Lol yeah lets get rid of the week it takes to get to max lvl cause its too hard.
Yeah if that was where the grinding ended I wouldn't have an issue. But I think we all know that when the level grind ends the gear grind starts. That is a grind that is never truly over for most games.
I like to level. I don't like it being excessively standardized such as scaling etc.
That's fine. There is literally every single MMO in existence you can play if that's how you feel given that not a single one has done scaling that actually works. I mean have you ever tried EQ2 scaling? They scale the levels but not the gear so even after scaling vets can still one shot everything while the newb just sits back and watches. But I do agree. Why even do levels if you're going to do scaling?
PvP should stay in FPSs or a dedicated area of the game for it like BGs etc.
Maybe some people enjoy PvP outside small tournament style matches and want to do something on a grander scale? What gives you the right to tell PvPers what kind of games they should be playing?
The WoW fanboys are left to create an echo chamber of what MMOs should be like, which results in even more WoW style MMOs.
They don't listen to us either.
It's the market that drives what MMOs will be. Just like MS drove what OSes would be.
WoW destroyed MMOs in the sense that like Hollywood people copy hits to make money off of it, and those games become cheap knockoffs in the end, dragging innovation down with them.
What's left is the maze of F2P games, and while you can play them for free, F2P games are about making money at your expense. So out of the frying pan into the fire.
It got so bad in WoD I was searching again for MuDs to play.
That's how bad in my view MMORPGs have become, more so that Elder Scrolls is online now and no totally PvE goodness anymore. MMOs are now F2P PvP agility junk. Story/lore destroyed for a cash shop, and for danger, some ganker who always fights someone 20+ levels lower than them, too (added bonus they multi-box and stream their ganks, too).
And I'm not one of the millions of players who has migrated from the MMORPG genre to other titles such as MOBAs, survival games, RTS titles, and FPS titles that lack progression.
Truth is, MOBA's are attractive for what they offer, and in case anyone missed this, their sale point, is "team based PvP combat", not to be confused with "lack of progress"
Even in a survival game, if you live long enough you will far outstrip what a starting player has, they have a rock you have a glock... think about that...
1. Why do people seek out MOBAs for team based combat? Many MMOs have arenas that fill the same general need. Is it possibly because progression ruins PvP?
I have yet to play an MMO that includes Level grind into their "battle arena's" case in Point GW2, Cap Leveled Everyone (IE: You go in at 80th level with Full Access to all skills and Abilities), and gave them the same access to gear, for their sPvP Arena Matches... Yet... in GW2, sPvP tanked hard, where MOBA's are still going strong...
I have yet to play an MMO that DIDN'T have some kind of progression based disparity in their arenas. While the WoW arena brackets with their twinks are the absolute worst example almost every MMO with arena PvP has some kind of "PvP gear" that makes it so that incoming players have to get stomped by vets over and over and over and over to get points to eventually get the gear to become a vet themselves.
Clueless player detected.
WoW uses stat templates for PvP. Gear has very little effect. It's all about skill, now.
Twinks are not nearly the issue they used to be.
There is a PVP leveling system, but it's not grindy. You can get access to all the talent choices in a couple or few days of random BGs and WQs.
I like to level. I don't like it being excessively standardized such as scaling etc.
That's fine. There is literally every single MMO in existence you can play if that's how you feel given that not a single one has done scaling that actually works. I mean have you ever tried EQ2 scaling? They scale the levels but not the gear so even after scaling vets can still one shot everything while the newb just sits back and watches. But I do agree. Why even do levels if you're going to do scaling?
PvP should stay in FPSs or a dedicated area of the game for it like BGs etc.
Maybe some people enjoy PvP outside small tournament style matches and want to do something on a grander scale? What gives you the right to tell PvPers what kind of games they should be playing?
The same thing that gives you the right to speak for them and question someone else's right to give an opinion that is contrary to the wants and wishes of PvPers.
Most PvE MMOs that tried to do PvP have failed at it, unless it was completely siphoned off into its own area of the game. It doesn't work, and developers have to work way too hard to shoehorn it in. This isn't a case of them not trying. Doing this creates an entire apectrum of issues. It's too difficult.
Gear, skills, scaling, class design, etc. in a PvE game often simply doesn't work for PvP. Players aren't MOBs. This works for a time, but once you release that expansion, it doesn't. Once theblevel cap goes up a bit, it doesn't. Once there is possibility for decent gaps in gear power on top of levels, it doesn't. You end up with all sorts of PvP related nerfs etc. WoW is actually a great example of this, and even EQ faced this issue (EQ2, as well).
These are just facts. PvPers should think about another genre if they want anything resembling a balanced game. An MMO won't be able to deliver that, unless the game was built predominantly for that. (Maybe CU or something)
FPS and and MOBAs are a bit more appropriate for the hyper competitive.
I think if WoW somehow managed to have stat templates in world pvp like it does for bg's then it would be the best example of how pvp and pve could coexist. People argue that it would be too difficult to do this because you'd have to constantly be switching between regular stats and template stats if you're simultaneously fighting a mob or another player in the world. But I think a compromise could be made:
If you're fighting a mob first and someone attacks you, then you stay at your normal stats. But if you're fighting a player first and then you attract a mob, then you stay at your template stats until the fight is over.
As far as class imbalance goes, that's just something people have to accept (this is mainly for 1v1). For group pvp particular classes compensate for each other's weaknesses.
Edit: Woops, meant to post this in the world pvp/pve coexistence thread Sry.
I like to level. I don't like it being excessively standardized such as scaling etc.
That's fine. There is literally every single MMO in existence you can play if that's how you feel given that not a single one has done scaling that actually works. I mean have you ever tried EQ2 scaling? They scale the levels but not the gear so even after scaling vets can still one shot everything while the newb just sits back and watches. But I do agree. Why even do levels if you're going to do scaling?
PvP should stay in FPSs or a dedicated area of the game for it like BGs etc.
Maybe some people enjoy PvP outside small tournament style matches and want to do something on a grander scale? What gives you the right to tell PvPers what kind of games they should be playing?
The same thing that gives you the right to speak for them and question someone else's right to give an opinion that is contrary to the wants and wishes of PvPers.
Most PvE MMOs that tried to do PvP have failed at it, unless it was completely siphoned off into its own area of the game. It doesn't work, and developers have to work way too hard to shoehorn it in. This isn't a case of them not trying. Doing this creates an entire apectrum of issues. It's too difficult.
Gear, skills, scaling, class design, etc. in a PvE game often simply doesn't work for PvP. Players aren't MOBs. This works for a time, but once you release that expansion, it doesn't. Once theblevel cap goes up a bit, it doesn't. Once there is possibility for decent gaps in gear power on top of levels, it doesn't. You end up with all sorts of PvP related nerfs etc. WoW is actually a great example of this, and even EQ faced this issue (EQ2, as well).
These are just facts. PvPers should think about another genre if they want anything resembling a balanced game. An MMO won't be able to deliver that, unless the game was built predominantly for that. (Maybe CU or something)
FPS and and MOBAs are a bit more appropriate for the hyper competitive.
First off no I haven't played WoW in awhile. I played it up to level 10 a couple year ago, realized they removed skill trees (AKA the ability to actually make choices and THINK about the game) concluded it was trash and never touched it again. Sorry I don't keep constant updates on a game with a target audience of pre-teens and addicted adults who just can't let go of a game that thinks you're too stupid to make your own builds. My assessment is pretty accurate as to the last time I played.
Great. So you're giving a bunch of problems that are easily solved by removing level/gear progression. Which is the original premise of this topic incase you missed it.
I think people like me would have multiple options if the MMO market was more like other markets. The problem with the MMO market is the diversity of options is much smaller than in any other market.
Poor market diversity has turned into dogmatic beliefs on non-existent criteria you MUST meet to be a "true" MMORPG. Now the entire market has fallen into a cycle of being an echo chamber. The vast majority of people who can't stand WoW style MMOs have left the market because they would rather play a MOBA or a survival game than the same old MMO over and over even if a more unique MMO would fit their preferences better.
The WoW fanboys are left to create an echo chamber of what MMOs should be like, which results in even more WoW style MMOs.
We'll never get good MMOs that appeal to more than one audience so long as we listen to the same old people who have been cheerleading the decline of MMOs.
I am 100% convinced that if someone created an MMO that shifted emphasis from progression to immersion that there would be a huge market for it. It's just that your primary market for that MMO is comprised largely of people who have already given up on MMOs, and thus aren't represented on sites like this.
What I do know is there're thousands of MMO's and they're not all the same. Yes artificial progression is a common trait of most of them, but there're other common traits too, like community mechanics and combat activities. There're so many I can't even begin to list them. Some are bizarre, browser-based, or have old graphics.
Some aren't really like that, but more just social sandbox. Recent example is Second Life. There're lots of RP-centric worlds in Second LIfe with few or no levels. Older example is Active Worlds or Furcadia. Several others have tried this, like Blue Mars and maybe Gary's Mod. Some MMO's are a blend, usually sandbox with weaker artificial progression, like Reign of Kings or Minecraft servers.
I'm not sure if you've answered this or not, but I'll ask now. What's the difference between artificial progression (like levels) and building a fort with your clan in a PvP persistent world? In both cases, there's a barrier. Levels are a barrier because one player can have a higher level than another. A fort is a barrier because your larger smarter clan builds a larger smarter fort than a different clan. Both, IMHO, are gaps. This can happen in PvE, if a larger/smarter fort is better than a smaller/dumber fort. These gaps splinter the community, separating the haves from the have nots, or hte noobs from the veterans. One has something over the other in concrete terms. A complimentary relationship is better, but it can still easily be the source of gaps. One can heal and the other punches, but since both need each other there's a interdependency gap. Where there's a gap, there must be a design response to minimize it.
I think you'll eventually get exactly what you want. But I don't think progression problems are ever going away. Because even if you remove artificial progression, the natural barriers remain. Removing artificial progression might be good, however. But evenso, our desire to aspire for greater things causes gaps. Sometimes I wonder if the answer isn't staring us in the face, or put another way, all around us. There's a natural decay and anbd recycling in reality. This counters the gaps which form. Imagine if nothing ever degraded or died or recycled in our reality? The balance would be gone. Not only would this cause trouble for young people, having to compete with old immortals, but we'd reach any existing dead ends faster. What would life be like with nothing more to do or learn? Would we lose our minds from boredom? Maybe we'd do what reality stopped doing and reinvent degradation and recycling, just to do it all over again.
I'm reminded of a short story named Programmed for Destruction by John Gribbin. The premise behind the story is uncontrolled growth of robots eventually leads to the entire cosmos being unavailable for biology. A dominant civilization created robots to destroy other robots seeking to grow. Ironically, no biologicals exist in great numbers either, since they instinctively destroy themselves in wars and complacency. End result is everythijng seems to be "programmed" to self-destruct.
Horizontal or Vertical Level Progression is the essence of RPG games. It's there to show progression through character build. I don't understand why people complain about this. If level grinding is not for you then maybe MMORPGs/RPGS are not for you. Most, if not all classic RPGS had some form of level grind, whether that is through character level or skill level it will be there. The trick is how you mask the grind to feel like the grind is not there.
Having levels in a game is just a tired old-school mechanic that needs to die.
Then what is the alternative? Character progression is essential to RPG gameplay. Please enlighten us.
What people dont realize is that skill based progression which is what most people that complain about levels will say is the alternative is essentially the same thing, character overall level is just an aggregate simplification.
I think a lot of "the grind" nowadays is really a mentality thing, if you look at a game like WoW right now, there are thousands of things to do, goals to achieve, professions, crafting, pets, battlegrounds, quests, reputation, vanity gear, raiding, and the list goes on.... But most people have been conditioned to get to max level and grind for gear for raiding, it is only a grind if you make it, it is only a grind if all you want is to raid to get that higher item level and focus just on that, then yeah it is going to be a dreadful grind, if you just enjoy all the content equally then there is a lot to do when you login.
Having levels in a game is just a tired old-school mechanic that needs to die.
Then what is the alternative? Character progression is essential to RPG gameplay. Please enlighten us.
The problem isn't with levels, or progression, as general concepts. The issue with levels and progression is the typical implementation of those features in most MMOs.
Specifically:
1) Linear content - vertical progression typically results in linear content. You complete the level 1 content, then move on to level 2, then 3 etc etc until the level cap.
2) Grouping - levels, or more specifically, power gaps make forming groups much harder than they ought to be.
3) Power Gaps - in your standard progression implementation, power gaps are huge. This hurts balance and longevity of content, as well as kills most pvp.
4) Challenge / Balance - lets say a game has 1000 hours of content. At any given moment in your journey, typically only 20 hours of content is actually balanced for you. The rest is either trivial (you've outleveled it) or too hard (you haven't leveled far enough).
In essense, what I'm saying is that vertical progression that results in power gaps and linear content is anathema to MMOs. Massively multiplayer....these games are supposed to be about playing with other people, yet the standard implementation of progression has resulted in exactly the opposite, as clearly seen by how solo orientated most games are. Group content these days is mostly restricted to endgame which, coincidentally, is where the power gaps usually reduce or stop as everyone finally reaches similar levels of gear/skills/progression.
The challenge is to design a progression system that doesn't result in power gaps, otherwise known as horizontal progression. Or, design an RPG with no progression in it. Progression, whilst very common, is not what actually defines an RPG. My favourite way of thinking about horizontal progression is "specialism" instead of "improvement".
So, imagine I start a game with horizontal progression. I start as a melee fighter who is a bit of an all rounder. As I progress, I unlock more weapon types and skills that allow me to specialise. I could go down the armour piercing route, doing less raw damage but avoiding armour (making me more effective against tanks, but less effective against clothies). I could go down the AoE route, making me better in large scale battles but worse in duels. I could go down the burst damage route, making me better against clothies but worse against tanks.
In this way, my character is still progressing and unlocking new abilities and talents, but I am having to make a conscious choice as to how I want to play and build my toon, accepting that as I get better in one area, I get worse in another, thus averaging out the power.
Perception often creates reality. I was so engaged story wise when I played TSW, I never thought about leveling in any way. I thought about getting the next part of the story. I started to struggle and I realized ok time to upgrade my skills. While what I said is leveling in a sense as you move on, if it doesn't feel like leveling or is not perceived as leveling to the player, than I believe my experience may serve as an example. I imagine many others have had similar experiences in TSW or other games. My question is what separates those games from the others for you?
Perception often creates reality. I was so engaged story wise when I played TSW, I never thought about leveling in any way. I thought about getting the next part of the story. I started to struggle and I realized ok time to upgrade my skills. While what I said is leveling in a sense as you move on, if it doesn't feel like leveling or is not perceived as leveling to the player, than I believe my experience may serve as an example. I imagine many others have had similar experiences in TSW or other games. My question is what separates those games from the others for you?
I guess it would come down to whether you are solo or group focused, and whether you enjoy stories or not.
Stories are usually linear. This means a linear story system will match up with a linear progression system more easily. Stories are also usually best experienced solo, so that other players don't break immersion, so again if you don't have to group up with other people then you generally won't care about power gaps and the like.
For me, I hate stories in computer games and have always felt that stories get in the way of good gameplay. I am also a group-orientated player - the good times are enhanced through shared experiences and the bad times are lessened by sharing the pain. However, in most MMOs I find myself constantly unable to group with friends and guildies because we're different levels, or at different points in a quest chain etc. The progression mechanics directly hinder grouping, which in my mind is ridiculous given that we're playing massively-multiplayer games...
I would love to see some hard data on this but my hunch is that the vast majority of gamers do not play games for the story.
its somewhat backed up when one looks at the best selling games of all time of which I think only 2 contain a story and I think most people know its not played for the story
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Horizontal or Vertical Level Progression is the essence of RPG games. It's there to show progression through character build. I don't understand why people complain about this. If level grinding is not for you then maybe MMORPGs/RPGS are not for you. Most, if not all classic RPGS had some form of level grind, whether that is through character level or skill level it will be there. The trick is how you mask the grind to feel like the grind is not there.
@Eronakis - And I think the one of those two forms I bolded and underlined is a form more of us would like to see be the primary progression in the games we play.
I have no issue whatsoever with Horizontal Progression. I don't think much have anyone else has said they do either.
Horizontal Progression doesn't have me doing quests I don't want to do and rushing through the quests I actually enjoy doing just to get to get to the endgame faster.
Horizontal Progression doesn't cause me to lose PvP matches in which I am the better player, with the better built character, and more skill at playing my build.
Horizontal Progression doesn't make it so it isn't fun to play together with my friend who has been playing more or less time.
Horizontal Progression doesn't make older content stupidly easy with each expansion because of power creep.
Horizontal Progression doesn't make me feel like I'm grinding at all.
Horizontal Progression takes the few things I like about Vertical Progression and implements them without all the massive downsides of it.
Having levels in a game is just a tired old-school mechanic that needs to die.
Then what is the alternative? Character progression is essential to RPG gameplay. Please enlighten us.
You already answered your own question. Horizontal Progression. In the original Guild Wars you hit 20 with the best gear fairly fast then spend the rest of the game and all the expansions afterward hunting down equal but different skills and cool new armor with the same stats.
Having levels in a game is just a tired old-school mechanic that needs to die.
Then what is the alternative? Character progression is essential to RPG gameplay. Please enlighten us.
What people dont realize is that skill based progression which is what most people that complain about levels will say is the alternative is essentially the same thing, character overall level is just an aggregate simplification.
I think a lot of "the grind" nowadays is really a mentality thing, if you look at a game like WoW right now, there are thousands of things to do, goals to achieve, professions, crafting, pets, battlegrounds, quests, reputation, vanity gear, raiding, and the list goes on.... But most people have been conditioned to get to max level and grind for gear for raiding, it is only a grind if you make it, it is only a grind if all you want is to raid to get that higher item level and focus just on that, then yeah it is going to be a dreadful grind, if you just enjoy all the content equally then there is a lot to do when you login.
The grind is quite meaningful if:
A. You want to do the same content as your friends who are a different level. B. You want to actually be competitive in PvP. C. Any of the PvE content you want to be doing is gated to higher level.
For instance when I first played WoW I had a friend who brought me into it. I was actually kind of enjoying my game experience but I wanted to be playing with my friend. I ended up really pushing levels instead of just enjoying the game experience so I could go play with my friend faster. This caused the game to get boring and I burnt out.
ArcheAge is another great example. I was running trade packs all day every just to get to the upper tiers of gear. Some of the swipers had gear so good they could one shot lower level players and cut through moderate level players in no time flat. I wanted to mix my trade with PvP. I wanted to spend at least half my time out fighting. But all I did was the gold grind because PvP with those kind of disparity levels isn't even fun, and you have to grind constantly to have even semi-good gear.
Finally in EQ2 the friend who brought me in was really into high level small group content and was going on about how great it was but how hard it was to find good people to do it with. Despite the fact she actually made a new character to level together with me there was always that element of wanting to get to the content she really wanted to be doing and doing it together.
In Lord of The Rings Online I really enjoyed the questing for the most part. While they had a lot of boring and uninspired quests like any game they had a lot of lore rich and very flavorful quests too. Especially in the hobbit zone. But when I slowed down to enjoy that content everyone in my guild passed me by and I was under a lot of pressure as the guild leader to get to the highest levels so I could help run endgame content.
I wasn't "conditioned" to want to get to max level super fast. The game actively pushes you there and often ruins your experience in various fashions unless you make that your focus. And the only way to solve that is removing vertical progression entirely.
I like leveling, I play Diablo cause I can level forever
I played the original Wizardry and all of my party got over level 350
I played Asheron's Call cause I could continue leveling forever as well
Because without things to grind for, MMO's die. PvP is the expectation.
Peeps blame the evil grind like there's any way on MMO is going to be able to provide PvE-wise content to the player for years without a grinding approach to progression. >.>
Because without things to grind for, MMO's die. PvP is the expectation.
Peeps blame the evil grind like there's any way on MMO is going to be able to provide PvE-wise content to the player for years without a grinding approach to progression. >.>
Well, mainly because there is.
1. Give people things to build. This doesn't have to be full Minecraft style but people are just as willing to progress their houses / property as their characters. This is a proven effective way to keep people entertained.
2. Give people horizontal progression for their characters. If people have new skills and armor to seek out they don't actually necessarily care if it is definitively stronger than their old stuff. Greater build customization, cosmetics, titles etc. These are all things that interest achievers even if they don't make them stronger.
3. Mini-games. Not all mini-games have to be PvP oriented. Think of the mini-games found in Zelda titles or Runescape. You can have solo mini-games, cooperative mini-games, and competitive mini-games that appeal to all types of players and can burn hundreds of hours of player time.
I'm sure I can think of more but you (hopefully) get the point. There are game models that kill plenty of time without progression that aren't based on PvP.
I believe leveling a character itself should be removed from the MMO genre and replaced with a system where you level up the character's active/passive skills, equipment/weapons, stat points, etc. When I see character's having to level up, it limits players to trying different skills, different kinds of equipment sets, and changing up their stats. Most of the MMOs now of days have pre-located stats, locked equipment/weapons for certain classes and bound to using certain skills. I'd like to see more open options for players to become whoever they want to be.
Comments
Maybe some people enjoy PvP outside small tournament style matches and want to do something on a grander scale? What gives you the right to tell PvPers what kind of games they should be playing?
It's the market that drives what MMOs will be. Just like MS drove what OSes would be.
WoW destroyed MMOs in the sense that like Hollywood people copy hits to make money off of it, and those games become cheap knockoffs in the end, dragging innovation down with them.
What's left is the maze of F2P games, and while you can play them for free, F2P games are about making money at your expense. So out of the frying pan into the fire.
It got so bad in WoD I was searching again for MuDs to play.
That's how bad in my view MMORPGs have become, more so that Elder Scrolls is online now and no totally PvE goodness anymore. MMOs are now F2P PvP agility junk. Story/lore destroyed for a cash shop, and for danger, some ganker who always fights someone 20+ levels lower than them, too (added bonus they multi-box and stream their ganks, too).
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
WoW uses stat templates for PvP. Gear has very little effect. It's all about skill, now.
Twinks are not nearly the issue they used to be.
There is a PVP leveling system, but it's not grindy. You can get access to all the talent choices in a couple or few days of random BGs and WQs.
Most PvE MMOs that tried to do PvP have failed at it, unless it was completely siphoned off into its own area of the game. It doesn't work, and developers have to work way too hard to shoehorn it in. This isn't a case of them not trying. Doing this creates an entire apectrum of issues. It's too difficult.
Gear, skills, scaling, class design, etc. in a PvE game often simply doesn't work for PvP. Players aren't MOBs. This works for a time, but once you release that expansion, it doesn't. Once theblevel cap goes up a bit, it doesn't. Once there is possibility for decent gaps in gear power on top of levels, it doesn't. You end up with all sorts of PvP related nerfs etc. WoW is actually a great example of this, and even EQ faced this issue (EQ2, as well).
These are just facts. PvPers should think about another genre if they want anything resembling a balanced game. An MMO won't be able to deliver that, unless the game was built predominantly for that. (Maybe CU or something)
FPS and and MOBAs are a bit more appropriate for the hyper competitive.
If you're fighting a mob first and someone attacks you, then you stay at your normal stats. But if you're fighting a player first and then you attract a mob, then you stay at your template stats until the fight is over.
As far as class imbalance goes, that's just something people have to accept (this is mainly for 1v1). For group pvp particular classes compensate for each other's weaknesses.
Edit: Woops, meant to post this in the world pvp/pve coexistence thread
Great. So you're giving a bunch of problems that are easily solved by removing level/gear progression. Which is the original premise of this topic incase you missed it.
Some aren't really like that, but more just social sandbox. Recent example is Second Life. There're lots of RP-centric worlds in Second LIfe with few or no levels. Older example is Active Worlds or Furcadia. Several others have tried this, like Blue Mars and maybe Gary's Mod. Some MMO's are a blend, usually sandbox with weaker artificial progression, like Reign of Kings or Minecraft servers.
I'm not sure if you've answered this or not, but I'll ask now. What's the difference between artificial progression (like levels) and building a fort with your clan in a PvP persistent world? In both cases, there's a barrier. Levels are a barrier because one player can have a higher level than another. A fort is a barrier because your larger smarter clan builds a larger smarter fort than a different clan. Both, IMHO, are gaps. This can happen in PvE, if a larger/smarter fort is better than a smaller/dumber fort. These gaps splinter the community, separating the haves from the have nots, or hte noobs from the veterans. One has something over the other in concrete terms. A complimentary relationship is better, but it can still easily be the source of gaps. One can heal and the other punches, but since both need each other there's a interdependency gap. Where there's a gap, there must be a design response to minimize it.
I think you'll eventually get exactly what you want. But I don't think progression problems are ever going away. Because even if you remove artificial progression, the natural barriers remain. Removing artificial progression might be good, however. But evenso, our desire to aspire for greater things causes gaps. Sometimes I wonder if the answer isn't staring us in the face, or put another way, all around us. There's a natural decay and anbd recycling in reality. This counters the gaps which form. Imagine if nothing ever degraded or died or recycled in our reality? The balance would be gone. Not only would this cause trouble for young people, having to compete with old immortals, but we'd reach any existing dead ends faster. What would life be like with nothing more to do or learn? Would we lose our minds from boredom? Maybe we'd do what reality stopped doing and reinvent degradation and recycling, just to do it all over again.
I'm reminded of a short story named Programmed for Destruction by John Gribbin. The premise behind the story is uncontrolled growth of robots eventually leads to the entire cosmos being unavailable for biology. A dominant civilization created robots to destroy other robots seeking to grow. Ironically, no biologicals exist in great numbers either, since they instinctively destroy themselves in wars and complacency. End result is everythijng seems to be "programmed" to self-destruct.
I think a lot of "the grind" nowadays is really a mentality thing, if you look at a game like WoW right now, there are thousands of things to do, goals to achieve, professions, crafting, pets, battlegrounds, quests, reputation, vanity gear, raiding, and the list goes on....
But most people have been conditioned to get to max level and grind for gear for raiding, it is only a grind if you make it, it is only a grind if all you want is to raid to get that higher item level and focus just on that, then yeah it is going to be a dreadful grind, if you just enjoy all the content equally then there is a lot to do when you login.
Specifically:
1) Linear content - vertical progression typically results in linear content. You complete the level 1 content, then move on to level 2, then 3 etc etc until the level cap.
2) Grouping - levels, or more specifically, power gaps make forming groups much harder than they ought to be.
3) Power Gaps - in your standard progression implementation, power gaps are huge. This hurts balance and longevity of content, as well as kills most pvp.
4) Challenge / Balance - lets say a game has 1000 hours of content. At any given moment in your journey, typically only 20 hours of content is actually balanced for you. The rest is either trivial (you've outleveled it) or too hard (you haven't leveled far enough).
In essense, what I'm saying is that vertical progression that results in power gaps and linear content is anathema to MMOs. Massively multiplayer....these games are supposed to be about playing with other people, yet the standard implementation of progression has resulted in exactly the opposite, as clearly seen by how solo orientated most games are. Group content these days is mostly restricted to endgame which, coincidentally, is where the power gaps usually reduce or stop as everyone finally reaches similar levels of gear/skills/progression.
The challenge is to design a progression system that doesn't result in power gaps, otherwise known as horizontal progression. Or, design an RPG with no progression in it. Progression, whilst very common, is not what actually defines an RPG. My favourite way of thinking about horizontal progression is "specialism" instead of "improvement".
So, imagine I start a game with horizontal progression. I start as a melee fighter who is a bit of an all rounder. As I progress, I unlock more weapon types and skills that allow me to specialise. I could go down the armour piercing route, doing less raw damage but avoiding armour (making me more effective against tanks, but less effective against clothies). I could go down the AoE route, making me better in large scale battles but worse in duels. I could go down the burst damage route, making me better against clothies but worse against tanks.
In this way, my character is still progressing and unlocking new abilities and talents, but I am having to make a conscious choice as to how I want to play and build my toon, accepting that as I get better in one area, I get worse in another, thus averaging out the power.
Stories are usually linear. This means a linear story system will match up with a linear progression system more easily. Stories are also usually best experienced solo, so that other players don't break immersion, so again if you don't have to group up with other people then you generally won't care about power gaps and the like.
For me, I hate stories in computer games and have always felt that stories get in the way of good gameplay. I am also a group-orientated player - the good times are enhanced through shared experiences and the bad times are lessened by sharing the pain. However, in most MMOs I find myself constantly unable to group with friends and guildies because we're different levels, or at different points in a quest chain etc. The progression mechanics directly hinder grouping, which in my mind is ridiculous given that we're playing massively-multiplayer games...
its somewhat backed up when one looks at the best selling games of all time of which I think only 2 contain a story and I think most people know its not played for the story
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I have no issue whatsoever with Horizontal Progression. I don't think much have anyone else has said they do either.
A. You want to do the same content as your friends who are a different level.
B. You want to actually be competitive in PvP.
C. Any of the PvE content you want to be doing is gated to higher level.
For instance when I first played WoW I had a friend who brought me into it. I was actually kind of enjoying my game experience but I wanted to be playing with my friend. I ended up really pushing levels instead of just enjoying the game experience so I could go play with my friend faster. This caused the game to get boring and I burnt out.
ArcheAge is another great example. I was running trade packs all day every just to get to the upper tiers of gear. Some of the swipers had gear so good they could one shot lower level players and cut through moderate level players in no time flat. I wanted to mix my trade with PvP. I wanted to spend at least half my time out fighting. But all I did was the gold grind because PvP with those kind of disparity levels isn't even fun, and you have to grind constantly to have even semi-good gear.
Finally in EQ2 the friend who brought me in was really into high level small group content and was going on about how great it was but how hard it was to find good people to do it with. Despite the fact she actually made a new character to level together with me there was always that element of wanting to get to the content she really wanted to be doing and doing it together.
In Lord of The Rings Online I really enjoyed the questing for the most part. While they had a lot of boring and uninspired quests like any game they had a lot of lore rich and very flavorful quests too. Especially in the hobbit zone. But when I slowed down to enjoy that content everyone in my guild passed me by and I was under a lot of pressure as the guild leader to get to the highest levels so I could help run endgame content.
I wasn't "conditioned" to want to get to max level super fast. The game actively pushes you there and often ruins your experience in various fashions unless you make that your focus. And the only way to solve that is removing vertical progression entirely.
I played the original Wizardry and all of my party got over level 350
I played Asheron's Call cause I could continue leveling forever as well
PvP is the expectation.
Peeps blame the evil grind like there's any way on MMO is going to be able to provide PvE-wise content to the player for years without a grinding approach to progression. >.>
1. Give people things to build. This doesn't have to be full Minecraft style but people are just as willing to progress their houses / property as their characters. This is a proven effective way to keep people entertained.
2. Give people horizontal progression for their characters. If people have new skills and armor to seek out they don't actually necessarily care if it is definitively stronger than their old stuff. Greater build customization, cosmetics, titles etc. These are all things that interest achievers even if they don't make them stronger.
3. Mini-games. Not all mini-games have to be PvP oriented. Think of the mini-games found in Zelda titles or Runescape. You can have solo mini-games, cooperative mini-games, and competitive mini-games that appeal to all types of players and can burn hundreds of hours of player time.
I'm sure I can think of more but you (hopefully) get the point. There are game models that kill plenty of time without progression that aren't based on PvP.