Jump to content
  • Advertisement

sfdaios

Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Neutral

About sfdaios

  • Rank
    Member
  1. sfdaios

    Alternate Reasons To Level

    Developing, creating, and collaborating can help to give cycles more justification. In a rhythm game like Guitar Hero, you constantly work on developing your skill as a player. That skill has a tangible quality, as opposed to face-rolling the same rotation with the same amount of skill and interaction for the duration of loot grinding. A composer develops musical skill, and that cycle of advancement progressively produces work. So the results of a cycle can actually be creation. In the case of most games that would come in the form of a higher score of some sort. Giving the cycle a context and value that is not completely based on your own perception can also help a lot. When you collaborate or do something with someone else in the picture, you effectively transfer the question of "what's the point--so now what?" to the other person. For example when you are helping someone clean, you don't question the integrity of it, the questioning of the integrity of needing to clean can be transferred to the other person cleaning, and for all intents and purposes both participants could be directing this perception at eachother. An act that has no basis can gain a basis by the fact that it is a group effort, and as far as each participant is aware, someone else has some logic/passion/motivation/meaning behind doing it. The problem with most cycles in games, as far as I see, is that they tend to deal with self advancement, with "winning", so the justification is very limited. When you ask yourself "what's the point of winning", or, after you win ask "so, now what?", most often you get the answer "win more!"
  2. sfdaios

    Alternate Reasons To Level

    In the case of a sandbox MMORPG, the economy would be a major factor, and having a sense of roles and a place within society. An economy can justify many mechanics (such as having fishing in the game) by giving it a context with which to relate to the big picture. In a sandbox people make their own goals, and sometimes those goals don't have or need a higher context (Minecraft comes to mind). People generally like to explore the capacity of things. The standard hook is the Skinner's box. Do something and get a reward. People also like a sense of progression and forward movement. In the case of pretty much every game, the progression comes from advancing yourself in some way, as the stat-based avatar, as the skilled gamer controlling it, or as some combination of both. The reason I play an RPG (although I don't play much of anything anymore) is to see the next thing. I love seeing what's next when there's a great world to explore and new things to see and experience. I also enjoy planning a build or working toward an armor set, and keeping at them and all of their sub-goals until they are completed. I almost always play support roles, so I like keeping the party in good shape, resing the occasional stranger, healing someone who needs it, warping people to where they need to go, giving people the buffs they need at the right times, etc. I'd rather help a person compete than compete myself, it's a lot less shallow for me that way. The social aspects of MMOs are also a major factor as to why people keep playing.
  3. sfdaios

    Progressing someone else

    [color="#1C2837"]When you come up with an idea you should be asking yourself who does this benefit and how? And is this superior, equal, or worse than the commonly accepted model? And this idea benefits no one and is a worse model than the current ways of doing things...[/quote] The benefit would be from establishing a stronger connection with other players. That's a significant benefit. It would also help bring out the good in players and shift the progression to favor showing that instead of the opposite. Basically progress comes from helping others and then possibly being helped back. It is not a typical win/lose/I'm-better-than-you ordeal. In fact if anything it's a response to the shallowness of the market and how a players perspective can expand beyond his own character. I really don't think it's difficult to see the mental differences and the changes in perception and how they would change the experience (and benefit in many ways). I could ask the same question of the way that any game is played and you wouldn't really be able to find a more concrete benefit. Things become very perceptional to how the player responds to the experience. What's the benefit of being alone in Shadow of the Colossus? I'm not sure I could specifically answer that objectively, but the difference certainly was necessary for the experience.
  4. sfdaios

    Progressing someone else

    [color="#1C2837"]Do you not know why power leveling is frowned upon by most players and all developers? [/quote] I think calling it "power leveling" is a stretch. A player would likely only be able to realistically level someone else 5 levels or so above their own, and they would only be able to initially link with someone about the same level. With that in mind I don't see the problem; it's mostly a different perspective on progression, it's a lot less direct and absolute (which is not necessarily a bad thing, if anything I think it would be refreshing).
  5. sfdaios

    Progressing someone else

    "[color="#1C2837"] Instead of me just being able to power level this person and then go do whatever, perhaps power level another person i'm forced to wait for them to give me xp...which defeats the whole point," [color="#1C2837"]I think you brought up a good point, which is why I think it would make sense if disconnecting and transferring the investment were a choice. If you want to leave the person with the experience you got them, then you should be able to. If you want to take the surplus experience and give it to the next person you link to because the other person stopped playing or is not giving back in any way in order to troll, then you should have that option as well. [color="#1C2837"] [color="#1C2837"]Edited in original edit.
  6. sfdaios

    Progressing someone else

    [color=#1C2837][size=2]what is the benefit of doing it? There is no benefit so no point [/quote] What's the benefit or point of having progression be just about progressing yourself? The point and benefit is the experience itself. It's mostly a matter of perspective, which is a very powerful thing. The first difference is that If I see "FriendlyKnight gained you 10 exp by killing a foozle" I feel different than when I see "The foozle gave you 10 exp". There is a different mentality to progression. The second is that there is variability to progression, a need for trust and dependence. While I could switch my surplus investment of leveling work to another player (avoiding wasted experience on a player trying to grief the system or who quits), I still depend on another person. It never becomes a nominal difference.
  7. sfdaios

    Progressing someone else

    [color=#1C2837][size=2]Player A and Player B either play together or Player A can play on his own and the earned XP goes to Player B This creates a "balance" where Player B then "owes" Player A the same amount of relative work towards their level If the link is terminated the "balance" that Player B has yet to work off is nullified in the form of their XP.[/quote] If the link is terminated. This is mostly there as a potential safeguard for the player's investment. A player can never be certain that they will get their investment back, but they can shift their investment to a new player if the other one is no longer playing or is trying to troll. The player only has incentive to move to someone else once the other player's intentions become clear, in which case the other player does not benefit from the work of the first player, making trolling much more difficult. As far as I know there isn't a game out that uses indirect progression as the only way of vertical progression. Even in your examples you are talking about games that deal with slitting party experience, something that pretty much every MMO does. Linking isn't like partying and the exp isn't split.
  8. sfdaios

    Progressing someone else

    [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."
  9. sfdaios

    Progressing someone else

    [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.
  10. sfdaios

    Progressing someone else

    [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.
  11. sfdaios

    Progressing someone else

    [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.
  12. sfdaios

    Progressing someone else

    [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.
  13. 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.
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!