Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


To limit or to infinity..


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
26 replies to this topic

#21 Niphty   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2000 - 02:27 AM

Paul, are you sure you''re a level 3 game designer? I think you''re a level 4! ;p Did some guy who''s the head Guild Master of the Game Developer''s Guild tell you you''re third level?

Back to the topic.. should we cap levels to stop powermaxing?

I''m all for it in certain games. The game opens up to more social types of fun, and less hack''n slash. It becomes all about who you''re with, not what level you are. As was mentioned in another post, you often feel a sense of accomplishment when you first get so powerful nothing can beat you. But then, slowly, you realize it''s pointless and you start to feel like there''s no challenges left.
In the AD&D gold box games, specifically NeverWinter Nights since it was online, you had level limits and you were forced to be in a party to attack some of the bigger creatures. Dracoliches, golems, etc.. all required groups. These groups made the game fun. Getting to talk with old friends and make new ones. It was a true online community and people stayed there forever! yet we''ve lost this today. People in EQ hate eachother "hey, you stole my kill!" etc etc.. that didn''t happen back then! does anyone else get my point here as to why level limits might be overlooked now when they certainly worked then?

J

Sponsor:

#22 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2000 - 03:01 AM

So you''re basically saying "disallow advancement to godlike levels". That makes good sense to me. You might get VERY strong, but never stronger than a horse, for instance.

( hmm, that would be interesting, being drawn and quartered would be an ACTUAL threat in a game like that . )

Perhaps "levels" could be different to "advancement". Like the poster ratings here on gamedev. They rate activity, not posting quality, but it''s still a kind of leveling for everyone. It''s still an achievement to reach it, even though it has no direct bearing on what actually happens here.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

#23 theRaskell   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2000 - 03:29 AM

All through life I see this occurring, people focusing on the problem and not the solution. Discussions gallor on how to stop powergaming, character tweaking, minmaxing. Get rid of levels, eliminate advancement, make it invisible, blah blah blah. The real solution is to give them something more worthwhile to do. If people are minmaxing in a game, it''s because there''s nothing more urgent or rewarding to do. Everquest is an excellent example. The game completely lacks substance. There is absolutely nothing promoting good roleplaying, and thus it''s filled with all the perceived evils of RPGs. You take the powergaming out of this game and you have absolutely nothing left. You give the game adequate substance and roleplaying promoting features and this aspect will fly whether the advancement system is there or not. There are no Storylines in EQ to get deeply involved with. There are no dynamic quests. Hell, there''s no dynamic anything. And right now, there isn''t a CRPG out there that doesn''t suffer from this problem at one level or another. You can waste all the time you want on how to stop powergaming, but the bottom line is, if you don''t replace it with something more worthwhile, you''re going to end up with nothing at all, and if you do replace with something more worthwhile, then there is no need to waste any effort on getting rid of it. It will disappear of it''s own accord.

#24 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2000 - 03:49 AM

Amen to that, for single player CRPGs...

For online games though, it''s not true. Online, we expect our players to form the community, to generate the interesting quests and plots, to do the roleplaying. But apparently we''ve provided them with too many distractions that lead them to "minmax", something apparently perceived as being "more fun" than roleplaying.
I don''t think this is because the system is necessarily bad, but because it is attracting and rewarding the wrong kinds of player. That''s why we are discussing alternatives here, in this thread, so that without direct human intervention, we might still enforce more roleplaying in these kinds of games.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

#25 Paul Cunningham   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2000 - 04:20 PM

Presuming i understand what you''re saying about attrition here''s a way to balance it. (To make it work)

I''ll use an example thay tend to work best in these situations:

Taking a theorietical game that contains the attrition rule of:
1. for player to gain skills a in-game timer is setup which determines how much game time must pass until they gain the new skill.

You are lacking a second rule to counter-act (balance this):
2. if a character remains motionless for a period of time then some skills will begin to deteriate.

What i''m saying is that a character will select a skill that they wish to improve. They don''t leave this character at a training centre whilst they train, instead the skill/knowledge is implanted in the character. As they player the game further this skill/knowledge seed begins to take root and slowly provide benifits.

Also..

This could be structured in a way that only one skill can be germinating in a character at one time. Thus eliminating the need to powerlevel through the game if levels are only going to give you new skills. So it becomes a reward just for playing the game.

Which means "role" players are less disadvantaged to the hack''nslash players. It may not be the ultimate solution we are looking for but its a step in the right direction/true?

WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

#26 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3333

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 30 June 2000 - 03:14 AM

That would be one hell of a gimmick... when applying for a game design job, submit a character sheet instead of a resumé You never know, if it got the real information across and showed some ingenuity, it might just impress them enough to consider you


#27 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3333

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 30 June 2000 - 03:17 AM

Oh, and one more point:

Attrition is a great way of implementing a practically unlimited skill system as an alternative to levels.

But having skills drop with inactivity discourages people from standing around socialising, or talking ''in-character''... you may even force them to use game mechanics as opposed to ''role-playing''!

Food for thought.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS