🔒 Locked

MMORPG Addictions - Is the solution to abolish levels?

Started by Delphinus Sep 18, 2007 at 1:52 PM 35 replies 6.2k views

Original Post

Sep 18, 2007 at 1:52 PM

For rather a long period of time, I've played MMORPGs. Every single one, however, seems to fail at the same point - they reward the hardcore gamer, thus encouraging addiction. This may be a good business ethic, but is it an ethical one? I don't think so. As well as this, a very lowly-skilled player, spending enough time, can easily gain enough experience (in game terms) to get to a far higher level than another player, less hardcore, who has far more skill. There are multiple ways of dealing with this, as far as I can see. One of these is to thoroughly rid the hypothetical MMO of levels. However, this would almost certainly drive away many of the target audience, as much of the appeal of an MMO is the ability to gain instant fame simply by that number beside your character's name. Instead I believe that the player's skill should be measured by level, with levels in the traditional sense playing either no part, or being very easy to raise, and having a low skill cap. This should apply to equipment also. For example, if a player is relatively skilled at the game, then they will earn experience quickly, due to being able to kill creatures easily. This experience will not contribute to the player becoming stronger, but will rather contribute to the player's "rank". The player, due to weapons having little effect on overall strength, will easily be able to experiment with different professions, decided by the weapons wielded and the skills equipped. Likewise, the player's skills will not increase by a very significant amount, but will nonetheless be easy to make stronger, through the player learning how best to use those skills. To conclude, I believe that players should be able to easily become of equal strength to the strongest players, yet should not be disadvantaged because of this, and that a new player with skill should be able to be more well-known, and of higher rank, than a hardcore gamer with very little skill. -Delphinus

Dekasa

Sep 18, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Well, it would certainly be interesting. However, as you noted, it would drive away a massive part of the MMO player-base, and those who don't go near MMOs for the reason of addiction and leveling might not trust it in the first place. So it could end up a very small MMO.

Other than that, I think a big problem would be that combat would have to be more involved. In many MMOs, combat is very simple, and being more skillful than another person is relatively nothing, because combat is so simple. You may be able to be 5% more efficient once you (and adversaries) get past that new stage where you're still figuring things out. This would likely be the biggest problem, and if it is managed to make a more combat-rich game, you are likely going to have bandwidth problems (a major reason we haven't seen the wonderful combat of FPS in Massive scale). In a few years, these problems could be ironed out, and the making of a (player) skill-based MMO could be possible, and amazing, too.

Kest

Sep 18, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Has it ever occured to anyone here that you don't need to make an MMORPG? It is actually possible to build an MMO that isn't an RPG.

I'm all for driving a wedge between those two acronyms. Worst genre, ever.

Xeile

Sep 18, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Quote:
Original post by Delphinus
For rather a long period of time, I've played MMORPGs. Every single one, however, seems to fail at the same point - they reward the hardcore gamer, thus encouraging addiction. This may be a good business ethic, but is it an ethical one? I don't think so. As well as this, a very lowly-skilled player, spending enough time, can easily gain enough experience (in game terms) to get to a far higher level than another player, less hardcore, who has far more skill.

There are multiple ways of dealing with this, as far as I can see. One of these is to thoroughly rid the hypothetical MMO of levels. However, this would almost certainly drive away many of the target audience, as much of the appeal of an MMO is the ability to gain instant fame simply by that number beside your character's name. Instead I believe that the player's skill should be measured by level, with levels in the traditional sense playing either no part, or being very easy to raise, and having a low skill cap. This should apply to equipment also.

For example, if a player is relatively skilled at the game, then they will earn experience quickly, due to being able to kill creatures easily. This experience will not contribute to the player becoming stronger, but will rather contribute to the player's "rank". The player, due to weapons having little effect on overall strength, will easily be able to experiment with different professions, decided by the weapons wielded and the skills equipped. Likewise, the player's skills will not increase by a very significant amount, but will nonetheless be easy to make stronger, through the player learning how best to use those skills.

To conclude, I believe that players should be able to easily become of equal strength to the strongest players, yet should not be disadvantaged because of this, and that a new player with skill should be able to be more well-known, and of higher rank, than a hardcore gamer with very little skill.

-Delphinus

You talk about skill throughout the entire post and I get the expression that you think MMORPG's are all about (showing) skill.
First of all, most commercial MMORPG's are entertainment games and are designed to entertain its playerbase. These MMORPG's are just like other games, with the addition of a highly praised social factor (and here is the part were gaining fame becomes interesting).

You talk about all MMORPG's failing at the same point, but what really does failing mean exactly? In my terms it would mean the entire playerbase stops playing the game. Well if take a look at a very popular MMORPG named World of Warcraft, you see this one is doing everything but failing.

What I do agree upon is that WoW tend to reward hardcore players over the casuals, but this is still not really defined as problem frankly, in fact, this is an accepted game design (albeit not by everyone), due the lack of a better game design.

As for the WoW example applied on your conclusion, the creators (Blizzard Entertainment) somehow did accomplished this. The Arena system lets casual players with 'great skill' compete against 'skill-less' hardcore players and be victorious. Yet this arena feature doesn't seem to be key element of making WoW so succesful though, that is far more complex story...

Regards,
Xeile

PaulCesar

Sep 18, 2007 at 2:48 PM

How about a MMORPG with turn based combat... you know... for what reason does it HAVE to be in realtime? You solve your lag problems, you can add more strategy, etc.

Derakon

Sep 18, 2007 at 2:49 PM

If you want to see an MMO that doesn't have levels and does depend on skill, check out Puzzle Pirates. The only determinant of your effectiveness in whatever you're trying to do is how good you are at the puzzle. And while your skill with each puzzle is reported (ranging from Novice to Ultimate), that's just a measure of how good you are, and it does not increase monotonically.

SiCrane

Sep 18, 2007 at 2:50 PM

UO didn't have levels (at least when I played it) and there was still a disparity with hardcore vs. casual players.

Dofus is a MMO with turn based combat. It didn't solve lag problems, it just made them annoying in different ways.

Xeile

Sep 18, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Quote:
Original post by PaulCesar
How about a MMORPG with turn based combat... you know... for what reason does it HAVE to be in realtime? You solve your lag problems, you can add more strategy, etc.

... Estimated time of next turn: 12 years, 9 months, 25 days, 18 hours, 35 minutes and 13 seconds...

Yeah, great concept that would be :P

Just kiddin' of course, but to be serious, hasn't Final Fantasy Online done that? (not sure, havn't player FFO...)

Drethon

Sep 18, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Quote:
Original post by Kest
Has it ever occured to anyone here that you don't need to make an MMORPG? It is actually possible to build an MMO that isn't an RPG.

I'm all for driving a wedge between those two acronyms. Worst genre, ever.

While I feel the genre is poorly designed as opposed to being fundamentally flawed, I do agree that there should be other MMOs that do not need to be RPG or at the least pure RPG.

I would like to see something that is somewhat a mix of MMOFPS/RTS where you take the basic quake style game, put it in a large MMO setting. Have two or more factions with NPCs in ultimate command to keep balance. Put captureable(SP?) forward bases and a good way of commanding multiple PCs and NPCs and you have something I would play. (Think MMO Battlefront II with better command structure and larger maps...)

Quote:
Original post by Xeile
Quote:
Original post by Delphinus
For rather a long period of time, I've played MMORPGs. Every single one, however, seems to fail at the same point - they reward the hardcore gamer, thus encouraging addiction. This may be a good business ethic, but is it an ethical one? I don't think so. As well as this, a very lowly-skilled player, spending enough time, can easily gain enough experience (in game terms) to get to a far higher level than another player, less hardcore, who has far more skill.

There are multiple ways of dealing with this, as far as I can see. One of these is to thoroughly rid the hypothetical MMO of levels. However, this would almost certainly drive away many of the target audience, as much of the appeal of an MMO is the ability to gain instant fame simply by that number beside your character's name. Instead I believe that the player's skill should be measured by level, with levels in the traditional sense playing either no part, or being very easy to raise, and having a low skill cap. This should apply to equipment also.

For example, if a player is relatively skilled at the game, then they will earn experience quickly, due to being able to kill creatures easily. This experience will not contribute to the player becoming stronger, but will rather contribute to the player's "rank". The player, due to weapons having little effect on overall strength, will easily be able to experiment with different professions, decided by the weapons wielded and the skills equipped. Likewise, the player's skills will not increase by a very significant amount, but will nonetheless be easy to make stronger, through the player learning how best to use those skills.

To conclude, I believe that players should be able to easily become of equal strength to the strongest players, yet should not be disadvantaged because of this, and that a new player with skill should be able to be more well-known, and of higher rank, than a hardcore gamer with very little skill.

-Delphinus

You talk about skill throughout the entire post and I get the expression that you think MMORPG's are all about (showing) skill.
First of all, most commercial MMORPG's are entertainment games and are designed to entertain its playerbase. These MMORPG's are just like other games, with the addition of a highly praised social factor (and here is the part were gaining fame becomes interesting).

You talk about all MMORPG's failing at the same point, but what really does failing mean exactly? In my terms it would mean the entire playerbase stops playing the game. Well if take a look at a very popular MMORPG named World of Warcraft, you see this one is doing everything but failing.

What I do agree upon is that WoW tend to reward hardcore players over the casuals, but this is still not really defined as problem frankly, in fact, this is an accepted game design (albeit not by everyone), due the lack of a better game design.

As for the WoW example applied on your conclusion, the creators (Blizzard Entertainment) somehow did accomplished this. The Arena system lets casual players with 'great skill' compete against 'skill-less' hardcore players and be victorious. Yet this arena feature doesn't seem to be key element of making WoW so succesful though, that is far more complex story...

Regards,
Xeile

For a MMORPG that allows low SP players to combat high SP players with high levels of success if the low SP player has a better understanding of the game than the high SP player, see Eve Online, my current addiction. Reactions are somewhat important but a good understanding of how to run combat in the game is in many cases more important than SP (unless you run into a ganksquad :p)

I think that skills should be used primarily to allow for the use of better weapons (but not weapons so much better that they are "leet") and expanded strategies. With this approach a player with a smaller group of strategies can defeat a player with a larger group of strategies if they employ it better

juanpaco

Sep 18, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Quote:
Original post by Delphinus
Every single one, however, seems to fail at the same point - they reward the hardcore gamer...

Don't most things in life reward the hardcore? As a general rule, a student who studies more tends to learn the material better. A developer who spends more time writing software will tend to do better than those who don't practice the art as often.

Quote:
Original post by PaulCesar
How about a MMORPG with turn based combat... you know... for what reason does it HAVE to be in realtime? You solve your lag problems, you can add more strategy, etc.

How would you handle joining one in progress? How would new players get inserted into the turn system? Real time also prevents you from having to sit around for an hour while someone else makes a turn. To a degree, WoW is turn-based, for example. You character has a set speed at which it can attack for instance. That's sort of like a turn. Think Baldur's Gate. That was a real-time implementation of a turn-based system. Quite a fun game too.

juanpaco

Sep 18, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Quote:
Original post by Drethon
I would like to see something that is somewhat a mix of MMOFPS/RTS where you take the basic quake style game, put it in a large MMO setting. Have two or more factions with NPCs in ultimate command to keep balance. Put captureable(SP?) forward bases and a good way of commanding multiple PCs and NPCs and you have something I would play. (Think MMO Battlefront II with better command structure and larger maps...)

This would be rad. Then you could have some players who don't have to get involved in combat but who just build the economy back home to support the war effort or something and commanders out on the battlefield. That would be absolutely sweet to see a blending like that.

And a dynamic map, where factions could change which zones belong to which faction.

Delphinus

Sep 18, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Quote:
Original post by Xeile
You talk about skill throughout the entire post and I get the expression that you think MMORPG's are all about (showing) skill.
First of all, most commercial MMORPG's are entertainment games and are designed to entertain its playerbase. These MMORPG's are just like other games, with the addition of a highly praised social factor (and here is the part were gaining fame becomes interesting).

I do not believe that MMOs are purely about showing skill, but I do believe it wrong that MMORPG levelling systems are simply a conversion of time into character power, which only encourages hardcore gaming over casual gaming. So all you get is the algorithm: Time/Character Level=Character Power, which is mindless and makes it Progress Quest with other players.

Quote:
Original post by Kest
Has it ever occured to anyone here that you don't need to make an MMORPG? It is actually possible to build an MMO that isn't an RPG.

I'm all for driving a wedge between those two acronyms. Worst genre, ever.

It certainly isn't the best genre ever, yet, to my mind it requires only improvement (and possibly better technology's) to become far more entertaining and involving. Also, I was speaking of a hypothetical MMORPG, rather than myself making one, as I know the resource, time, and monetary cost.

Xeile

Sep 18, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Quote:
Original post by Delphinus
I do not believe that MMOs are purely about showing skill, but I do believe it wrong that MMORPG levelling systems are simply a conversion of time into character power, which only encourages hardcore gaming over casual gaming. So all you get is the algorithm: Time/Character Level=Character Power, which is mindless and makes it Progress Quest with other players.

Did you check out Eve-Online by any chance? With that game, time is also converted in to character power in someway, yet a beginning player can take out ancient one, if knowing the game better and applying this knowledge. That concept works fantastic.

I believe the real problem of leveling system is that it set players apart. If you want to play with a friend and also want to progress, but your friend is much lower in level, then you got a problem.

Regards,
Xeile

Nypyren

Sep 18, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Did anyone play the EF2000 or Total Air War flight sims? They aren't MMOs, but they feel like them in a lot of ways.

They simulate the aerial portion of a fictional, modern war. An AI commander generated missions for both sides of the conflict. The player(s) can choose which missions to fly in. If the player doesn't fly a mission, AIs will instead.

Hundreds of missions are generated and dozens are executed by the AI simultaneously. As you're flying to your target, you can watch other planes getting into BVR combat, bombing targets, etc. You can sometimes help other missions out if you're nearby. This is what feels like an MMO.

The only measure of progress by a player is his 'reliability' - the more missions in which you successfully come back alive, the more complex missions the AI commander will offer you. You start off with limited scramble/patrol missions and work up to deep strike missions.

There's no personal reward in this, other than being able to do more exciting missions. You only were able to use one kind of plane, and you could use any armaments you wanted. That goes against typical reward/reinforcement mentality, but I enjoyed it a lot.

Flight sims are one of the smallest markets for games, so I'm not suggesting anyone should make an MMO exactly like this. Some of the AI-generated and AI-executed mission concepts are interesting, anyway.

Zouflain

Sep 18, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Here's an idea. Have a game where making level requires you to pass a difficult test, and no, don't make this test anything like "collect 99 wolf pelts," but rather some difficult boss enemy or questionnaire (nothing like Ragnarok's stupid obscure job change questions, like "which item doesn't sell?").

In a skill based game, a skilled player could very rapidly defeat bosses and surpass someone in level who plays the game for hours but never learns to be any good. Hardcore gamers will get more practice time, and therefore will have a tendency to be more skillfull players (play enough and even the worst gamer can learn) but time is no longer the variable that counts - practice and skill are.

It's neigh on impossible to have no level system at all because every alternative is almost always a level system in disguise. In any system, any time a character improves by a measurable amount (besides skill), and that amount is assigned a number (even if done arbitrarily by the players themselves), then it's a level system again.

lightblade

Sep 18, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Advance in "rank" is still a grind.

For these ranks to be meaningful, they need to be able to be displayed to other players. When other players can see it, it causes prejudice among players. Certain parties will only accept certain "skilled" players and reject those "n00bz".

There...you solved one problem and made another problem.

Dekasa

Sep 18, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Why is a group rejecting someone a problem at all? Most people want to play with someone of their own skill, and it saves a group the time of having to weed out players who slow the group down.

If you're doing a ranking thing, though, I would have a person start somewhere in the middle, and work up (or down) on a sort of curve, that way, a new player isn't at the bottom, and old players aren't at the top, it just depends on where you stand, currently, in the crowd.

Kest

Sep 18, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Quote:
Original post by Dekasa
If you're doing a ranking thing, though, I would have a person start somewhere in the middle, and work up (or down) on a sort of curve, that way, a new player isn't at the bottom, and old players aren't at the top, it just depends on where you stand, currently, in the crowd.

I'm not an MMO expert, but wouldn't that just lead to players starting up new characters every time they drop below the normalized value?

Derakon

Sep 18, 2007 at 9:43 PM

Quote:
Original post by DekasaIf you're doing a ranking thing, though, I would have a person start somewhere in the middle, and work up (or down) on a sort of curve, that way, a new player isn't at the bottom, and old players aren't at the top, it just depends on where you stand, currently, in the crowd.

As was said, this would mean that people would restart if they drop too low. Again, what Puzzle Pirates did here was show your "rank" (i.e. representation of actual puzzling skill) in addition to your "experience" (which was just a set of buckets indicating how long you'd been playing the puzzle). Thus it's easy to tell someone who's merely inexperienced from someone who's outright bad - the former was Novice in skill and Neophyte in experience, and the latter would be Novice in skill and Experienced in experience.

I'm not saying that Puzzle Pirates is perfect, but a lot of what y'all are discussing has already been solved pretty handily.

Gyrthok

Sep 19, 2007 at 2:44 AM

I think Planetside handled leveling vs skill quite well. Levels were still in place (as Battle Rank), but gaining levels (through player skill) didn't give players more Power, it gave them more Versatility. A BR 3 character could wield any weapon a BR 20 character could, he just couldn't switch between as many on the fly as the BR 20 (at least without waiting for 12 or so hours while swapping sets).

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.