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.
It's not about the grinding - It's about the cooperation. In most online games, the majority of the players do not cooperate well, even when it directly benefits them. Yes, you can almost always find groups of people who do cooperate within that game, but most of the game's population do not.
The reason why it'll instantly work in a cooperative RPG, is because you go into the game with the understanding that you are expected to cooperate.
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.[/quote]
Yes, but that is not true about the majority of online players. Certainly, you can have an online game where you deleberitely cater to the type of players that meet your own profile, but in general it won't work well with your average player.
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.[/quote]
Well, we're talking about one feature in isolation. Certainly if you made a game around the feature, you could probably find a way to 'make it work', by adding counter-balances and pulleys to prod players in that direction. It'd be a cool one-off game, but for we aren't talking about a game, we are talking about a game feature. So without having a picture of what the rest of the game would be, we have to put the feature into the games that already exist.
I suppose we should have said, "It wouldn't work if you dragged and dropped it into most common ORPGs".
You guys apparently haven't been pay attention to MMORPGs...
City of Heroes has this in a few different ways...
Sidekicking/mentoring allows players to raise/lower the level of their character to their partner's and their xp gets adjusted to the actual level of the characters
Super sidekick (or something i actually forget the name of it) if you are below level 5 you can link your character with another character below level 5 and any xp one gets is divided between the 2 characters.
Other MMORPGs have implemented this type of system since then as they have found it to help with the various population level problems.
[color=#1C2837][size=2]Sidekicking/mentoring allows players to raise/lower the level of their character to their partner's and their xp gets adjusted to the actual level of the characters
Super sidekick (or something i actually forget the name of it) if you are below level 5 you can link your character with another character below level 5 and any xp one gets is divided between the 2 characters.[/quote]
Guild Wars 2 is supposed to have a similar system as well.
One of the main differences is that the intention of the system described here isn't to mentor or "carry" a lower level player. In theory both players would be about the same level when they group up, remain within a similar level range, and be the entire source of experience for the other (not ration part of it to assist the other). The implementation you mentioned is to help players of different levels group and advance together, not to change the core focus of progression.
[color="#1C2837"]Sidekicking/mentoring allows players to raise/lower the level of their character to their partner's and their xp gets adjusted to the actual level of the characters
Super sidekick (or something i actually forget the name of it) if you are below level 5 you can link your character with another character below level 5 and any xp one gets is divided between the 2 characters.
Guild Wars 2 is supposed to have a similar system as well.
One of the main differences is that the intention of the system described here isn't to mentor or "carry" a lower level player. In theory both players would be about the same level when they group up, remain within a similar level range, and be the entire source of experience for the other (not ration part of it to assist the other). The implementation you mentioned is to help players of different levels group and advance together, not to change the core focus of progression.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that in CoH it is possible to turn off you getting xp and all the xp goes to the other player when in one of those partner links.
Gestalt is right - Although I haven't played CoH, I do play Champions Online, which seems to have similar features. The sidekick system is great as it allows me (who can't play that much) and my brother (who is on vacation with lots of free time) have an enyojable experience despite him playing 24/7 and having a high level character. I am not sure other random people would actually do it for another player -- thinking in those mysterious, anonymous ways, what do I get from lowering my level which I grinded for such a long time? Unless I like the player I am working with, I would rather not help out unless I am utterly bored. No reward unless someone is a really good person that feels compelled to help out new players adapt.
The system described by the OP has its pros and cons.
+ Encouraging teamplay. Most MMOs allow a single player to manage on his own, making parties a good thing to form mostly for boss mosnters
+ Encouraging trust. Something that in MMOs is absent most of the time due to being anonymous and not caring much about others in general.
+ Allows greater challenges. The gameplay might be beefed overall because players will need to group anyway.
+ Something new that might draw players just for the "how it feels"
- Greater scammer activity. Players will just stick around with others to rack up free EXP with no effort whatsoever.
- Might not work out at all. The selfish nature of the majority of the ORPG community might prevent this feature from working, unless enchanced by other gameplay elemens and the players proded towards it, as mentioned above.
- Thriving RL trading. By this I mean selling EXP/chars online for real money. I count this as bad, as generally this kind of defeats the purpose of playing.
- Doesn't really make much of a difference in gamplay. It would only force people to work in 2 player pairs, which might not click for some hardcore lone wolves that loathe others.
- Noob flaming. When my progression is dependant on another, I might feel REALLY upset if my "significant other" doesn't perform as well as me, and vice versa.
Some of the points above negate each other out - I guess it depends on how an individual player acts in ORPGs. As already mentioned, one would have to see how it plays to judge. As with anything, there will be those that will worship the system for it's immersion and emphasis on cooperation, and those that will flame it for slow gameplay and reliance on a total stranger
Disclaimer: Each my post is intended as an attempt of helping and/or brining some meaningfull insight to the topic at hand. Due to my nature, my good intentions will not always be plainly visible. I apologise in advance and assure I mean no harm and do not intend to insult anyone, unless stated otherwise
Gestalt is right - Although I haven't played CoH, I do play Champions Online, which seems to have similar features. The sidekick system is great as it allows me (who can't play that much) and my brother (who is on vacation with lots of free time) have an enyojable experience despite him playing 24/7 and having a high level character. I am not sure other random people would actually do it for another player -- thinking in those mysterious, anonymous ways, what do I get from lowering my level which I grinded for such a long time? Unless I like the player I am working with, I would rather not help out unless I am utterly bored. No reward unless someone is a really good person that feels compelled to help out new players adapt.
There are a number of reasons to sidekick... like doing task forces, doing missions you missed, just to help out, just for the fun of it...
It's used a lot for various reasons like if there is a lvl 40 team that needs a tank a lvl 5 tank can join the team and tank for them ^,^
It used to be a bit problematic with a tether for regular sidekick/mentoring and xp gain problems, but that has improved greatly.
I see. Still, given the example of level 5 tank beefed to 40, I noticed that items he wears and skills he has stay the same. So, in the end, he is a rather last resort tank. The other way round, however, is more desirable -- a level 40 player can delevel to level 5 and retain all his items, skills and game knowledge to even further benefit the low level team.
I didn't consider the thing about doing task forces/raids on a different level with a sidekicked character -- guess I'm still old fashioned in the belief that a high level can significantly push the low level raid, while a low level wouldn't be much help (given the best scenario). Taking into account my previous paragraph, this is awkward to me all the same. But I guess we derailed here just a bit.
The idea of progressing someone else is a big dream, but to reliable on trust. As long as our culture as it is (you wouldn't trust a stranger to have him withdraw some money vya ATM for you, would you? Why? He didn't give you any reason to doubt his good intentions) such games would remain very low populated and plauged by those thinking they are smart and exploit the remainder of human kindness. Not that the world is all evil - it just likes to think of itself that way
Disclaimer: Each my post is intended as an attempt of helping and/or brining some meaningfull insight to the topic at hand. Due to my nature, my good intentions will not always be plainly visible. I apologise in advance and assure I mean no harm and do not intend to insult anyone, unless stated otherwise
I see. Still, given the example of level 5 tank beefed to 40, I noticed that items he wears and skills he has stay the same. So, in the end, he is a rather last resort tank. The other way round, however, is more desirable -- a level 40 player can delevel to level 5 and retain all his items, skills and game knowledge to even further benefit the low level team.
I didn't consider the thing about doing task forces/raids on a different level with a sidekicked character -- guess I'm still old fashioned in the belief that a high level can significantly push the low level raid, while a low level wouldn't be much help (given the best scenario). Taking into account my previous paragraph, this is awkward to me all the same. But I guess we derailed here just a bit.
The idea of progressing someone else is a big dream, but to reliable on trust. As long as our culture as it is (you wouldn't trust a stranger to have him withdraw some money vya ATM for you, would you? Why? He didn't give you any reason to doubt his good intentions) such games would remain very low populated and plauged by those thinking they are smart and exploit the remainder of human kindness. Not that the world is all evil - it just likes to think of itself that way
It's very funny to see the level thing in action because there are skill issues, but it is possible and does work depending on how well the player is able to cope
Xp though in CoH isn't really an issue so it helps that whole stigma..they even put in a feature so you can turn off getting XP ^.^
I actually think progressing via other peoples' work is dumb for the most part I bought the game to play it...not for someone else to play it for me. Its the same argument that i have against power levelers and auto battle systems that are tooo automatic. It's no longer a game... it's me watch someone or something else do something.
It's very funny to see the level thing in action because there are skill issues, but it is possible and does work depending on how well the player is able to cope
Xp though in CoH isn't really an issue so it helps that whole stigma..they even put in a feature so you can turn off getting XP ^.^
I actually think progressing via other peoples' work is dumb for the most part I bought the game to play it...not for someone else to play it for me. Its the same argument that i have against power levelers and auto battle systems that are tooo automatic. It's no longer a game... it's me watch someone or something else do something.
At least I am not the only one against power leveling Yes, it does defeat one of the things that makes a game fun -- progression and sense of achievement. People rush just to get to that one feature they wish (raiding, battlegrounds) and miss the whole story/plot/point of the game. But do admit that in some RPGs being able to auto battle boring random encounters during a loooooong road can be a big save for the game.
Disclaimer: Each my post is intended as an attempt of helping and/or brining some meaningfull insight to the topic at hand. Due to my nature, my good intentions will not always be plainly visible. I apologise in advance and assure I mean no harm and do not intend to insult anyone, unless stated otherwise
[color=#1C2837][size=2]I actually think progressing via other peoples' work is dumb for the most part I bought the game to play it...not for someone else to play it for me. Its the same argument that i have against power levelers and auto battle systems that are tooo automatic. It's no longer a game... it's me watch someone or something else do something. [/quote]
Not quite, keep in mind you would still be doing things, it's just those efforts wouldn't pay off for you directly. Instead your efforts would have the potential to pay off for you. You would definitely be helping someone else, but you could still be playing for yourself in a sense, just with less certainty. You would need to invest in people you feel would help you back, and learn to trust people.
I think you are relating this too closely to it's implementation in CoH. In a mentoring type system or a system in which you lower your level in order to do content with a lower-level player, the effort is one-sided. While you may get the sidekick experience, does the sidekick get you experience, and is there a balance between the efforts? The system in this post isn't simply about progressing someone else, it's more accurately about switching the focus of two people's progression so that the direct benefit is for another player and the indirect is for themselves.
As far as problems with players trying to grief the system, I think the issue can be handled by the edit I made:
"[color=#1C2837][size=2][color=#1C2837][size=2]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."
Yes, it does defeat one of the things that makes a game fun -- progression and sense of achievement. People rush just to get to that one feature they wish (raiding, battlegrounds) and miss the whole story/plot/point of the game. But do admit that in some RPGs being able to auto battle boring random encounters during a loooooong road can be a big save for the game.
