Note: this is mostly theoretical, and I thought it was sort of an interesting take on progression.
I posted on my blog not too long ago about the odd idea (in my opinion) of a game in which you would work to level someone else while they work to level up you.
As you get them to a higher level, they are able to do higher level co[font="Arial"]ntent which would give them more experience and would enable them to advance you to a comparative level more quickly. The balance would make it so that the linked players would mostly keep around the same level, and the progression wouldn't be too different from depending on a party to get experience. The main difference would be the mentality since you are directly helping the other player and indirectly helping yourself rather than the other way around (as it is in any normal RPG).[/font]
[font="Arial"]The change in focus would branch down throughout all of the RPG systems. There would be more of an incentive to buy the other player armor rather than to buy yourself armor. Improving the other player in various additional ways would be even more important since there are only so many levels that you could realistically level them up given that their experience requirements would keep increasing while your experience intake would remain the same, but as was mentioned, every little bit extra that you can do to advance them would let them advance you more quickly.[/font]
[font="Arial"]As far as if the other player stops playing, I would imagine that the grouping system would let you break the connection and link with another player who is about the same level. The experience gained for a player while they are logged off would be stored and would only be given to them once they log on. If the other player stops playing then the stored experience would go to the next player that is linked to.[/font]
[font="Arial"]Thoughts?[/font]
[font="Arial"]Edit2: [/font][color="#1C2837"]When a player disconnects he or she will have the choice to either leave the surplus experience that they gained for the other player, or to transfer the surplus exp to the next player they link to (players would have to be about the same level to make the initial link). This is an option in order to prevent griefing and having work lost by being put toward an inactive player, so in a sense no effort is ever "lost". The potential also compels both players to try to keep up with eachother to some extent.
Progressing someone else
The one thing that online RPGs have going for them (and I assume that your game is online, given the mechanic) is the rewards for you grinding out your time. The only way that this works for both players is if they both play roughly the same amount-- otherwise your own time is basically wasted.
If you play 40 hrs/week and I play 10 hrs/week, then regardless of safeguards you put on distributing XP you will get less out of your play time (nothing, really). Further, once it's clear that I'm only playing 1/4 as much as you do, you have little incentive to log on and play, since you'll see next to no benefit. And whatever benefit does accrue (the benefits that flow entirely to me) will be constantly reduced as the increasingly paltry XP you can contribute to me does less to power me up. It may be balance-able to the extent that my play time becomes more productive of XP (since I'm doing higher level stuff), but then you're still looking at development that occurs on my timetable, so it will come when it comes with no relation to your play time or actions in game.
If you have an active link-switching mechanic in place, that would help with the above, but it would undercut cooperation in all other areas. I'm not going to give you my rare equipment just to have your play time dip and see it benefit other characters and never myself. So what you're left with is a game that plays the same as any other MMO, but where you can't progress by investing your time-- only if some other person does.
I personally wouldn't want to work solely to enrich someone else who may or may not return the favor. If I'm taking on a role, I want to be the driving force for my character, not some other guy. There's definitely stuff to be explored in cooperative gameplay, but as it stands this just sounds like a much more convoluted way to achieve the same results as standard play while managing to make my own investment of time and energy largely worthless to me.
If you play 40 hrs/week and I play 10 hrs/week, then regardless of safeguards you put on distributing XP you will get less out of your play time (nothing, really). Further, once it's clear that I'm only playing 1/4 as much as you do, you have little incentive to log on and play, since you'll see next to no benefit. And whatever benefit does accrue (the benefits that flow entirely to me) will be constantly reduced as the increasingly paltry XP you can contribute to me does less to power me up. It may be balance-able to the extent that my play time becomes more productive of XP (since I'm doing higher level stuff), but then you're still looking at development that occurs on my timetable, so it will come when it comes with no relation to your play time or actions in game.
If you have an active link-switching mechanic in place, that would help with the above, but it would undercut cooperation in all other areas. I'm not going to give you my rare equipment just to have your play time dip and see it benefit other characters and never myself. So what you're left with is a game that plays the same as any other MMO, but where you can't progress by investing your time-- only if some other person does.
I personally wouldn't want to work solely to enrich someone else who may or may not return the favor. If I'm taking on a role, I want to be the driving force for my character, not some other guy. There's definitely stuff to be explored in cooperative gameplay, but as it stands this just sounds like a much more convoluted way to achieve the same results as standard play while managing to make my own investment of time and energy largely worthless to me.
I enjoy the idea and concept, and though I wouldn't want every game to implement it, it'd be fun for one or two games to do so.
However, I have to agree with Khaily: this would not work well with a ORPG style game. It could work very well for a cooperative (online or splitscreen) RPG game, though. Or even with 4 or 5 player coop, contributing to a common pool of experience that is then divided evenly between everyone except the one who contributed the exp.
However, I have to agree with Khaily: this would not work well with a ORPG style game. It could work very well for a cooperative (online or splitscreen) RPG game, though. Or even with 4 or 5 player coop, contributing to a common pool of experience that is then divided evenly between everyone except the one who contributed the exp.
I think you could achieve what you want with a more practical system.
Maybe this has been done, maybe this hasn't, I don't play a lot of RPGs. But imagine a system in which you accrued level-up points that you could either apply to yourself, to your party, or potentially even sell. This would work fine for an ORPG.
You could also have the concept of a party that gains experience which is evenly divided among all members of the party. Membership in a party would be voluntary. If one person was slacking, obviously it would benefit the others to kick that person out.
Maybe this has been done, maybe this hasn't, I don't play a lot of RPGs. But imagine a system in which you accrued level-up points that you could either apply to yourself, to your party, or potentially even sell. This would work fine for an ORPG.
You could also have the concept of a party that gains experience which is evenly divided among all members of the party. Membership in a party would be voluntary. If one person was slacking, obviously it would benefit the others to kick that person out.
Author
[color="#1C2837"]The one thing that online RPGs have going for them (and I assume that your game is online, given the mechanic) is the rewards for you grinding out your time. [/quote]
[color="#1C2837"]However, I have to agree with Khaily: this would not work well with a ORPG style game.[/quote]
Would it not work because of the nature of being an online RPG or because of the perception that people have of what an ORPG should be? I don't know if I would criticize the idea for not having typical grinding, after all that's the point of the idea, changing the premise of progression.
What I would be curious about is the mentality that the players would have. If someone helps me out then I typically feel compelled to help them in return. When someone helps me out it's a lot more significant to me than when I help myself out. I would be interested in how this would motivate people, because I think a lot of people would be more interested in helping other people progress than themselves. Just look at the presence of support classes in games, those people would rather help the group and get the indirect benefit (they don't kill the creatures that give the exp after all).
Granted the design adds risk of investment for the players and a requirement for a larger degree of trust and dependence, but I wouldn't consider those things flaws in the design.
Asheron's Call had an Allegiance system where players could swear fealty to another. I can't remember the specifics of how many people you could have following you, but it worked kind of like a pyramid scheme: You received a small portion of the experience from everyone following you and your followers. The idea was that lower level characters could prop up a higher level character, who (should) take care of them with money, items and assistance in exchange for reducing the amount of grinding they needed to level up.
Not sure if that really fits what were looking for, but it is an interesting system for progressing someone else. I'm sure there were problems with it but it may have worked for others.
Balance is key though, especially in an online game where many people want more for less. You can't penalize the people doing more work by making it too easy to avoid reciprocating.
Not sure if that really fits what were looking for, but it is an interesting system for progressing someone else. I'm sure there were problems with it but it may have worked for others.
Balance is key though, especially in an online game where many people want more for less. You can't penalize the people doing more work by making it too easy to avoid reciprocating.
Author
[color=#1C2837][size=2]You can't penalize the people doing more work by making it too easy to avoid reciprocating.[/quote]
I agree. I think I have an idea how to address the problem. The experience that you have invested into a player is only permanently theirs once they can match it. Until they match it, it is only theirs so long as the connection stays intact. The surplus on either side would be taken if the link is disbanded and given to the new player that is linked to.
What I would be curious about is the mentality that the players would have. If someone helps me out then I typically feel compelled to help them in return. When someone helps me out it's a lot more significant to me than when I help myself out. I would be interested in how this would motivate people, because I think a lot of people would be more interested in helping other people progress than themselves. Just look at the presence of support classes in games, those people would rather help the group and get the indirect benefit (they don't kill the creatures that give the exp after all).
Granted the design adds risk of investment for the players and a requirement for a larger degree of trust and dependence, but I wouldn't consider those things flaws in the design.
I don't think playing a support class in a more typical orpg has any real relation to your system. Support class provides an alternate gameplay but you still reap the same rewards as the person you're helping.
I think a better support class perspective would be what if experience, money and gear you get from a mob is distributed based on damage dealt to the target. In that scenario, I think a lot fewer people would want to play the "tank", the "healer" and the support roles even if they happened to find that gameplay more appealing.
I, too, would be curious about the way this would affect a player base mentally.
This reminds me of a game idea I had a while back. There'd be a Knight (Sir Wilhelm) and a Page (Phillip). You'd play as the Knight, and go on adventures with the Page. You goal is then to level up the Page, who you do not directly control. You can give orders and you can participate, but anything you do is a missed opportunity for his growth.
Then, if he can't perform well enough at the end of the game, you get the guillotine.
Then, if he can't perform well enough at the end of the game, you get the guillotine.
Author
[color="#1C2837"]I don't think playing a support class in a more typical orpg has any real relation to your system. Support class provides an alternate gameplay but you still reap the same rewards as the person you're helping.[/quote]
A true (full) support player very rarely gets his or her own experience when on the field because progression in many multiplayer RPGs (for better or for worse) is given for the kills made and not for the skills used. I almost always play support classes, and in many games, excluding the experience given for questing, I would get a share of experience indirectly from partying and the kills made by other players. I would indirectly get myself more experience by helping the other players to defeat more rewarding content.
That last point is more of the association I was referring to, that players already show that indirect progression is acceptable. It's a lot less extreme than the topic of the post, especially since all players know that there will be balanced compensation (which leaves the difference to be mostly nominal), but it's still related.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
