. Switch to 2-h axe and use shield break for the love of god." "Oh no, I'm going to use 2 axes because I'm an uber warrior yadda yadda yadda"
The main problem is that leveling in that game takes absolutely no skill at all. If you spend long enough playin
Re:The level grind (Score:2)
Making the level grind more interesting (Score:1)
Once a particular type of creature has been defeated, decrease the amount of experience gained for fighting it again. Perhaps a 5% decrease (heck...even 1%) per victory would still allow players to gain a significant amount of experience from a single type of creature, but eventually, it would become more advantageous to move on.
Pros:
This encourages people to explore more areas in search of o
Re:The level grind (Score:1)
The death penalty really isn't that bad.. it helps to befriend WHM's (and to party with them). Heck, wait until you do a Dynamis run and die 3-4 times in a couple hours and are still down only a couple hundred xp. (Gotta love Raise3
I do agree with the other points... as much as
my reply (Score:5, Insightful)
Eve? (Score:5, Informative)
?
Re:Eve? (Score:1)
progressquest (Score:1)
Re:my reply (Score:1)
Offline-advancement? (Score:4, Informative)
whether you're online or offline; your character spends ALL its time reading
through technical manuals and such, and you flying around trading/killing doesn't
affect this in any way (unless you get blown to bits and die - send in the clones!).
Re:Offline-advancement? (Score:2)
Re:Offline-advancement? (Score:1, Interesting)
If, as a fairly new character, i want to make some money, i can go mine or kill or whatever...or i can just ignore the game for a few weeks while i level up, and then come back and mine or kill 2-3x as effectively...except i never went back.
It seemed to me that there is pretty much no reason to actually play Eve for the first month or so, aside from building faction, and making enough money to buy a few skills.
Also, the implementa
Oh my God - he so needs a divorce! (Score:2)
Yeah, but then what? (Score:5, Interesting)
People absolutely get bored of fighting the same monster over and over again. I think reusing monster models for both high and low level content is an extremely easy way to shoot yourself in the foot. Variety in dungeon settings and monster types helps. And it helps even more when developers go with a theme that makes sense. Everquest had a Frog dungeon in a swamp, a haunted undead house tucked away on a bleak oceanside cliff, and an orc encampment on the border of elven territory. Good examples with good thought put into them. DAoC would have you fighting fire breathing lizards right next to undead barrow wights. Anarchy Online would have you fight a single mob type (heckler) for literally hundreds of hours to advance in level. Very bad examples there.
As far as I can tell, there are two types of ways to distinguish players from one another. Time investment based and skill based. Mix them how you will, but those are your options. Either players are going to be rewarded for playing 2 hours a day more than everyone else as in most MMORPGs, or players are going to be rewarded for being just a little faster and a little more accurate as in most FPS games. Outside of PvP, I can't think of any MMORPGs that require any level of skill. Sure, there are some classes in some games, like the calmer or healer, that require a small bit of brain power, but thats a far cry from minutia of skill making a difference.
So the trick of MMORPGs so far is to make the time sinks interesting. And thats accomplished with variety. Variety in monster, in dungeon, and the method of experience reward. Until we start seeing hybrid systems, where both player skill and character stats matter strongly (simliar to Deus Ex) then this is what we are stuck with.
Though I am looking forward to the day when there is a good MMORPG that uses both stats and player ability, I suspect it's a long ways off.
Re:Yeah, but then what? (Score:2, Funny)
*shakes cane*
Damn youngins! Back in my day we did missions to level!
Using both character stats and player skill (Score:2)
While no one yet knows for sure how it'll turn out, they've said a couple things on this issue:
a) The game isn't `FPS Fast' or `twitch-based', but you will certainly feel some pain if you don't know how to use the controls.
b) The mixture of traditional D&D abstract combat (all stat-based) and first-person action is tricky, but loo
Re:Using both character stats and player skill (Score:2)
Legendary Achievement (Score:1)
Players could have a scoring system based on their accomplishments and successes, minus p
Re:Yeah, but then what? (Score:2)
Character actions run in a "queue" where, you select a power, there is an activation (warmup) period, the event, then a recharge period before reuse. Each delay is determined by (1) character level then (2) power enhancements with level-capped effects (a lvl 10 can't use an enhancement > level 13). Here's where the time invested comes in, those that spend more time playing tend to be in more missions, and have gathered be
Advancement (Score:2, Insightful)
CDC Plato game (Score:2)
D&D is killing the computer RPG (Score:5, Insightful)
What does D&D do exactly. It creates a ruleset for imaginary characters to behave in a fictional world. So it has rules stating that for each point of strength you have you can lift X amount of goods. That before you can do action X you need skills Y and Z. Nothing wrong with this being used in computer games right?
Wrong. D&D does something else as well. It has carefully twisted and tweaked the rules to be playable with nothing more then a piece of paper a pencil and some dice. This means that the calculations used are kinda simplified, way more simple then a modern computer could handle. It would be like playing a modern flight simulator but for some reason restricting your self to a flight model wich can be calculated by hand. Why? We have a bloody computer. Doing complex math and keeping track of stats is what it does best. Let the CPU sweat.
So if the D&D rules lost their pencil&paper&dice simplifications/optimizations then it would be perfect right?
Wrong. D&D games have something a computer does not have. A sentient game controller. Even if dungeon master is using a boxed adventure he will/should have the capability to adjust the game on the fly to the party playing it. If the thief of the party isn't there any half decent game master will of course quickly add a way around a crucial lock. If a roll fails that is going to kill the adventure to early or a party fails to pick up a clue he will make a choice wether he had enough or to step in and help out. An extra NPC helping in a fight, a monster that stumbles. Or just cut things short if the party is getting bored. The computer has no such capability. It can't adjust the game because it will never detect the need for it.
So if the ruleset started to make full use of the CPU capabilities and the game had godlike scripting to adjust the game to the player it would be good right?
WRONG. D&D has yet one more difference. D&D is a social game, you play it in a group. It is the going on an adventure together that makes Pen&Paper RPG's fun. But it also means a lot of the rules are there to make everyone a "equal" member of the party. No super powerfull everything devastating wizards wiping the battlefield clean while the thief is running for his life from everything bigger then a rat. The most famous adventure party, the fellowship of the ring, would be hard to put in D&D rules. Exactly what is the problem with a healing thief. A sword wielding wizard? Why am I so restricted in my classes? Simple, so that I need the other players in my party. BUT computer games are solo afairs. I am the hero, I am the center of the story, the universe revolves around me! No need to play fair. If I want to stab someone with the biggest sword available and then pour magic into the wound like there is no tomorrow then let me.
But no. Wizards don't sweep the battlefield. They can do 3-4 spells and then must go for a lie down. Constantly finding resting places. IS that supposed to be fun? I rarely use magic in D&D games. I prefer to kick ass.
Get rid of the limits. Battles do not have to be balanced, the computer controlled NPC's are not going to suffer confidence crisises because my player character scores all the kills. Or even the other way around, let the beginner player character have the help of a more powerfull older master. You know to stop the annoying killed by rat syndrome.
D&D has its uses but it is now more restraint on game development then an aid. One of my biggest peefs is that it shouts artificial. Take weapon skills. My character has totally mastered the long sword (one-handed) but if you put a short sword in his hands he has no idea wich end to hold. WTF? It is a bloody sword. Same with bows. Exactly how can someone master the long bow yet have no clue on how to use a short bow? Or going further. The art of using a bow involves working out flightpaths. A skill also needed in using a sling or a thr
3e destroys half your argument. (Score:1, Interesting)
Regarding the lack of a DM: This is a problem computer games have, period. However, they have two things to resolve this: good game design(ie, giving you the key to that lock) and saved games. The first resolves inability issues(missed that clue, can't open that lock), and the second solves the overmatched ba
Yup... (Score:2)
It's still a class-based game, yes, but a much less rigid one. If you want to play a wizard who runs around slashing people with a greatsword, you can easily do that, even at level 1. (Spend your starting feat on martial weapon proficiency: greatsword.) No problem.
But there's an opportunity cost there; that level 1 wizard could have as easily spent that feat on plenty of other things. He
Re:D&D is killing the computer RPG (Score:4, Interesting)
Exceptions are made for this rule...I think that WoW's resting is going to be a good thing, it will prohibit people from power leveling. You make some good points about weapon proficiency, things that I've often considered were bad as well...why can't prowess in long swords be applied to short shords, if not in full then partially? I don't know why games haven't done it yet, but shouldn't a class/subclass system of proficiency be used? i.e., you have a weapon proficiency, sword is a subclass of that, longsword is a subclass of that. Using a long sword gains you X proficiency points in longsword, X/2 in swords and X/4 in weapons.
Anyways, a lot of simplification is done in games because the developers want the average Joe Sixpack to be able to play it. Anyone remember Ultima? Anyone remember having to remember or read from the manual the rune words for spells? In order to cast a spell, you had to mix specific ingredients for that spell ahead of time, then say the right words to cast it (In Flam was fireball, I think...Mas Flam was fire wind, or something along those lines).
It certainly added a more complicated aspect to the game, but would a game embodying those aspects be popular now? Hell, games have all but done away with making the user map areas...I must have had 2 tablets of Bards Tale maps sitting around my house at one time.
--trb
Re:D&D is killing the computer RPG (Score:3, Informative)
You know, I was scratching my head as I read the parent, and you rephrasing his point makes me wonder even more.
In D&D, at least in edition 3.0 and 3.5, this is exactly how weapons are portrayed. You need the basic proficiency (in simple, martial or exotic weapons) to handle the weapon. As long as you have proficiency in a weapon class, you can handle all weapons in that class equally well. Since both shortswo
Re:D&D is killing the computer RPG (Score:2)
If a roll fails that is going to kill the adventure to early or a party fails to pick up a clue he [the DM] will make a choice wether he had enough or to step in and help out
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that the computer should alter the game if it detects that you are about to die? Would that make the game too easy? No challenge, no fun?
Why am I so restricted in my classes? Simple, so that I need the other players in my party. BUT computer gam
Re:D&D is killing the computer RPG (Score:1)
Re:D&D is killing the computer RPG (Score:2)
Because, unlike other computerized RPGs, they have no ending. Think of the name "Everquest".
Most RPGs have some level-grind... but then you beat all the quests, watch all the videos, rescue the princess, and the game is OVER. But MMORPGs aren't allowed to be over- so once you've exhausted the custom-content, the only option is more grinding.
Opinions are like...... (Score:1)
Grinding sucks but ... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Initial caveat: posting while drunk, apologies in advance.)
Grinding is dull and pointless. It's a competition between players: who has the most patience? who has the least life outside a computer game? It was dull in LPMUDs and it's dull in the modern generation of online RPGs. There is more than enough tedium in the real world. Why on Earth do you want to do it in a game that is supposed to be fun?
In every online game I've played or seen so far, one starts off being totally incompetent. The 'mangy rat' is a challenge. Who wants to play someone who has trouble dealing with mangy rats? Those who persist and reach the end-game are orders of magnitude more powerful. Their in-game skills are incomparably better than the starting character. This is their reward for sheer bloody-mindedness.
Characters should develop and change over time, but they should start off being able to affect the world. To matter. To be someone. Otherwise it's either dull or a huge stretch of the imagination.
Case in point: take City of Heroes. You play a superhero. Yet when you start you have 3 powers, which are probably two attacks and a defence. You then run fleeing from all but the most innocuous of petty street thugs. By the end of the game, one is fighting off alien invasions and world-destroying foes, but at the start you are decidedly un-heroic. No one can even fly until 14th level. And City of Heroes is one of the least bad offenders. What's with this?
The big problem is that designing and implementing a world where people's online alter-egos can actually matter, is really hard. AI for the NPCs is not up to the task of creating a community in which the PC can shine, and it's unreasonable to expect a starting player to immediately make a splash in the community of other PCs. That coupled with possibly hundreds of thousands of players makes it especially difficult.
Nonetheless, until people can feel like they matter, the MMORPG is going to have limited appeal. The policies against auto-leveling and other forms of programmatical advancement simply exclude another class of players who would rather a machine take care of all the tedious aspects so that they instead can concentrate on the bits worth playing. Why is it so bad that someone skip 17 hours of mindless clicking? Where is the appeal?
Until AI tech and automated story-telling is vastly improved, MMORPGs seem stuck with this terrible grinding aspect. I'll play them as long as the other rewards make up for this huge deficiency, but the technology just isn't there yet to appeal to players who don't have a certain masochistic streak.
One huge exception comes to mind: Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates. There your character doesn't improve, you improve. You the player get better at doing the puzzles, and your ability in the game improves conmesurably. This is extremely cool, and is one of the reasons why Y!PP is such a damn fine game.
Re:Grinding sucks but ... (Score:2)
It only comes about when thier is something that you the player wants to do or see which you cannot do at your current level. Then you start grinding so that you can advance high enough to do that different stuff.
If the game is design good enough so that you as the player have plenty to do at your current capabilities thier is no grinding.
Re:Grinding sucks but ... (Score:2)
There are 3 or 4 different types of bad guys you can fight right out of the gate, each with their own feel and (if you bother reading the clues, souvenirs, and dialog) story line. You get missions from contacts, and as you succeed at missions for a giv
Re:Grinding sucks but ... (Score:1)
It really is the least flawed of any MMORPG I've come across, and indeed has these great features. Sidekicking has got to be the best thing I've seen so far; a good balance between being upped enough to be useful in your friends' group, and being sufficiently weaker to encourage you to acquire new powers and catch up.
The hover power at level 6 is very handy, and one can technically fly with it, but I'd definitely call it 'technically' given the speed.
The missions though are
"weak" characters (Score:5, Interesting)
The concept that you start off fighting rats and snakes for a long time until you become "powerful" and can have fun fighting tough opponents is fundamentally flawed.
What defines a powerful opponent? Is it their hit points, their armor class, their level? For most characters in most MMOs a powerful opponent is one more than a couple levels higher than them, since those opponents will be able to kill them very quickly.
Perhaps it's just that "rats" are themselves boring, and don't seem powerful because they are rats. What this suggests is that it's important to pit players against interesting opponents at lower levels. There's nothing that prevents a low level monster from having all the characteristics of a higher level one, just at a lesser power to match that of the weaker character. There's nothing that forces the low level MMO game to be less fun than the high level.
I'm not suggesting there are no problems with leveling based system, but that section of the article does not identify a fundamental flaw with leveling systems.
Whassa point of games that require leveling? (Score:3, Interesting)
The current 1.0 version puts virtual pilots in a big (or a mid-size historical) arena, where you sink or swim based on real, between-the-ears experience. There is a ranking system. You can join a squad, particularly if you show a willingness to do team work and grunt work (like flying C-47s to resupply fields and mobile units). You can fly some of the higher-powered aircraft if you earn perk points (based on landing kills, not just getting kills). Ironically, many of the top-tier pilots don't fly perk planes because they're seen as too easy.
Newbies do get waxed every mission for the first week or two, but most players "get it" and start functioning as part of an official or ad-hoc team. Some don't, and that's fine. By and large, though, your experience is real, not something that can be automagically leveled without your intervention.
I guess I just don't get the appeal of games that require that sort of behavior. And, the funny thing is that none of my Evercrack freinds really seem to like playing. It's some sort of preference, definitely. And, I'm not deriding it (the call it Evercrack... I just picked it it because that's a funny way of looking at it). I just don't get it.
MMORPG could try an idea from sports. (Score:4, Interesting)
As a new player, you could start out in a low division, but then to go up a division, you would have to be eligible (be on-line for long enough) and also complete a set of tasks that show that you are a good enough player now to qualify for the next higher division. Maybe have some adventure (or set of adventures) that require certain quick-thinking and problem solving skills to prove that you are now a better player and good enough to move up divisions. Ther would probably have to be a mechanism for forcing players up a division in order to keep them from being a big fish in a small pond.
A conference is formed to put certain players in direct competition with certain other players in the same division. You might not be the best guy on-line, but you could have a fair shot at being the best guy in your conference. This is not the same thing as a guild. A guild is typically more of a friendly establishment. Conference members are usually rivalries (think Georgia/Florida, Texas/Oklahoma, Ohio State/Michigan, etc).
As you become a better player, you would be able to get into better conferences. In NCAA football (where I'm taking this example from), there is a vote amongst conference members to determine who can join or who gets kicked out of a conference. This happens because most conferences would want to be the l33t conference by having the best l33t players in it. Now the best way to determine which conference is better than which other conference is get those conferences to compete with each other on a regular basis.
This system isn't perfect and it does require a good mechanism for competition amongst similarly qualified players, but I think it would be better than deciding who is best by who sits around and plays for hours on monotonous adventures just to get their level up.
Re:MMORPG could try an idea from sports. (Score:2)
Anyways, the game was similar to Subspace in that it was a 2D top down space shooter. You could get money by getting kills, thus allowing you to upgrade your ship and level.
Certain ranks were allowed in certain arenas, and that was that. It prevented the super high level people from ruining the experience of the lower level ones. Everything remained compet
Ideas (Score:4, Interesting)
In an mmorpg, you need to differenciate yourself through looks and then somehow establish that you are better then other people. Or you just want your guy to look cool and kick ass.
I don't mind level grinds, as long as I can progress to a new area with a new skill and technique to use on the next monsters in a timely fashion, I'm still having fun playing.
But really what frusterates me about these games (besides the 15 a month AND expansion prices) is the problem with playing with people. Every game they say it is designed to be played with other people and force interaction. Great. I want to play with my friends. Too bad, you are level 30, they are just starting, you can't play together unless your friend plays by himself for a month.
I tried for a time to get into the achaea mud. This was my first mud, but I relized that to do it, I had to pay even less attention to the real world around me then in the graphical games. The scrolling text takes a lot of attention to read.
Anyway, they had some really interesting concepts there. The first of which is the status based pvp system. I didn't get far enough to really do anything in the game, but i read enough about it to get a feel for how it works. But there were a ton of status effects to inflict on people and a ton of ways to cure them. The way to kill someone off was to basically lock their status effects in such a way that they couldn't cure themselves and died from poison or something like that.
So a pvp system like that would make a phenominal game. But then some people hate pvp and don't want to have anything to do with it.
Another thing to implement, is to remove levels entirely. I get in the game, and I'm at max power. Basically I jump into everquest at level 65 or whatever the max is. Sort of like I bought a character on ebay. Except the game is massive, because all the content was designed around the idea that you have powerd up characters. Give me some skill points to allocate in the beginning to define a unique class or unique powers. Give me a lot of options for race and body type so I can look unique.
Make the game about aquiring items. Make the game in such a way that to get items, it takes a lot of work. I want a troll hat. I have to go get the keys from the 4 surrounding goblin cheifs to get into the troll layer where I can get the troll hat. When I get the troll hat, it looks cool, and I can parade around with my badass troll hat.
Give everyone a keyring that keeps track of areas they have unlocked. My avatar only has 3 of the 4 keys, the rest of my party has 4, but we need to get the 4th key for myself. But that's ok, because it's fun killing guys, and I don't ever see experience points anywhere. Give a way to change your class/skills, but make it take a long time.
Basically I want a sandbox where I can try everything out. My reward to show how long i've been playing are cool looking powerful item. Maybe I can win the look of an item, then I can go capture spirits of monsters to put in to the item to give it unique powers.
The thing that keeps me coming back to the mmorpgs are the fun of killing and exploring and interacting with people and improving my avatar. So why limit content and who I can play with and what skills I can use? Why don't you just give us all content that everybody can do, that is challenging and will require a group, and I can start playing with friends immediatly and forever.
Just make sure that everythings challenging enough to do that you won't blow through it all in 40 hours.
Re:Ideas (Score:1)
I can always tell the powergamers from statements like this.
Except for SWG, all the major MMORPGs out there let you make more than one character. If your goal is to play with your friend, make a new one.
Btw, I do concede the general point. Recently in CoH we had lvl 26, 24, 20, 17, and 14 characters online in our supergroup. How do we hunt together? And that's a tight range com
Re:Ideas (Score:2)
Ditch level/skill advancement (Score:3, Interesting)
You've worked a 10 hr week grinding away at killing rats, and have what? Woot, now you can grind away at orcs. And after that, maybe ogres, onwards until the mud/mmorpg runs out of content.
Lame. Boring. Doesn't live up to the potential of the game.
You've got thousands of people all playing the same game, but beyond an immediate group and the vendors most of those other players effect your character's personal world not one bit. You might as well be playing on a server with just 10 friends.
Ditch level/skill advancement and replace it with social advancement. The whole idea of having a 120th level fighter/mage on a mmorpg instead of a solo game is so it can be compared with other players' characters.
So make it official: social standing is the attribute improved via gameplay. Every meaningful action rises your character up a social ladder. Skills and powers stay in the same ballpark as a brand new character.
Fights and other moments of excitment wouldn't be end-goal, just the obstacles. For example, you might gain standing in the Explorer's guild if you visit an espicially dangerous location. You'd also get standing via leading other players to these same special spots (which might be points of interest to their profession).
You'd gain standing in the crafting guild by making a rare object...even a starting character would be able to build these rare objects if they have the tools and materials. The adventure would be finding the exotic materials and tools required to make the object. The character's who made the best object of type B (the best sword, the armor, etc.) would receive the most social points, and down the line from there.
High social standing would give your character more access to the poltical aspects of the game, as well as perks. The top tier of the explorer's guild might recieve access to a cool mode of travel, for example.
You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Know what I'd sign up for? Q3 as an RPG.
I spent like 18 months, maybe 2 years playing Q3. I started off bad. Challenging was finishing the same single player on the middle of 5 modes. Deathmatch online? Good luck... if I got lucky, I might manage to finish in the middle of the pack of 20+ players. (And I had superior hardware and bandwidth)
But fast forward 18 months... and I'm at Quakecon in 2002, and I am delivering a spanking to the whole con. My railgun back-to-back hit-o-meter is popping up every few seconds (28...29...30 in a row) as I adjust to the LAN environment. *My* skills have improved enough that I'm dominating a 75-person server. (Actually, I was running slightly ahead of a guy I played with constantly of my 'main server' back at home, who was sitting right next to me)
I've been playing City of Heroes lately. And frankly, I find it irritating that there's a lack of skill. If I play my tanker, I turn on my fiery aura, walk up to something, and spam my axe attack. Sure, in a big group taking on purples there's a little bit of strategic decision making, but it's obvious there's a pretty solid "ceiling" on where you can go with your own skill... and your own skill applies ~0 to your early progress, where the few powers you have available makes any decision making moot.
CoH without a respec suffers additionally -- since if you learn from your mistakes building, you're currently forced to go through the grind again with a new build if you think it's better... that should be over come "Sep/Oct" when the 2nd update pack will introduce a respec, but still.
If you played Q3, you may have run across a pro. Despite my LAN domination at Qcon, I wasn't one, and didn't nearly have the skills...yet. And it was the coolest thing. These guys had the aim, but they had the skills to make the most of it with other things like movement and strategy to gain the upperhand against you. That's how my games against pros typically went -- start off even, we each get some power ups. Maybe I get a frag or two early, but before long, I show up a second too late to grab some key item, and that's it... I never score again, and I'm ground into the dust. But you knew when you went up against these guys that they were better. They outplayed you.
In City of Heroes, when some L50 flies along, it's clear he has a lot more time on his hands than you do... especially when you're me, without 10 hrs a day to play, and you're crushing the xp/hr rates that people report on the forums... and it's *still* "taking forever".
Someone needs to come up with something that has the fun eye candy of CoH, but adds "player skill" to the "character skill". I'm not saying make Q3 into an MMORPG... why not just play Q3? But make player skill ACTUALLY count. Make attacks more powerful as you level up, but force players to actually AIM.
It's going to come out sooner or later. And you know what? People aren't going to stop playing it. It's not going to get boring. Because when you stop and think: hell, it's been 3 hours and I've only got half a level?... you're going to realize your aim is improving. And you're going to smile and press on. (And it will make PvP a lot more interesting)
Re:You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:3, Informative)
its entertaining when you have a firefight with 150+ players, with aircraft, ground troops etc
most people didnt like the lack of an economy, but it didnt bother me.
everone has access to allthe skills at once, it is just that when you level up, you get more skill slots, dont like your guy as a stealthy ninja? turn in those slots and pick up skills to let youdrive a t
Re:You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think your main point is invalid on its face. Specifically, you seem to denigrate the fact that to get to high levels in an MMORPG requires many, many hours of work while playing down the fact that in order to get "mad skillz" at Quake it takes many, many hours of practice. I could turn it around and complain that when I tried to play Quake 3 multiplayer I got my ass handed to me over and over again because other people had so much more time to dedicate to playing the game - since I don't have that kind of time, I can't enjoy Quake 3 online.
Believe me, if the revolution is to turn MMORPGs into games more like first-person shooters, it's not going to expand the audience. It will simply eliminate the current audience and force the development of a new one.
Re:You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to take a little of the best of both games. The way I see it: no matter how much you practice at Q3, every game you're starting over. Even if you've won 10,0
Re:You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:1)
Very difficult from a network hardware perspective.
Today, FPS games servers are run by numerous independent operators... which is necessary to get wide distribution for low pings. But MMORPGs are run by a handful of server-farms owned by the game publisher. Many players will have poor latency to the server, but it doesn't matter, since the skill-less game interface doesn't burden them with quick reacti
Re:You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:2)
require people-skills, too, if you want to team up with other players.
You just don't need the same reflexes as Quake.
The FPS and MMORPG genres are different. If you don't like one, don't
play it. There have been attempts at crossover games, but they were
never that popular.
(There's an FPS-MMORPG which has twitch-gaming with added hacking skills
or somesuch - and most people think it's crap)
Re:You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:2)
I've thought about how to fix this, and I think it does involve combining a FPS with a MMORPG. But not in the way Planetside does it. In planetside, you have a cone of fire, no headshots.
What people really want it seems is for their skill to matter. For example, imagine trade skills where you actually needed some twitch
Re:You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:2)
I expect we will see something like this about the same time we see permanent death in a mainstream MMO, not very soon. The problem is the Internet - players are still on modems, have broadband providers with poor peering, software still glitches and crashes, games still have exploits around any feature involving server boundaries, and so on.
What I think is more likely is that more alternatives will be given to
Re:You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:2)
Re:You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:1)
That's an important point. We've seen the complaint repeated: "Success in an MMORPG isn't about skill or brains- it's all just putting in the hours".
But making a game that tests player skill/intellect would require even more skill/intellect from the developer. Otherwise, it's very HARD to make a fair game which has ways for a smart player t
Re:You Say You Want a Revolution? (Score:2)
That's what Romero wanted the original Quake to be... and that's part of why he left idsoftware.
There was a lot of net speculation on how the persistent FPS world would work... much of it completely outlandish.
Someone needs to come up with something that has the fun eye candy of CoH, but adds "player skill" to the "character skill".
It might work, although there are some serious downsides, from a gameplay-theory perspective. Hybrid ideas often do poorly, becau
Another fall for the red herring of realism (Score:2)
However, for some games, it works. D&D & Diablo are good examples, and I enjoy the level advancement.
Levels are quantized changes in skill. That is all.
A skill-based system, makes the changes more granular.
WAY too many people fall for the red-herring of realism in games.
Games are NOT about realism -- they are about immersion. (Go play some tradional c
EVE Online (Score:2)
You ''level up'' slowly because you train in real-time. That means that Joe Schmoe may not be able to get on more than once a week or so, but he can still be a significant player in the world of Eve.
Got more time and want stuff to show for it? You can build a name for yourself, you can gain status, build a corporation, actively pirate- Or just mine all day for cash.
But in a fleet battle, even the we
Eve a little too complicated...[was Re:EVE Online] (Score:1)
New Idea - Make Games for the Working (Score:2)
Note to devs: there are gamers with phat bank (Score:2)
Simply put, make games for people with money. The kiddies have their games, now make a fucking game for the people who have wallets bulging with cash and will never complain about spending 10 dollars a month because they already make $50,000 to $100,000 a year. Make a game with every type of game play EXCEPT time = power game play. In MMORPGs, time might equal power. However, in the real world time equals money. Waste my time, see none of my money.
Man, I hope I see this day. I drop $150/mo on coffee. If
Sound like a call to allow macros (Score:2)
I would much rather see some MMORP
Theres just no way... out of the level system (Score:2, Insightful)
That is *the whole game*. Things that you can only 'consume once' like quests or games in which experience content too fast lose subscribes after the first few months without any content updates.
Be the ball... (Score:1)
Maybe I'm a bit OT, but too many of these games are sticking to the fantasy/sci-fi duo. CoH was a breath of fresh air, That one car racing game went away so fast I can't remember the name, and Sims online was/i