How do you feel about time based progression.
For instance, you don't level by beating monsters over the head, but instead just by spending time playing the game.
So you really could spend your play time doing anything and your character would still be progressing.
0
Time based progression
Started by Butabee, May 29 2011 03:10 PM
9 replies to this topic
Ad:
#5 Members - Reputation: 180
Posted 29 May 2011 - 09:41 PM
Do you mean you progress when doing something meaningful? Such as crafting an item, exploring a new area, or just fighting a monster but you don't progress from being idle?
Not really, I'm talking about just having the game running, and you're in the game not the menu screen or anything. So you could just let your character sit there and progress while you pick your nose or something but I don't see why someone would want to buy or play a game to do that.
#6 Members - Reputation: 325
Posted 29 May 2011 - 11:55 PM
How do you feel about time based progression.
For instance, you don't level by beating monsters over the head, but instead just by spending time playing the game.
So you really could spend your play time doing anything and your character would still be progressing.
There's already a game for that:
http://progressquest.com/
#7 Members - Reputation: 999
Posted 30 May 2011 - 04:58 AM
It could be a way to make it so that someone who players 2x as much as someone else wont grow 2x faster, but it wont work if you just got to wait. There could be something wich might need a day to get done, and meanwhile you can do smaller things, so both the 1 hour/day player and 24/7 player get growth from the 1 day taking task but the 24/7 player also gets some extra from doing the small tasks.
The lack of awesome free resource gathering building sandbox games capable of running an user made 8 bit computer in the world disturbs me.
#8 Moderators - Reputation: 4991
Posted 30 May 2011 - 01:12 PM
Many years ago, a roommate and I played Gauntlet: Legends on the N64. It was a fun game, we really had a blast with it for a time. But then we discovered something. There was a particular level that had a staircase and a monster spawner at the bottom somewhere. Usually, spawners would become non-functional after a certain amount of time, but this one was bugged and would spawn indefinitely. Even though we had fun playing the game, there was something twisted about the both of us that compelled us to use rubber bands to fasten down the buttons of our controllers to make our dudes stand and fire indefinitely while we went to work.We returned to find uber-level characters. After that, the game simply was not even remotely challenging anymore, and soon we just walked away from it.
That's right. Even though we loved the game, we were still compelled to exploit it, and in consequence it became no longer fun. Now, possibly, most players won't be like this. (That is something I doubt, though, given the sheer prevalence of bug-exploitation that goes on) But I think that many will take the path of least resistance, and in a game such as you are describing, the path of least resistance is a path with absolutely no resistance at all. If the game offers even the slightest bit of challenge, many players will back off, make that ham sandwich, and just simply wait until the game becomes less challenging.
That, to me, runs counter to everything I believe a game should be. I honestly do wish that I hadn't found the exploit that spoiled Gauntlet for me, as the remainder of the game could have been enjoyable. Nevertheless, I think that if I had it to do all over again, I would still try to take advantage of that exploit. Guess it's just in my nature, even though the inevitable result is an overall lessening of my enjoyment of the game.
That's right. Even though we loved the game, we were still compelled to exploit it, and in consequence it became no longer fun. Now, possibly, most players won't be like this. (That is something I doubt, though, given the sheer prevalence of bug-exploitation that goes on) But I think that many will take the path of least resistance, and in a game such as you are describing, the path of least resistance is a path with absolutely no resistance at all. If the game offers even the slightest bit of challenge, many players will back off, make that ham sandwich, and just simply wait until the game becomes less challenging.
That, to me, runs counter to everything I believe a game should be. I honestly do wish that I hadn't found the exploit that spoiled Gauntlet for me, as the remainder of the game could have been enjoyable. Nevertheless, I think that if I had it to do all over again, I would still try to take advantage of that exploit. Guess it's just in my nature, even though the inevitable result is an overall lessening of my enjoyment of the game.
#9 Members - Reputation: 180
Posted 30 May 2011 - 08:54 PM
The game EvE has a passive progression system and I don't think it effects players too much.
I think it's fine if players want to progress just by not even playing they can, but they'll miss out on a lot of the game's content which defeats the whole purpose of even owning the game.
But I also think it defeats the reason that a lot, maybe most people play games, and that's to have some sense of achievement.
It takes no skill or ability to have progress handed to you.
Granted there could still be some other sense of achievement such as defeating a difficult boss or something, but it seems people today are all about the bosses shinies.
I've asked around and pretty much no one seems to like this method of progressing.... makes me wonder how EvE got away with it.
I think it's fine if players want to progress just by not even playing they can, but they'll miss out on a lot of the game's content which defeats the whole purpose of even owning the game.
But I also think it defeats the reason that a lot, maybe most people play games, and that's to have some sense of achievement.
It takes no skill or ability to have progress handed to you.
Granted there could still be some other sense of achievement such as defeating a difficult boss or something, but it seems people today are all about the bosses shinies.
I've asked around and pretty much no one seems to like this method of progressing.... makes me wonder how EvE got away with it.
#10 Members - Reputation: 131
Posted 30 May 2011 - 09:04 PM
I played Eve for a few years, and all they have done is move the grind from being level-based to money based. So although in theory you could level indefinitely, you will end up with an uber character that you can't do anything with.
I think that the overall premise you started with, the one where "...really could spend your play time doing anything and your character would still be progressing."could prove to be a valid system, as long as you are actively playing. This would allow people who PvP to gain the same amount of experience as those who PvE or focus on Industry. Implemented incorrectly, however, would lead to the rubber-band method, which is something I think we all try at some point (for me it was with Ys Book I & II).
I think that the overall premise you started with, the one where "...really could spend your play time doing anything and your character would still be progressing."could prove to be a valid system, as long as you are actively playing. This would allow people who PvP to gain the same amount of experience as those who PvE or focus on Industry. Implemented incorrectly, however, would lead to the rubber-band method, which is something I think we all try at some point (for me it was with Ys Book I & II).
