Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

the level flaw!

The problem with level based games.

1- Lazy Development: When I talk about “Lazy Development” I am talking about a simple development path which can be a plague to innovation. You have a very easy time establishing levels, and what certain levels can perform and wear. Like, your level 5 character can pretty much fight other level 5 creatures, wear level 5 equipment, and get level 5 skills and abilities. This makes it very easy for developers to just slap together a path that your character will take.

2- PVP Woes: PVP with level based games can be frustrating unless your foe is the same level (give or take a few). Level based games help promote grieving while making it frustrating for low level character to even compete. I saw a level 40 character sitting down naked in a dual with a level 20 character and taking hardly any damage at all. Just doesn’t seem feasible.

3- Death Penalty Mayhem: Should they take experience away? Death Sickness? Perma Death? Lose a Level? Equip damage?

4- Grinding: enough said.

5- Time Earned Equipment: Equipment, Items, and Weapons that are VALUABLE only because it takes a long time achieving them. This can be under grinding but a grinding game that incorporated wicked items to players that invest time can be rewarding, but also created either an irreplaceable item at your level or causes reluctance in a game where there is free loot on PVP.

6- The health bar: the health bar is a silly idea to me.


An open skill based system or similar would encourage innovation in the way developers design quests, items, equipment. PVP could be more engaging as level wouldn’t be the only factor for victory. It would bring back the need and want for Items to be wicked.

If you have items that are achieved through victories, quests, or just random drops. Items that are not level based but give a boost to damage either based on skill or just a raw number would be valuable across the board.. not to just others of the same level.

Ehh… I just hate level based games.. here is my previous rant to save me more typing.

What is wrong with the MMO gaming industry?
What is wrong with the gaming industry? Why do all the latest fantasy games that come out mirror their ancestors? Where is the innovation? Where is the breath of fresh air into the gaming community? Regardless if the game is a real time strategy or a mmorpg it gives me the sense that these are all the same “play” just different actors. Mostly with the MMO games I see this. I can easily get into a mmorpg, but they are tedious, boring, and same old stuff over and over. It is EVERQUEST with different graphics. Here are some of the similarities that MOST mmorpg’s share.

1-Level Grinding: The continuous combat that has to take place with HORDES of tiny monsters outside your starting town to gain enough experience and levels. To move to the bigger and tougher monsters that are a bit farther from town, then you will come across another town and “YAY” more monsters there to kill to get to a higher level.

2-Redundant Monsters: You are in a fantasy world that consists of HORDES and HORDES of the same monsters that have nothing better to do than to stand out in a field, forest somewhere waiting to be killed.

3-Illogical treasure: Well I love killing spiders and finding coins, killing giant flies and finding a sword. That is great I love illogical items that wouldn’t be on those creatures. Makes me feel like I am IN A REAL WORLD. roles eyes

4-Level Requirements: Items and or armor that require that you be a CERTAIN level or other illogical requirements. Like you have to have a certain intelligence to wear a hat. Umm it is a HAT people. (I don’t mind certain strength requirements and mild dex requirements to use agility based weapons) but keep is subtle and keep it logical.

5-Lack of Freedom: I am not talking about climbing buildings and picking apples from trees and climbing through windows, because I know that is a hard thing to code in a game. But I am talking about simple freedoms that other characters have. How many times have you just wanted to wield a shield, or wield a sword and use it but unfortunately you are wizard, or thief, and some class that CAN’T use that sword or shield. Now I understand that it wouldn’t be what they wouldn’t NORMALY use so I am all for gimping them out a bit if they are wearing armor or weapons they are not supposed too. But in the battlefield, any warrior would use any tools available at the time to stay alive.

6-Level Based: Enough said.

7-Redundancy: Anyone who has played for hours and are still looking at the same monster knows exactly what I am talking about. And who cares of the colors is different. It is the SAME monster.

8-Static Questing: I LOVE going on a Quest… a job, a duty for ME to take on. To make me feel special. And when I get to my questing location. I see a line of 10+ people going for the exact same thing as me. Hmmm I am not so special. Now I know making a dynamic questing mechanic is a bit difficult for these lazy developers, but at least find a way (ala Guild Wars) to make the quests separate on their own. If I am really NOT special then at least blind me to the idea that I am. Cause if the quest was designed to kill “John Doe” and get his Helmet. It is not balanced if you get there and John Doe and his protectors are DEAD and when he “spawns” again 10 people take him down instantly and frantically go for his helmet. Not very balanced.

9-Plain Combat: Most people play MMORPGs to go around killing stuff. Yes there is Crafting and the ability to make weapons and armor is certain games but the real excitement is when you take on a creature toe to toe. Well, 99% of games out there are wack, wack, wack, wack, wack and you do that until their little red bar is gone and they fall over and your red bar goes down too. And you will have these specials you can do “combat abilities or spells” and that will have a delayed attack but will do more damage. That is what 99% of the other games have out there. I know it would take more EFFORT but it is possible to add flavor. Body Targeting, with complications. Knock down to leg shots, drop weapon with arm shots. Something that is easy to recover from as game play stance, but in game can cause a problem as difficulty when fighting monsters.

10-The Bunnies: Why do most MMOs start you off as a character that can barely take on a Rabbit, Frog, Tiny Beetle, Bat, or something that ME Frank Mesa can kill with my BARE HANDS non the less a SWORD. These games should at least make weak: logically: tougher looking creatures, this of course is a plagued side effect of LEVEL BASING you game.

11-The Ever-Sharper Sword: I love when I get a good weapon that is a nice sharp iron sword, and it does good damage to what I am attacking and I would love to get attached to this weapon, but I realize that within a days time I go through 3-4-5 weapons because there is always a sharper sword. This motif works with almost everything in these games, a sword that does 1-2 then 1-3, then 2-3, then 2-4, then 3-5, then 4-5, then 5-7, -then 6-8 and on and on and on and on and on. This is also a terrible side effect of Level Based Games. But I don’t believe there would ever bee 1000 levels of swords ranging from 1-2 to 687-900 points of damage. Regardless of magical influence. These swords have way too many variations of silly swords. I think there should be a lot of variation but some of these games are silly with it.


Sorry had to get that off my chest. I know most of these problems are seriously impacted by making a game level based. Level based games are a developer’s EASY way of advancing your character without having to seriously worry about balance issues and having loads of details statistics that a SKILL based game would solve. Ehh.. I don’t know.. I have given up hope for now. I guess I have been playing too much GEAS, and UO.

image

«1

Comments

  • RazorbackRazorback Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 5,253

    Nice post PG. I have to say I agree with pretty much all of it.

    Im sure your aware of Roma Victor, they have certainly tried to address the bulk of the issues you raise in the development of RV. Hopefully more companies will start addressing the things that make the current crop of MMO's so "samey" and bland.

    +-+-+-+-+-+
    "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
    http://purepwnage.com
    image
    -+-+-+-+-+-+
    "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon

  • spookytoothspookytooth Member Posts: 508

    I feel the same way on all points...

    I'll add a seventh point to why level based gaming sucks though:

    7. Levels create an unnatural barrier that seperates players geographicaly. We end up with zones - the level 50 players are where the level 50 mobs are, and the level 10 players are where the level 10 mobs are. So there are these barriers everywhere that not only determine where you can go, but also who you can interact with.

  • PangaeaPangaea Member Posts: 434


    Originally posted by spookytooth
    I feel the same way on all points...I'll add a seventh point to why level based gaming sucks though:7. Levels create an unnatural barrier that seperates players geographicaly. We end up with zones - the level 50 players are where the level 50 mobs are, and the level 10 players are where the level 10 mobs are. So there are these barriers everywhere that not only determine where you can go, but also who you can interact with.


    Very true.. it breaks a community up based on experience.

    I free roaming world of open skill based characters would be refreshing.

    The RP would be much richer.

    image

  • TallonXTallonX Member Posts: 364

    Try Guild wars :P

    ~I am going to rule the world someday, I promiseness :D~

  • PangaeaPangaea Member Posts: 434


    Originally posted by TallonX
    Try Guild wars :P

    Guild wars has the right idea.

    I happen to like guildwars.

    The problems I have with it drive me away a bit.

    Lack of enough armor apearances, level based still, TOO many instancing.

    In Guild Wars I feel like I am running around alone mostly and warmping to cities where there are tons of people.

    There is a nice feeling to be in a huge seamless world where you can run into someone far away from a town and be like ..'WHOA, how are you?"


    They still have the healthbar as well.

    One thing I see is that guildwars is designed primarily around leveling you up to 20 and pvp competition.

    I wouldn't mind actuall perma death.

    The thing I hate more in an MMO than failing a mission and dieing, is the fact they let me respawn and retry that mission. I would prefer perma-death over the unsatisfied feeling of failing.

    When it takes you 4-5 LIVES to pass a quest. It takes away the luster.

    image

  • darktravestydarktravesty Member Posts: 199


    Originally posted by spookytooth
    I feel the same way on all points...I'll add a seventh point to why level based gaming sucks though:7. Levels create an unnatural barrier that seperates players geographicaly. We end up with zones - the level 50 players are where the level 50 mobs are, and the level 10 players are where the level 10 mobs are. So there are these barriers everywhere that not only determine where you can go, but also who you can interact with.
    Excellent point. The more I think about this the more I realize that it really is a major issue that new MMOs need to address.
  • spookytoothspookytooth Member Posts: 508


    Originally posted by darktravesty
    Originally posted by spookytooth
    I feel the same way on all points...I'll add a seventh point to why level based gaming sucks though:7. Levels create an unnatural barrier that seperates players geographicaly. We end up with zones - the level 50 players are where the level 50 mobs are, and the level 10 players are where the level 10 mobs are. So there are these barriers everywhere that not only determine where you can go, but also who you can interact with.
    Excellent point. The more I think about this the more I realize that it really is a major issue that new MMOs need to address.


    Sadly their way of addressing it thus far is to, for instance, have "sidekicks" or the like. So you can bring one person along for the ride.
    Unfortunatley thats just a work-around, and doest realy address the fundemantal problem.

  • SnaKeySnaKey Member Posts: 3,386


    Originally posted by Pangaea
    TOO many instancing. In Guild Wars I feel like I am running around alone mostly and warmping to cities where there are tons of people.

    That's because GW isn't a MMO. GW is basically just like D2 but instead of chat rooms they have cities.


    BTW: How about some Screenies of your game?

    myspace.com/angryblogr
    A Work in Progress.
    Add Me
  • PangaeaPangaea Member Posts: 434


    Originally posted by SnaKey
    Originally posted by Pangaea
    TOO many instancing. In Guild Wars I feel like I am running around alone mostly and warmping to cities where there are tons of people.
    That's because GW isn't a MMO. GW is basically just like D2 but instead of chat rooms they have cities.


    BTW: How about some Screenies of your game?



    Can't it isn't a computer game :)


    I can take pics of people playing it if you want ;)

    image

  • PangaeaPangaea Member Posts: 434

    The other problem with Level system is after enough time the majority of players will be high level players.

    The majority of the players with be 60 after enough time. This scews the economy of the game as majority of people have 100s of gold while beginners have much less trying to get up the latter.

    image

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183


    Originally posted by Pangaea
    The problem with level based games.. I know it would take more EFFORT but it is possible to add flavor. Body Targeting, with complications. Knock down to leg shots, drop weapon with arm shots. Something that is easy to recover from as game play stance, but in game can cause a problem as difficulty when fighting monsters.

    Swg used to have that :(

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • GamewizeGamewize Member Posts: 956

    Very good points, PG. Most companies use levels becuase its simpler, and they don't care about being original whatever gets them more money without too much work.

    I'd love to see a ame that can balance god PvP and PvE, eradicate levels, and have battles determined, bot by armor or weapons, but by skill. Unfortunatly, this would take alot of work, which most companies are unwilling to do. Eve Online did a pretty good job, but its too slow and boring for most people to be fun.

    I think it's the objective of your past self to make you cringe.

  • codexiacodexia Member Posts: 120

    Very good points, and I have to say I agree with all of them.  Want to gain sword levels?  Keep swinging your sword, don't walk up to somebody and say "I want to use a sword"  "ok!"  *POOF* You can now magicaly use a sword as well as a master :P

    A fully seemless world would be fun, and scary ^^ imagine walking through a forest nearby, you see what appears to be a tree walking around, looks flimsy enough, so you take a whack at it.  Oops...you died =/ big time.

    Immersion in most games is almost nonexistant now.  I'm not saying no game can do it, but no game can do it permenently.  The only thing I disagree with actually...is permadeath.  I don't think dying should remove your character from the game (mostly because of frustration.  While I like the idea of death having a serious impact, working for months to have a good character, then dying and losing everything, whether its the character, or everything he worked for, would just be to annoying) I do think you should have consequences like failing your mission, no chances for retaking it, or something along those lines.

  • KelathosKelathos Member Posts: 73

    Well everyone likes to make a profit, no?

    I myself never played EQ, was consumed by UO at the time. However, I have spent plenty of hours in level based MMOs, from DAoC, AC2, and WoW. I get a good feeling for what the appeal of the leveling carrot is. It is usually seductive the first time around, and back when EQ was new it was seen as a certain success for the next generation.

    Yet I find level based games lose just enough of the freedoms I enjoyed in UO to make me wish I was playing something else. With that I tried SWG when it was just released. Sad to say, I found it a poor attempt and moved on without having other games taking up the task of defeating the leveling carrot.

    To that end, I agree with the OP and Gamewize and hope our future level-less open ended games succeed.

  • SothornSothorn Member UncommonPosts: 67

    I started MMOs with UO.  And nothing has come close to the community-centric feeling that UO gave.

    The fact that it was skill based allowed people that had just gotten the game to team with people that had been playing for years.

    My number 1 complaint today with MMOs are, it breaks up my guild and hunting parties.  As we (my playing group) have aged, some of us have more RL responsibilities than others.  The level systems somewhat breaks up our group.  Those of us who can play longer, out level those of us who cant...and it makes teaming very difficult.  COH/COV tried the "bandaid" approach with sidekicking, but really that is just as patch...it doesnt fix the issue of the levelling system breaking up the community.

  • VampirVampir Member Posts: 4,239



    Originally posted by Pangaea

    The problem with level based games.
    6- The health bar: the health bar is a silly idea to me.



    i agree with everything but that....

    pleasee explain


     

    image

    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.

  • JoshFatalJoshFatal Member Posts: 42

    There are a lot of flaws in this dude's post. I'm surprised nobody's seen it yet, but maybe it's because this is a post designed to pull at the strings of the UO crowd.


    Lazy Development: When I talk about “Lazy Development” I am talking about a simple development path which can be a plague to innovation. You have a very easy time establishing levels, and what certain levels can perform and wear. Like, your level 5 character can pretty much fight other level 5 creatures, wear level 5 equipment, and get level 5 skills and abilities. This makes it very easy for developers to just slap together a path that your character will take.

    How simple is it? Tell us, how do YOU know how simple it is? I'm sorry, but these games don't use a single check of a number to see if you'll win or not. We don't just have a Level; along with that Level comes different attributes, skills, etc. The same goes for the enemy. The Level, however, is just a rough estimate of whether we'll succeed or not, and even that tends to curve around a bit for different classes (ie. a Warrior may be able to take even-level foes with ease, but a Priest may have to work a bit harder and might have to make sure there aren't any other creatures who'd jump in.)

    Granted, it's not CREATIVE, but it's not LAZY either. As I said, the Level system is in place to give players an easier time figuring out whether they can fight something or not.



    PVP Woes: PVP with level based games can be frustrating unless your foe is the same level (give or take a few). Level based games help promote grieving while making it frustrating for low level character to even compete. I saw a level 40 character sitting down naked in a dual with a level 20 character and taking hardly any damage at all. Just doesn’t seem feasible.

    And a skill-based system would prevent this? Just as with PvE (see above) a character's Level defines how powerful they are vs. the other character. With a skill-based system in place, the "problem" you defined would STILL happen - you just wouldn't be able to tell at first whether you could kill somebody easily or die horribly or not.

    So what you're saying is, without these artificial boundaries, in a game where you just level skills and don't have a number telling others how strong you are, there would be no grieving at all? Why??


    Death Penalty Mayhem: Should they take experience away? Death Sickness? Perma Death? Lose a Level? Equip damage?

    How is this a problem? And furthermore, how is this LESS of a problem in a skill-based game?



    Grinding: enough said.

    No. NO! You do not write an article on something you're trying to argue, and just fill in "ENOUGH SAID" on some point you disagree with. That's like saying "Any idiot can see what's wrong with this. I don't have anything to say about it, anyway." Say what you have to say about it, instead of giving us a pretentious two-word answer.

    The problem is, grinding will exist in practically any MMO, level-based or not. Your "enough said" bandaid attempts to cover a fundamental flaw in your logic: Skill-based games STILL REQUIRE grinding. (Unless you're talking about Eve, which I hear levels your stuff up over time. Wee.)

    Let's take the beloved UO. Isn't that game that made botting popular? People didn't like sitting in one place doing the same thing in order to raise a SINGLE SKILL, so they'd have a bot do it for them, while they slept. The thing is with UO, and other skill-based games, is since they have less structure, they give off a simulation of giving you a variety of things to do. The problem in UO with this is, everything was STILL a grind. Want to be a fighter? Good, go swing a sword around at a practice dummy or other monsters until your skill goes up. Want to mine? You can do that... by repeatedly mining stuff over and over. Even fishing involves standing in one place for HOURS clicking the same button over and over.

    Oh sure, you're not gaining an entire character level from doing nothing but fishing, so people regard the game as more "in-depth" because you have to train at individual things instead of everything as a whole. And this is LESS of a grind??

    Sorry, no. Grinding isn't a Level problem. It's an MMO problem. You should also take note that in level-based games, you usually are stuck with one class (or at least, one class at a time.) Gaining a level in one class raises your attributes by a certain amount, as appropriate for that class. In skill-based games, there's also a cap on how many skills you can get and how high you can get them. Skill or level, you still have a limit on what you can be. The only real difference here is skills require a little more work and come off as a little more creative.

    Another problem with a pure skill-based game is the more options players are given, the greater the opportunity they have to "screw up" and gimp their character. Asheron's Call comes to mind.


    Time Earned Equipment: Equipment, Items, and Weapons that are VALUABLE only because it takes a long time achieving them. This can be under grinding but a grinding game that incorporated wicked items to players that invest time can be rewarding, but also created either an irreplaceable item at your level or causes reluctance in a game where there is free loot on PVP.

    Again, what does this have to do with a Level-based game? A skill-based game could do exactly the same thing, only instead of putting a level restriction on an item, they could put, say, a very high STRENGTH or AGILITY requirement on it.
    Are you pushing for more player-run economies in an MMO? That's fine, it's even an idea I kind of like. In fact, I have a bunch of great ideas for an MMO where equipment is provided entirely from other players.

    However, that's neither here nor there. You're trying to make a case against level-based games, and throwing in points that have nothing to do with it. Case in point:


    The health bar: the health bar is a silly idea to me.

    Why is a graphical representation of how close you are to dying a silly idea? And furthermore, what the hell does that have to do with anything?


    An open skill based system or similar would encourage innovation in the way developers design quests, items, equipment. PVP could be more engaging as level wouldn’t be the only factor for victory. It would bring back the need and want for Items to be wicked.

    Explain how it would encourage such innovation, please. In all MMOs, there has to be some sort of measure of difficulty, and the point is for characters to reach that point in strength so they can tackle said difficulty. You think by removing Levels, it would remove any problem associated with that? No! All it does is encourage more grinding, as well as more trial and error. (If more trial and error is what you wanted, you should've said that to begin with.) For example:

    LEVEL-BASED GAME: I probably can't do this quest yet, because it's a level 42 and I'm only level 36. Perhaps I can get a group together of people a little higher than me, or similar to me, and do it. Otherwise, I'll just level up with other quests or enemies closer to my range.

    SKILL-BASED GAME: Let's see if I can handle this quest. Oops, no, I failed. Maybe I need to raise my weapon skill up a bit more, or increase my strength or defense. While I'm at it, I ought to make my health go up some more, and uh... what else. Perhaps I'll get a group together to do the quest. I don't know what kind of players should come with me, though, so I'll just ask them what all of their skills and stats are.
    Maybe now I'm ready for that quest!

    I'll admit my example is a bit skewed, but seeing as how your entire article here is skewed, I figured I ought to offer some of the negatives that could come with a purely skill-based system. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a game that SUCCEEDS in passing the limitations of Levels, but the key word here is: SUCCEEDS. If a skill-based game still offers a grind and a series of restrictions, but along with that removes the ease of figuring out what I can and cannot take, I don't want to bother.

    And your argument for PvP is both hypocritical, and incorrect. First, LEVEL is NOT the sole factor for victory. Right now, I'm playing WoW and Guild Wars, for example. Go ahead and laugh, but these are both good examples. In WoW, I can kill somebody a few levels higher than me, or get offed by somebody a few levels lower than me. There IS an element of skill in what you have to do in combat. It's not just based on your LEVEL. Same with GW, where the level range is even smaller. I SUCK at PvP in GW... against people of similar level! It's not because of equipment or levels or anything like that, it's because of my selection of abilities and when I use or do not use them.

    Your argument is hypocritical because just previously, you were ranting about how you don't like these super items that require an investment of time. Yet, in games like that, those types of items really offer an edge in PvP combat. Besides, I thought you wanted SKILL, hmmm? What does having a really powerful weapon or suit of armor have to do with skill, if it was just earned from grinding or buying it off a player who crafted it (with money made from grinding, no doubt)?


    If you have items that are achieved through victories, quests, or just random drops. Items that are not level based but give a boost to damage either based on skill or just a raw number would be valuable across the board.. not to just others of the same level.

    Uh, practically every game does this, pal. You do a quest, you get a good item. You get a random drop (FROM GRINDING!!!) you can get a good item. Items with level (or even skill) requirements DO, in fact, present a raw number across the board. In some games (again, WoW) your skill with a certain weapon defines how often you'll hit with it. The Level requirement is just in place to prevent lower-level characters from wielding stuff they have no business wielding yet, and flying through game content and imbalancing everything. Level requirements were originally added to lower the opportunity for twinking.

    Sure, I can buy stuff for my lower-level guy, but I have to get him stuff he can actually WEAR. In a skill-based game, there would STILL be skill requirements (as opposed to level requirements.) You'd still need to achieve a LEVEL in that skill, however.

    Now I'll go onto your next, redundant, article:


    1-Level Grinding: The continuous combat that has to take place with HORDES of tiny monsters outside your starting town to gain enough experience and levels. To move to the bigger and tougher monsters that are a bit farther from town, then you will come across another town and “YAY” more monsters there to kill to get to a higher level.

    Again: Skill-based games do the same thing; they just offer the illusion of you fine-tuning your character.


    2-Redundant Monsters: You are in a fantasy world that consists of HORDES and HORDES of the same monsters that have nothing better to do than to stand out in a field, forest somewhere waiting to be killed.

    Has nothing to do with level-based games. You talk earlier of random drops, getting cool gear, etc. But you don't want monsters standing around? What should they be doing? And don't say "RAIDING OUR CITIES" either. That can't happen 24/7, and even if it does (assuming they automate it as I'm sure no game could accomplish GM-run events 100% of the time) how does that make the game different? We're still killing random monsters.


    3-Illogical treasure: Well I love killing spiders and finding coins, killing giant flies and finding a sword. That is great I love illogical items that wouldn’t be on those creatures. Makes me feel like I am IN A REAL WORLD. roles eyes

    You're NOT in a real world. These games do not take PLACE in a real world. Get over that. Less and less games are going by this format, however. Sure, it still exists a little bit, but they're getting a little more realistic about loot tables.

    Even so, why does it matter?


    4-Level Requirements: Items and or armor that require that you be a CERTAIN level or other illogical requirements. Like you have to have a certain intelligence to wear a hat. Umm it is a HAT people. (I don’t mind certain strength requirements and mild dex requirements to use agility based weapons) but keep is subtle and keep it logical.

    Is it a MAGICAL hat? Perhaps the player needs a high enough Int requirement to understand how to unlock the magical potential in the hat!

    What would you like INSTEAD of level requirements? I ask you, what would make the game BETTER?


    5-Lack of Freedom: I am not talking about climbing buildings and picking apples from trees and climbing through windows, because I know that is a hard thing to code in a game. But I am talking about simple freedoms that other characters have. How many times have you just wanted to wield a shield, or wield a sword and use it but unfortunately you are wizard, or thief, and some class that CAN’T use that sword or shield. Now I understand that it wouldn’t be what they wouldn’t NORMALY use so I am all for gimping them out a bit if they are wearing armor or weapons they are not supposed too. But in the battlefield, any warrior would use any tools available at the time to stay alive.

    This comes from D&D, the grandaddy of all RPGs, I'm afraid. Wizards can't wear armor, because for some reason, the armor conflicts with their magical powers. Thieves can't wear armor because, get real, what good are they gonna be sneaking around in PLATE?

    While I do agree with offering more freedom in a game (without including the option of gimping your character, of course) I do understand the "lack of freedom" that comes from having a class is just there to encourage players to stick to their class. You don't roll a Wizard and expect to fight like a Warrior, do you? You roll a Wizard to be a Wizard. Otherwise, roll a Warrior. Games that allow both fighting and magic (for example) either do so sloppily (you either suck at magic, or suck at fighting) or offer "Hybrid" classes that may be effective in their own way.

    The only thing you're not getting with a system like this is the satisfaction in knowing you crafted your character from scratch. Otherwise, you're just as free to do what you want in the game, as you pick your class.


    6-Level Based: Enough said.

    Are you kidding me?! You write TWO articles, and in both of them you said "ENOUGH SAID" for practically the same thing?!


    7-Redundancy: Anyone who has played for hours and are still looking at the same monster knows exactly what I am talking about. And who cares of the colors is different. It is the SAME monster.

    Speaking of redundancy, you already made this point. And it's just as irrelevent now as it was then.


    8-Static Questing: I LOVE going on a Quest… a job, a duty for ME to take on. To make me feel special. And when I get to my questing location. I see a line of 10+ people going for the exact same thing as me. Hmmm I am not so special. Now I know making a dynamic questing mechanic is a bit difficult for these lazy developers, but at least find a way (ala Guild Wars) to make the quests separate on their own. If I am really NOT special then at least blind me to the idea that I am. Cause if the quest was designed to kill “John Doe” and get his Helmet. It is not balanced if you get there and John Doe and his protectors are DEAD and when he “spawns” again 10 people take him down instantly and frantically go for his helmet. Not very balanced.

    Balance has nothing to do with it. You're playing a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME. Get used to everybody doing the same thing you're doing, or stick to Guild Wars, which is pretty much an Online Single Player RPG (not that I mind. I love GW.) Even in GW, everybody's doing the same thing, you just can't see them doing it.

    Don't get me wrong, I HATE having to WAIT IN LINE to complete a quest, and this is why I'm a huge fan of instancing stuff. So, I will agree with you that this aspect of questing has to go, but not because I want to feel special. I accept that the game world isn't logical (or advanced) enough to craft individually unique quests for each and every one of us. Just let me do a quest without having to wait for a damn respawn.


    9-Plain Combat: Most people play MMORPGs to go around killing stuff. Yes there is Crafting and the ability to make weapons and armor is certain games but the real excitement is when you take on a creature toe to toe. Well, 99% of games out there are wack, wack, wack, wack, wack and you do that until their little red bar is gone and they fall over and your red bar goes down too. And you will have these specials you can do “combat abilities or spells” and that will have a delayed attack but will do more damage. That is what 99% of the other games have out there. I know it would take more EFFORT but it is possible to add flavor. Body Targeting, with complications. Knock down to leg shots, drop weapon with arm shots. Something that is easy to recover from as game play stance, but in game can cause a problem as difficulty when fighting monsters.

    These elements are already in games. Have you not been paying attention for the past five or so years?


    10-The Bunnies: Why do most MMOs start you off as a character that can barely take on a Rabbit, Frog, Tiny Beetle, Bat, or something that ME Frank Mesa can kill with my BARE HANDS non the less a SWORD. These games should at least make weak: logically: tougher looking creatures, this of course is a plagued side effect of LEVEL BASING you game.

    I do agree that getting to a higher-level area only to find (DRUMROLL) more "powerful" rabbits is a major pet peeve. Again, though, you subject your otherwise-decent point to bias by going "THIS IS IN LEVEL-BASED GAMES." No, sorry, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with being level-based. It has to do with being lazy.


    11-The Ever-Sharper Sword: I love when I get a good weapon that is a nice sharp iron sword, and it does good damage to what I am attacking and I would love to get attached to this weapon, but I realize that within a days time I go through 3-4-5 weapons because there is always a sharper sword. This motif works with almost everything in these games, a sword that does 1-2 then 1-3, then 2-3, then 2-4, then 3-5, then 4-5, then 5-7, -then 6-8 and on and on and on and on and on. This is also a terrible side effect of Level Based Games. But I don’t believe there would ever bee 1000 levels of swords ranging from 1-2 to 687-900 points of damage. Regardless of magical influence. These swords have way too many variations of silly swords. I think there should be a lot of variation but some of these games are silly with it.

    Yet, above you were stating you want PvP to be more gear-based, and that equipment should have a flat number across the board instead of level requirements.

    What would you like for variation besides potential damage?



    Sorry had to get that off my chest. I know most of these problems are seriously impacted by making a game level based. Level based games are a developer’s EASY way of advancing your character without having to seriously worry about balance issues and having loads of details statistics that a SKILL based game would solve. Ehh.. I don’t know.. I have given up hope for now. I guess I have been playing too much GEAS, and UO.

    And again: You're wrong. You haven't shown us at aLL in this article how most of these problems are impacted by making a game level-based. You haven't stated how a SKILL-BASED game would solve balance issues better than a level-based game (which still has different skills all over the place; just associated with a level.)

    In short: Your arguments suck. 'Enough said.'

  • PangaeaPangaea Member Posts: 434


    Originally posted by Vergeltung
    Originally posted by Pangaea
    The problem with level based games.
    6- The health bar: the health bar is a silly idea to me.
    i agree with everything but that....
    pleasee explain


    Sorry I should have went into detail. I was lazy when writing that!

    The health bar is a perfect idea for level based games cause as you level your health goes up, making you harder to kill for lower leveled characters/monster.

    The health bar is the "fuel tank" of your life, if it runs out you have to re-spawn.

    I don't like the constant whacking away at each other while out red bars go down. and when they hit 0 or empty we re-spawn. Seems Silly to me and this is why.

    I think you as a character should have a certain amount of life that can be increased if you wish as long as you put experience into certain skills or abilities (like toughness or more life).

    (Example of this problem: Level 40 character can remove all armor and walk into a field of level 20 dragons and it would take these dragons for ever to kill him. why?)

    I don't think health should ever get to an insane amount. At most, twice your starting health.

    I think you can raise your health slightly, use a toughness rating to reduce damage taken (but only slightly) Use a other factors to slightly adjust and modify the damage you can take before it becomes fatal.

    Let us say your starting health is 10.
    You can Max your health out at 20 naturally through experience.
    You can also buy extra abilities to increase your cap slightly to 25 or 30 at most.

    Then you set a raw standard to how much damage you can take in ONE blow to any vital part of your body before you are considered dead or fatally wounded.

    Head/Neck = lets say can take 5 points of damage in one hit before it becomes critical (you fall unconscious but don’t' die , in some cases your toughness or other physical factors can raise this damage to 7-8 point before critical, or make the likeliness to fall unconscious through critical hits much lower)

    Then you can say that 10 points of damage to your head is fatal (and the same rules apply to the toughness or criticals)

    Slashing to the neck could cause blood loss. (loss of strength )
    Blunt to the head can cause temporary stun damage (loss of accuracy on defending and attacking)

    Chest and stomach:
    You can say that the critical damage to the chest and stomach could be 7-8 pts while deadly strikes range in damage from 14-16 (with the same rules of Critical unconscious, and fatal, with blood loss and so forth.


    You are then asking, wow so little damage will kill you? Well here is where equipment should come in. I think equipment should be VERY important and NOT class or level based. Anyone can pick up anything to use it but their proficiency with it will determine their accuracy and probability of using it with full effectiveness.


    Arms and legs can take only so much damage before becoming disabled (5) . But won’t be fatal or critical unless your health runs out or you take too much damage to several limbs.

    Damage will induce PAIN, pain is tied into damage via a formula.. the more damage you take the more pain you suffer.

    Pain reduces your accuracy to successfully attack or defend. As you get hurt you become more and more susceptible to take more hits.

    With the health bar concept a fighter can fight just as good when 2 health as he does with 5000 health. I can tell you from experience if you take damage you will be MUCH less effective in battle.

    There can be different types of armor that can be layered.
    Leather (natural pliable)
    Hardened leather (natural rigid)
    Chain mail (pliable)
    Then Plate (rigid)

    These can have a STRAIGHT damage reduction value
    STANDARD ARMOR (not magical or enchanted)
    Leather -2 damage,
    Hardened leather -4 damage,
    Chain -4/-6,
    Plate -6/-8,
    Shields -8/-10

    Keep in mind there is layering so you can have leather, with mail then plate.. giving total damage reduction on any covered body location (by all 3) a -12 value, (meaning that I would have to hit you in the chest for 13 points of damage to just inflict 1 point on you.

    Make rules for Armor damage (Any armor that takes more damage than DOUBLE it armor value will break or take durability damage. (Meaning your plate will be the first to go then the chain and leather. The more damage you take to it the faster it will break or fall off.

    Give weapons a +value

    Dagger +1 or +2,
    Short Sword +2 or +3
    Sword +3 or +4
    Long Sword +4 or +5
    Claymore +5 or +6
    Great Sword +6 or +7

    Keep it as the standard class nothing too insane without going into magical or enchanted properties.. a sword can ONLY be so sharp before it really can’t do much more damage.. same with other weapon types. You can add damage modified using magic or enchanted properties that can be purchased, found, and or created.

    The damage will be Strength + weapon class = total damage

    Strength should also not be very high.. should be tied in with your health so the more damage you take the weaker you become.

    Strength of 1-10 + Claymore can deal 6-15 damage respectfully. (stabbing reduces armor class by ½ but harder to accomplish)

    You keep a combat system based on logical premises and remove levels.. you can have a real experienced bad ass with wicked equipment could destroy a beginner with no armor or weapon, but change the roles and a beginner could kill an unarmed u armored hero.


    If you give me “frank mesa” a katana, and full pliable body armor, I could kill and defeat Mike Tyson in his prime rather easily. Or even the greatest martial artist my chances would be VERY GOOD at killing him.

    image

  • darkedone02darkedone02 Member UncommonPosts: 581

    I got to agree with you about the Lazy development, but listen... It helps make the game more challenging and prevent everyone from being a super uber noob, when he got level 112 equipment and he's only level 9. Grinding is a pain in the ass, cause sometimes you really need much better exp to level up to get this useful ability(ies) to help me out, but you end up grinding once again... For my opinion, mmorpgs need to get a crafting system up and allow you to earn some medium to major exp for both level up and skill gaining. The Health bar!? why do you think that's a level up flaw!? The health bar is there to tell you your hitpoints, and how much you got to survive the whole damn Quest/mission so you don't end up dying and suffered a Death Penelty.

    since you people are complaining about this level up flaw, the Companies will never hear your complain, however you can show them right up there faces if you make your very own mmorpg that carries all these things that will revolutionnize the mmo gaming industry.

    image

  • Ryder22Ryder22 Member Posts: 132
    I love this post ......i've been thinking about putting this up for months and you hit it right on the money......good job.

    "The definition of over doesn't have to be, "The End"

    image

  • PangaeaPangaea Member Posts: 434


    Originally posted by JoshFatal
    How simple is it? Tell us, how do YOU know how simple it is? I'm sorry, but these games don't use a single check of a number to see if you'll win or not. We don't just have a Level; along with that Level comes different attributes, skills, etc. The same goes for the enemy. The Level, however, is just a rough estimate of whether we'll succeed or not, and even that tends to curve around a bit for different classes (ie. a Warrior may be able to take even-level foes with ease, but a Priest may have to work a bit harder and might have to make sure there aren't any other creatures who'd jump in.)

    Granted, it's not CREATIVE, but it's not LAZY either. As I said, the Level system is in place to give players an easier time figuring out whether they can fight something or not.


    I am stating that it is an easy way out, because lets take a simple example : you and me both create a dwarven paladin, we both do all the same quests and get to level 20.

    We strip our equipment and there is NOTHING that sets us apart. NOTHING. You are right that is NOT creative, but also makes it easy for developers to calculate your path and makes them design quests much easiler along with making equipment for you an easy task. Reason I say this is cause there is a FORMULA when you are in a level based game. You can TELL if you can kill something in the game or NOT... WHY? Why should you ever tell this at all? If I took you into the wild and showed you a small bobcat.. could you tell me if you could kill him with a dagger or not? or how easy it would be? Level basing a game is a design that was created YEARS ago. how can it NOT be easier to follow thaqt formula than to create something NEW?


    And a skill-based system would prevent this? Just as with PvE (see above) a character's Level defines how powerful they are vs. the other character. With a skill-based system in place, the "problem" you defined would STILL happen - you just wouldn't be able to tell at first whether you could kill somebody easily or die horribly or not.

    So what you're saying is, without these artificial boundaries, in a game where you just level skills and don't have a number telling others how strong you are, there would be no grieving at all? Why??


    Who said anythgin about UO skill mechanic.

    I prefer a percentile system more than UO or Level based Skills.

    Percentile system always gives room for error.. and if you read my previous post you would know that your touchness is not tied completly with your level or SKILL it is your equipment. So you can save your breath there.



    How is this a problem? And furthermore, how is this LESS of a problem in a skill-based game?

    Death Penalty should be Perma Death. and again.. quit mentioned Skill based games.. this isn't about SKILL based games it is more of a anti-level based thread. Quit being so defensive.




    No. NO! You do not write an article on something you're trying to argue, and just fill in "ENOUGH SAID" on some point you disagree with. That's like saying "Any idiot can see what's wrong with this. I don't have anything to say about it, anyway." BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH "Sorry, no. Grinding isn't a Level problem. It's an MMO problem. You should also take note that in level-based games, you usually are stuck with one class (or at least, one class at a time.) Gaining a level in one class raises your attributes by a certain amount, as appropriate for that class. In skill-based games, there's also a cap on how many skills you can get and how high you can get them. Skill or level, you still have a limit on what you can be. The only real difference here is skills require a little more work and come off as a little more creative.

    Another problem with a pure skill-based game is the more options players are given, the greater the opportunity they have to "screw up" and gimp their character. Asheron's Call comes to mind.


    Again this is all about a SKILL based game you are hating on. You are SOO touchy. This isn't about SKILL BASED as in UO it is about probability basing your characters successes.

    When I say GRINDING I mean the DEFINITINO of a GRIND. it to have to KILL the same monster OVER and OVER to get experience. and OVER AND OVER.. and OVER and over. That SHOULD not be the way it is. How is it fun to know that ANYONE can get to where you are if they just sat at the keyboard long enough. I can honestly put a monkey on WOW and given enough time he can be level 60. may take years.. but how does that make you feel?

    It is pointless to attack UO or any other skill based game when rebuting this post cause I am not really Touting them as godly mechanics either. And since you don't know what game mechanic I actually favor. you are clueless as to what I am really for here. You probably never read my previous posts monthes ago about what game mechanic I would want in a game huh?


    Again, what does this have to do with a Level-based game? A skill-based game could do exactly the same thing, only instead of putting a level restriction on an item, they could put, say, a very high STRENGTH or AGILITY requirement on it.
    Are you pushing for more player-run economies in an MMO? That's fine, it's even an idea I kind of like. In fact, I have a bunch of great ideas for an MMO where equipment is provided entirely from other players.

    However, that's neither here nor there. You're trying to make a case against level-based games, and throwing in points that have nothing to do with it. Case in point:


    Again I don't like requirements for weapons unless it is a small strength requirement to LIFT the ting off the ground or an agility requirement to swing it well. I dont' think it should be anythign that would be incredibly higher than your starting stats at MOST. And I pretty much ignore what you were saying abotu Skill based games. I am just stating that most if not all level based games out there have a LEVEL requirement or some kind of Requirement to even USE the weapon. Silly illogical ones like Intelligence to wear a hat. That is just silly.



    The health bar: the health bar is a silly idea to me.

    Why is a graphical representation of how close you are to dying a silly idea? And furthermore, what the hell does that have to do with anything?[/quote]

    Read my previous post and you will see what I mean. :)



    Explain how it would encourage such innovation, please. In all MMOs, there has to be some sort of measure of difficulty, and the point is for characters to reach that point in strength so they can tackle said difficulty. You think by removing Levels, it would remove any problem associated with that? No! All it does is encourage more grinding, as well as more trial and error. (If more trial and error is what you wanted, you should've said that to begin with.) For example:

    LEVEL-BASED GAME: I probably can't do this quest yet, because it's a level 42 and I'm only level 36. Perhaps I can get a group together of people a little higher than me, or similar to me, and do it. Otherwise, I'll just level up with other quests or enemies closer to my range.

    SKILL-BASED GAME: Let's see if I can handle this quest. Oops, no, I failed. Maybe I need to raise my weapon skill up a bit more, or increase my strength or defense. While I'm at it, I ought to make my health go up some more, and uh... what else. Perhaps I'll get a group together to do the quest. I don't know what kind of players should come with me, though, so I'll just ask them what all of their skills and stats are.
    Maybe now I'm ready for that quest!

    I'll admit my example is a bit skewed, but seeing as how your entire article here is skewed, I figured I ought to offer some of the negatives that could come with a purely skill-based system. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a game that SUCCEEDS in passing the limitations of Levels, but the key word here is: SUCCEEDS. If a skill-based game still offers a grind and a series of restrictions, but along with that removes the ease of figuring out what I can and cannot take, I don't want to bother.

    And your argument for PvP is both hypocritical, and incorrect. First, LEVEL is NOT the sole factor for victory. Right now, I'm playing WoW and Guild Wars, for example. Go ahead and laugh, but these are both good examples. In WoW, I can kill somebody a few levels higher than me, or get offed by somebody a few levels lower than me. There IS an element of skill in what you have to do in combat. It's not just based on your LEVEL. Same with GW, where the level range is even smaller. I SUCK at PvP in GW... against people of similar level! It's not because of equipment or levels or anything like that, it's because of my selection of abilities and when I use or do not use them.

    Your argument is hypocritical because just previously, you were ranting about how you don't like these super items that require an investment of time. Yet, in games like that, those types of items really offer an edge in PvP combat. Besides, I thought you wanted SKILL, hmmm? What does having a really powerful weapon or suit of armor have to do with skill, if it was just earned from grinding or buying it off a player who crafted it (with money made from grinding, no doubt)?


    Negative. When I say open skill system I am not refering to UO style of skill. Nor Eve Online.

    Think of skills as in Endowments, or Feats, or things like that

    Your character is based on %s. and your feats, endowments and skills will modify those.

    Your analogy is that I wont be able to complete a quest cause my sword skill is too high???

    Well in the mechanic I would want.. "anything is possible with the right tools"

    I could see a starting character going on a tough mission with 6 other starting characters and they come out alive when they should be dead due to luck, stradegy, and player skill. A game that sets limits like the ones you are talking about are the same games that I dislike for the reasons I give.



    Uh, practically every game does this, pal. You do a quest, you get a good item. You get a random drop (FROM GRINDING!!!) you can get a good item. Items with level (or even skill) requirements DO, in fact, present a raw number across the board. In some games (again, WoW) your skill with a certain weapon defines how often you'll hit with it. The Level requirement is just in place to prevent lower-level characters from wielding stuff they have no business wielding yet, and flying through game content and imbalancing everything. Level requirements were originally added to lower the opportunity for twinking.

    Sure, I can buy stuff for my lower-level guy, but I have to get him stuff he can actually WEAR. In a skill-based game, there would STILL be skill requirements (as opposed to level requirements.) You'd still need to achieve a LEVEL in that skill, however.

    Now I'll go onto your next, redundant, article:


    Actually Umm.. your defense to this is that "every game does this". ok.. then it must be right? You keep thinking I am promoting some game that is in excistence on the market.. Relax man.. You are right.. ALOT of games deal with things in a cheap way.. thank you for seeing my point. WOW give your Coins when you kill a WOLF.. OHh that is logical.. Guildwars gives you Weapons off of stupid seed creatures.

    Come on.



    Again: Skill-based games do the same thing; they just offer the illusion of you fine-tuning your character.

    Not that I promote Skill based games but I would rather FINE tune them then have a SUPER GENERIC STATIC stats that all over characters share. come on now.

    "All mmorpgs make you immortal.. sure they offer the illusion of you dying to make you feel like you died.. but you just respawn again with some penalty."

    Come on now.. lets not get to flimsy here.



    Has nothing to do with level-based games. You talk earlier of random drops, getting cool gear, etc. But you don't want monsters standing around? What should they be doing? And don't say "RAIDING OUR CITIES" either. That can't happen 24/7, and even if it does (assuming they automate it as I'm sure no game could accomplish GM-run events 100% of the time) how does that make the game different? We're still killing random monsters.

    Name a Level based game that DOESN'T have this.

    Ohh and yes my take on this would be randomly generated quests, randomly roaming monsters somewhere other than 10 feet from your town.

    Have regeons. have Line of sight have random monsters spawn in areas due to probability of thier habitat.. you may find a monster that you didnt' know excisted in the "Corecresh mountains" Cause it was just roaming by.

    To see 20 BloodBand Clan members just sitting around walking back and forth is just stupid.




    You're NOT in a real world. These games do not take PLACE in a real world. Get over that. Less and less games are going by this format, however. Sure, it still exists a little bit, but they're getting a little more realistic about loot tables.

    Even so, why does it matter?


    I know i am not in a Real world.. I am talking about LOGICAL TREASURE.. FANTASY AND LOGIC can excist in the same universe.

    just because there are gnomish mages and magical spells, and large dragons roaming the country side doens't mean that a Wolf will drop a pair of boots.. or a Long Sword.

    You are arguing points you THINK I mean when I don't.


    Is it a MAGICAL hat? Perhaps the player needs a high enough Int requirement to understand how to unlock the magical potential in the hat!

    What would you like INSTEAD of level requirements? I ask you, what would make the game BETTER?


    Unlock the capabilites sure.. to wear it NO. in WOW of warcrafft.. why can't your mage use a Shield at all??? can you answer that? Does he need the ability to UNLOCK its powers? LOL



    This comes from D&D, the grandaddy of all RPGs, I'm afraid. Wizards can't wear armor, because for some reason, the armor conflicts with their magical powers. Thieves can't wear armor because, get real, what good are they gonna be sneaking around in PLATE?

    While I do agree with offering more freedom in a game (without including the option of gimping your character, of course) I do understand the "lack of freedom" that comes from having a class is just there to encourage players to stick to their class. You don't roll a Wizard and expect to fight like a Warrior, do you? You roll a Wizard to be a Wizard. Otherwise, roll a Warrior. Games that allow both fighting and magic (for example) either do so sloppily (you either suck at magic, or suck at fighting) or offer "Hybrid" classes that may be effective in their own way.

    The only thing you're not getting with a system like this is the satisfaction in knowing you crafted your character from scratch. Otherwise, you're just as free to do what you want in the game, as you pick your class.


    I feel that any character should be able to USE any peice of equipment but with a penalty if they are not proficient with it.



    Are you kidding me?! You write TWO articles, and in both of them you said "ENOUGH SAID" for practically the same thing?!

    Yes that is what I said. just cause one of level based games flaws are level basing your character.



    Speaking of redundancy, you already made this point. And it's just as irrelevent now as it was then.

    Yes regardless of the ever growing monsters the fact that they all look alike suck too :)




    Balance has nothing to do with it. You're playing a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME. Get used to everybody doing the same thing you're doing, or stick to Guild Wars, which is pretty much an Online Single Player RPG (not that I mind. I love GW.) Even in GW, everybody's doing the same thing, you just can't see them doing it.

    Don't get me wrong, I HATE having to WAIT IN LINE to complete a quest, and this is why I'm a huge fan of instancing stuff. So, I will agree with you that this aspect of questing has to go, but not because I want to feel special. I accept that the game world isn't logical (or advanced) enough to craft individually unique quests for each and every one of us. Just let me do a quest without having to wait for a damn respawn.


    Well I agree that there should be instances in certain cases to reduce the flood of people to the same hotspot.

    But like I said earlier I think there should be random questing, a mechanic for generating random quest points. and targets in certain locations.

    AC2 did this a bit.


    9-Plain Combat: :

    These elements are already in games. Have you not been paying attention for the past five or so years?


    Name a game where I can target your neck or eyes, or trip you by HITTING YOUR LEG.. rather than just pushing a button that says "TRIP" Body locations with complications..

    Neck causes blood loss, Head = stun, hand = loss fo weapon, legs = knock down %

    I been around awhile and haven't seen anythgin like this. SWG had something close but nothing like I am talkigna bout.


    I do agree that getting to a higher-level area only to find (DRUMROLL) more "powerful" rabbits is a major pet peeve. Again, though, you subject your otherwise-decent point to bias by going "THIS IS IN LEVEL-BASED GAMES." No, sorry, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with being level-based. It has to do with being lazy.

    So you agree that Blizzard and most other MMOs that use this mechanic are LAZY? awhiel back you said they weren't.


    Yet, above you were stating you want PvP to be more gear-based, and that equipment should have a flat number across the board instead of level requirements.

    What would you like for variation besides potential damage?


    Weapons should be a static number that only change rarely when you really can afford a better weapon.. not change out every 2 hours.. check my previous post for my examples.


    And again: You're wrong. You haven't shown us at aLL in this article how most of these problems are impacted by making a game level-based. You haven't stated how a SKILL-BASED game would solve balance issues better than a level-based game (which still has different skills all over the place; just associated with a level.)

    In short: Your arguments suck. 'Enough said.'


    Wow you are very bitter and defensive. it doens't suck at all.. you just misunderstood my argument you keep thinking I am PRO UO.

    If you live in the Arizona Area I can invite you to come play a game with percentile mechanics that will show you it is possible to do what it is I am mentioning without being UO.

    image

  • codexiacodexia Member Posts: 120

    "Give weapons a +value

    Dagger +1 or +2,
    Short Sword +2 or +3
    Sword +3 or +4
    Long Sword +4 or +5
    Claymore +5 or +6
    Great Sword +6 or +7"

    The flaw with this is that everybody takes either the biggest sword for the most damage, or the biggest one handed sword so they can have a shield.  Armor types should be involved, as well as different types of weapons.  Blunt weapons (like maces) can actually ignore most armor, because it crushes bone instead of trying to pass through the armor (maces were used against people in plate mail with devestating effect, since it would shape the armor to their bodies when they hit it, crushing bone as well as driving metal into the wound, and almost universaly destroying the plate armor since it was so hard to shape in the first place).  Pointed weapons, like daggers and the rapier, could bypass most link armors because the blade slipped through, even on plate mail if you were good enough.   Swords were only really effective (unless you had a big one like claymore and great sword) on unarmored or lightly armored opponents.  Axes worked on almost everything maces worked on, and spears were like thicker daggers, but mostly better at stopping cavalry, since weilding a spear in melee combat is very hard to get an effective attack with (i love how games have people with spears fighting 2 foot goblins with daggers, and they expect you to be able to hit them easily with every attack with effective power behind that attack.  oh well, just me being picky i suppose)

    I assume you were just using an example, but with the damage reduction rules you want, you would need a lot more then just raw damage on weapons, you would need specific weapon types to bypass specific armor types.  Although just using a mace would bypass nearly any armor, but you couldn't do that in a game, cause then there would only be maces.  :P

  • PangaeaPangaea Member Posts: 434


    Originally posted by codexia
    "Give weapons a +value
    Dagger +1 or +2, Short Sword +2 or +3Sword +3 or +4Long Sword +4 or +5Claymore +5 or +6Great Sword +6 or +7"
    The flaw with this is that everybody takes either the biggest sword for the most damage, or the biggest one handed sword so they can have a shield. Armor types should be involved, as well as different types of weapons. Blunt weapons (like maces) can actually ignore most armor, because it crushes bone instead of trying to pass through the armor (maces were used against people in plate mail with devestating effect, since it would shape the armor to their bodies when they hit it, crushing bone as well as driving metal into the wound, and almost universaly destroying the plate armor since it was so hard to shape in the first place). Pointed weapons, like daggers and the rapier, could bypass most link armors because the blade slipped through, even on plate mail if you were good enough. Swords were only really effective (unless you had a big one like claymore and great sword) on unarmored or lightly armored opponents. Axes worked on almost everything maces worked on, and spears were like thicker daggers, but mostly better at stopping cavalry, since weilding a spear in melee combat is very hard to get an effective attack with (i love how games have people with spears fighting 2 foot goblins with daggers, and they expect you to be able to hit them easily with every attack with effective power behind that attack. oh well, just me being picky i suppose)
    I assume you were just using an example, but with the damage reduction rules you want, you would need a lot more then just raw damage on weapons, you would need specific weapon types to bypass specific armor types. Although just using a mace would bypass nearly any armor, but you couldn't do that in a game, cause then there would only be maces. :P

    Ohh yea.. smaller weapons give more speed..and they hit faster, you can also have the 3 weapon types
    piercing, blunt and slashing.

    as I already had in my own system like so .

    Piercing
    Effect: Armor class against piercing is ½. This does not apply to shields. Max damage to any body part is 5 points of damage unless to the heart, neck or head.
    • -6 plate is –3
    • -4 chain mail is –2
    • -2 leather is –1
    • -6 shield is –6

    Slashing
    Effect: This type of damage is standard slashing damage. All armor counts as normal protection against this type of damage.
    • -6 plate is –6
    • -4 chain mail is –4
    • -2 leather is –2
    • -6 shield is –6

    Blunt
    Effect: First 4 points are considered Stun damage. The stun is then negated 1 point for ever point of true damage past stun.
    • 5 points of blunt = 3 stun 1 true damage
    • 8 points of blunt = 4 true damage
    • 10 points of blunt = 6 points true damage

    Flexible armor is no help against blunt damage.(except leather)
    • -6 plate is –6
    • -4 chain mail is –0
    • -2 leather is –1
    • -6 shield is –6

    Partial Blunt
    Effect: First 2 points are considered Stun damage. The stun is then negated 1 point for ever point of true damage past stun.
    • 3 points of partial blunt = 1 stun 1 true damage
    • 8 points of partial blunt = 6 true damage
    • 10 points of blunt = 8 points true damage

    Flexible armor class against this weapon is 1/2. (except leather)
    • -6 plate is –6
    • -4 chain mail is –2
    • -2 leather is –2
    • -6 shield is –6

    Aggravated
    Effect: This is additional damage that some weapons do when they come in contact with flesh. This does not apply unless at least 1 point of damage is dealt to the flesh. Aggravated damage does not add to the moral blow damage range. It cannot kill unless the target has no more Life Force.

    Crushing
    Effect: First 4 points are considered Stun damage. The stun is then negated 1 point for ever point of true damage past stun.
    • 5 points of blunt = 3 stun 1 true damage
    • 8 points of blunt = 4 true damage
    • 10 points of blunt = 6 points true damage

    Flexible armor is no help against crushing damage.
    • -6 plate is –6
    • -4 chain mail is –0
    • -2 leather is –0
    • -6 shield is –0

    All-Over
    Effect: This damage affects the entire body. All-Over damage must match or exceed life force of victim in order to kill. Partial Armor that can negate at least ½ the total damage can knock the over all damage in ½. Any piece of armor that is exceeded by more than double its armor class it destroyed. Shields can act as partial armor if used, as long as they can deduct half the overall damage.

    • -6 full plate is –6
    • -4 full chain mail is –4
    • -2 full leather is –2
    • -6 shield is –0

    Example:
    • Partially armored fighter with –12 total armor. (Plate, Chain Mail and Leather) can reduce 15 points of all over damage to 7 points. Destroying all the armor. (Because it exceed all the armor by over double the armor class.
    • Partially armored fighter with –4 chain mail cannot reduce 10 points of all over damage in ½. And chain mail is destroyed.
    • Fully armored characters take straight damage reduction against all over damage. –12 fully armored knight will reduce 15 points of All-Over damage to 3 points of damage and all the armor is destroyed.

    image

  • HashmanHashman Member Posts: 649

    [quote]Originally posted by Pangaea
    What is wrong with the MMO gaming industry?
    What is wrong with the gaming industry? Why do all the latest fantasy games that come out mirror their ancestors? Where is the innovation? Where is the breath of fresh air into the gaming community?
    [/b][/quote]

    Call my cynical, but my main beef is that I don't view some current mmorpgs as mmogs at all. They are just single-player games with other people leaping about on your screen doing their own thing (or not if it's all instanced) with a chat system. They just call themselves mmorpgs so they can charge you a monthly fee! I'm sure someone will reply with yeah but that $15 pays for server rental, support, updates etc. No company has ever disclosed what the monthly fee actually gets you, I'm willing to part with it if I know what I'm actually getting. How long will it be before a single-player game charges you for patches hmm?

  • CardinalSinCardinalSin Member Posts: 95



    Originally posted by JoshFatal

    There are a lot of flaws in this dude's post. I'm surprised nobody's seen it yet, but maybe it's because this is a post designed to pull at the strings of the UO crowd.



    Lazy Development: When I talk about “Lazy Development” I am talking about a simple development path which can be a plague to innovation. You have a very easy time establishing levels, and what certain levels can perform and wear. Like, your level 5 character can pretty much fight other level 5 creatures, wear level 5 equipment, and get level 5 skills and abilities. This makes it very easy for developers to just slap together a path that your character will take.

    How simple is it? Tell us, how do YOU know how simple it is? I'm sorry, but these games don't use a single check of a number to see if you'll win or not. We don't just have a Level; along with that Level comes different attributes, skills, etc. The same goes for the enemy. The Level, however, is just a rough estimate of whether we'll succeed or not, and even that tends to curve around a bit for different classes (ie. a Warrior may be able to take even-level foes with ease, but a Priest may have to work a bit harder and might have to make sure there aren't any other creatures who'd jump in.)

    Granted, it's not CREATIVE, but it's not LAZY either. As I said, the Level system is in place to give players an easier time figuring out whether they can fight something or not.






    PVP Woes: PVP with level based games can be frustrating unless your foe is the same level (give or take a few). Level based games help promote grieving while making it frustrating for low level character to even compete. I saw a level 40 character sitting down naked in a dual with a level 20 character and taking hardly any damage at all. Just doesn’t seem feasible.


    And a skill-based system would prevent this? Just as with PvE (see above) a character's Level defines how powerful they are vs. the other character. With a skill-based system in place, the "problem" you defined would STILL happen - you just wouldn't be able to tell at first whether you could kill somebody easily or die horribly or not.

    So what you're saying is, without these artificial boundaries, in a game where you just level skills and don't have a number telling others how strong you are, there would be no grieving at all? Why??





    Death Penalty Mayhem: Should they take experience away? Death Sickness? Perma Death? Lose a Level? Equip damage?


    How is this a problem? And furthermore, how is this LESS of a problem in a skill-based game?






    Grinding: enough said.


    No. NO! You do not write an article on something you're trying to argue, and just fill in "ENOUGH SAID" on some point you disagree with. That's like saying "Any idiot can see what's wrong with this. I don't have anything to say about it, anyway." Say what you have to say about it, instead of giving us a pretentious two-word answer.

    The problem is, grinding will exist in practically any MMO, level-based or not. Your "enough said" bandaid attempts to cover a fundamental flaw in your logic: Skill-based games STILL REQUIRE grinding. (Unless you're talking about Eve, which I hear levels your stuff up over time. Wee.)

    Let's take the beloved UO. Isn't that game that made botting popular? People didn't like sitting in one place doing the same thing in order to raise a SINGLE SKILL, so they'd have a bot do it for them, while they slept. The thing is with UO, and other skill-based games, is since they have less structure, they give off a simulation of giving you a variety of things to do. The problem in UO with this is, everything was STILL a grind. Want to be a fighter? Good, go swing a sword around at a practice dummy or other monsters until your skill goes up. Want to mine? You can do that... by repeatedly mining stuff over and over. Even fishing involves standing in one place for HOURS clicking the same button over and over.

    Oh sure, you're not gaining an entire character level from doing nothing but fishing, so people regard the game as more "in-depth" because you have to train at individual things instead of everything as a whole. And this is LESS of a grind??

    Sorry, no. Grinding isn't a Level problem. It's an MMO problem. You should also take note that in level-based games, you usually are stuck with one class (or at least, one class at a time.) Gaining a level in one class raises your attributes by a certain amount, as appropriate for that class. In skill-based games, there's also a cap on how many skills you can get and how high you can get them. Skill or level, you still have a limit on what you can be. The only real difference here is skills require a little more work and come off as a little more creative.

    Another problem with a pure skill-based game is the more options players are given, the greater the opportunity they have to "screw up" and gimp their character. Asheron's Call comes to mind.





    Time Earned Equipment: Equipment, Items, and Weapons that are VALUABLE only because it takes a long time achieving them. This can be under grinding but a grinding game that incorporated wicked items to players that invest time can be rewarding, but also created either an irreplaceable item at your level or causes reluctance in a game where there is free loot on PVP.


    Again, what does this have to do with a Level-based game? A skill-based game could do exactly the same thing, only instead of putting a level restriction on an item, they could put, say, a very high STRENGTH or AGILITY requirement on it.
    Are you pushing for more player-run economies in an MMO? That's fine, it's even an idea I kind of like. In fact, I have a bunch of great ideas for an MMO where equipment is provided entirely from other players.

    However, that's neither here nor there. You're trying to make a case against level-based games, and throwing in points that have nothing to do with it. Case in point:





    The health bar: the health bar is a silly idea to me.


    Why is a graphical representation of how close you are to dying a silly idea? And furthermore, what the hell does that have to do with anything?





    An open skill based system or similar would encourage innovation in the way developers design quests, items, equipment. PVP could be more engaging as level wouldn’t be the only factor for victory. It would bring back the need and want for Items to be wicked.


    Explain how it would encourage such innovation, please. In all MMOs, there has to be some sort of measure of difficulty, and the point is for characters to reach that point in strength so they can tackle said difficulty. You think by removing Levels, it would remove any problem associated with that? No! All it does is encourage more grinding, as well as more trial and error. (If more trial and error is what you wanted, you should've said that to begin with.) For example:

    LEVEL-BASED GAME: I probably can't do this quest yet, because it's a level 42 and I'm only level 36. Perhaps I can get a group together of people a little higher than me, or similar to me, and do it. Otherwise, I'll just level up with other quests or enemies closer to my range.

    SKILL-BASED GAME: Let's see if I can handle this quest. Oops, no, I failed. Maybe I need to raise my weapon skill up a bit more, or increase my strength or defense. While I'm at it, I ought to make my health go up some more, and uh... what else. Perhaps I'll get a group together to do the quest. I don't know what kind of players should come with me, though, so I'll just ask them what all of their skills and stats are.
    Maybe now I'm ready for that quest!

    I'll admit my example is a bit skewed, but seeing as how your entire article here is skewed, I figured I ought to offer some of the negatives that could come with a purely skill-based system. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a game that SUCCEEDS in passing the limitations of Levels, but the key word here is: SUCCEEDS. If a skill-based game still offers a grind and a series of restrictions, but along with that removes the ease of figuring out what I can and cannot take, I don't want to bother.

    And your argument for PvP is both hypocritical, and incorrect. First, LEVEL is NOT the sole factor for victory. Right now, I'm playing WoW and Guild Wars, for example. Go ahead and laugh, but these are both good examples. In WoW, I can kill somebody a few levels higher than me, or get offed by somebody a few levels lower than me. There IS an element of skill in what you have to do in combat. It's not just based on your LEVEL. Same with GW, where the level range is even smaller. I SUCK at PvP in GW... against people of similar level! It's not because of equipment or levels or anything like that, it's because of my selection of abilities and when I use or do not use them.

    Your argument is hypocritical because just previously, you were ranting about how you don't like these super items that require an investment of time. Yet, in games like that, those types of items really offer an edge in PvP combat. Besides, I thought you wanted SKILL, hmmm? What does having a really powerful weapon or suit of armor have to do with skill, if it was just earned from grinding or buying it off a player who crafted it (with money made from grinding, no doubt)?





    If you have items that are achieved through victories, quests, or just random drops. Items that are not level based but give a boost to damage either based on skill or just a raw number would be valuable across the board.. not to just others of the same level.


    Uh, practically every game does this, pal. You do a quest, you get a good item. You get a random drop (FROM GRINDING!!!) you can get a good item. Items with level (or even skill) requirements DO, in fact, present a raw number across the board. In some games (again, WoW) your skill with a certain weapon defines how often you'll hit with it. The Level requirement is just in place to prevent lower-level characters from wielding stuff they have no business wielding yet, and flying through game content and imbalancing everything. Level requirements were originally added to lower the opportunity for twinking.

    Sure, I can buy stuff for my lower-level guy, but I have to get him stuff he can actually WEAR. In a skill-based game, there would STILL be skill requirements (as opposed to level requirements.) You'd still need to achieve a LEVEL in that skill, however.

    Now I'll go onto your next, redundant, article:





    1-Level Grinding: The continuous combat that has to take place with HORDES of tiny monsters outside your starting town to gain enough experience and levels. To move to the bigger and tougher monsters that are a bit farther from town, then you will come across another town and “YAY” more monsters there to kill to get to a higher level.


    Again: Skill-based games do the same thing; they just offer the illusion of you fine-tuning your character.





    2-Redundant Monsters: You are in a fantasy world that consists of HORDES and HORDES of the same monsters that have nothing better to do than to stand out in a field, forest somewhere waiting to be killed.


    Has nothing to do with level-based games. You talk earlier of random drops, getting cool gear, etc. But you don't want monsters standing around? What should they be doing? And don't say "RAIDING OUR CITIES" either. That can't happen 24/7, and even if it does (assuming they automate it as I'm sure no game could accomplish GM-run events 100% of the time) how does that make the game different? We're still killing random monsters.





    3-Illogical treasure: Well I love killing spiders and finding coins, killing giant flies and finding a sword. That is great I love illogical items that wouldn’t be on those creatures. Makes me feel like I am IN A REAL WORLD. roles eyes


    You're NOT in a real world. These games do not take PLACE in a real world. Get over that. Less and less games are going by this format, however. Sure, it still exists a little bit, but they're getting a little more realistic about loot tables.

    Even so, why does it matter?





    4-Level Requirements: Items and or armor that require that you be a CERTAIN level or other illogical requirements. Like you have to have a certain intelligence to wear a hat. Umm it is a HAT people. (I don’t mind certain strength requirements and mild dex requirements to use agility based weapons) but keep is subtle and keep it logical.


    Is it a MAGICAL hat? Perhaps the player needs a high enough Int requirement to understand how to unlock the magical potential in the hat!

    What would you like INSTEAD of level requirements? I ask you, what would make the game BETTER?





    5-Lack of Freedom: I am not talking about climbing buildings and picking apples from trees and climbing through windows, because I know that is a hard thing to code in a game. But I am talking about simple freedoms that other characters have. How many times have you just wanted to wield a shield, or wield a sword and use it but unfortunately you are wizard, or thief, and some class that CAN’T use that sword or shield. Now I understand that it wouldn’t be what they wouldn’t NORMALY use so I am all for gimping them out a bit if they are wearing armor or weapons they are not supposed too. But in the battlefield, any warrior would use any tools available at the time to stay alive.


    This comes from D&D, the grandaddy of all RPGs, I'm afraid. Wizards can't wear armor, because for some reason, the armor conflicts with their magical powers. Thieves can't wear armor because, get real, what good are they gonna be sneaking around in PLATE?

    While I do agree with offering more freedom in a game (without including the option of gimping your character, of course) I do understand the "lack of freedom" that comes from having a class is just there to encourage players to stick to their class. You don't roll a Wizard and expect to fight like a Warrior, do you? You roll a Wizard to be a Wizard. Otherwise, roll a Warrior. Games that allow both fighting and magic (for example) either do so sloppily (you either suck at magic, or suck at fighting) or offer "Hybrid" classes that may be effective in their own way.

    The only thing you're not getting with a system like this is the satisfaction in knowing you crafted your character from scratch. Otherwise, you're just as free to do what you want in the game, as you pick your class.





    6-Level Based: Enough said.


    Are you kidding me?! You write TWO articles, and in both of them you said "ENOUGH SAID" for practically the same thing?!





    7-Redundancy: Anyone who has played for hours and are still looking at the same monster knows exactly what I am talking about. And who cares of the colors is different. It is the SAME monster.


    Speaking of redundancy, you already made this point. And it's just as irrelevent now as it was then.





    8-Static Questing: I LOVE going on a Quest… a job, a duty for ME to take on. To make me feel special. And when I get to my questing location. I see a line of 10+ people going for the exact same thing as me. Hmmm I am not so special. Now I know making a dynamic questing mechanic is a bit difficult for these lazy developers, but at least find a way (ala Guild Wars) to make the quests separate on their own. If I am really NOT special then at least blind me to the idea that I am. Cause if the quest was designed to kill “John Doe” and get his Helmet. It is not balanced if you get there and John Doe and his protectors are DEAD and when he “spawns” again 10 people take him down instantly and frantically go for his helmet. Not very balanced.


    Balance has nothing to do with it. You're playing a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME. Get used to everybody doing the same thing you're doing, or stick to Guild Wars, which is pretty much an Online Single Player RPG (not that I mind. I love GW.) Even in GW, everybody's doing the same thing, you just can't see them doing it.

    Don't get me wrong, I HATE having to WAIT IN LINE to complete a quest, and this is why I'm a huge fan of instancing stuff. So, I will agree with you that this aspect of questing has to go, but not because I want to feel special. I accept that the game world isn't logical (or advanced) enough to craft individually unique quests for each and every one of us. Just let me do a quest without having to wait for a damn respawn.





    9-Plain Combat: Most people play MMORPGs to go around killing stuff. Yes there is Crafting and the ability to make weapons and armor is certain games but the real excitement is when you take on a creature toe to toe. Well, 99% of games out there are wack, wack, wack, wack, wack and you do that until their little red bar is gone and they fall over and your red bar goes down too. And you will have these specials you can do “combat abilities or spells” and that will have a delayed attack but will do more damage. That is what 99% of the other games have out there. I know it would take more EFFORT but it is possible to add flavor. Body Targeting, with complications. Knock down to leg shots, drop weapon with arm shots. Something that is easy to recover from as game play stance, but in game can cause a problem as difficulty when fighting monsters.


    These elements are already in games. Have you not been paying attention for the past five or so years?





    10-The Bunnies: Why do most MMOs start you off as a character that can barely take on a Rabbit, Frog, Tiny Beetle, Bat, or something that ME Frank Mesa can kill with my BARE HANDS non the less a SWORD. These games should at least make weak: logically: tougher looking creatures, this of course is a plagued side effect of LEVEL BASING you game.


    I do agree that getting to a higher-level area only to find (DRUMROLL) more "powerful" rabbits is a major pet peeve. Again, though, you subject your otherwise-decent point to bias by going "THIS IS IN LEVEL-BASED GAMES." No, sorry, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with being level-based. It has to do with being lazy.





    11-The Ever-Sharper Sword: I love when I get a good weapon that is a nice sharp iron sword, and it does good damage to what I am attacking and I would love to get attached to this weapon, but I realize that within a days time I go through 3-4-5 weapons because there is always a sharper sword. This motif works with almost everything in these games, a sword that does 1-2 then 1-3, then 2-3, then 2-4, then 3-5, then 4-5, then 5-7, -then 6-8 and on and on and on and on and on. This is also a terrible side effect of Level Based Games. But I don’t believe there would ever bee 1000 levels of swords ranging from 1-2 to 687-900 points of damage. Regardless of magical influence. These swords have way too many variations of silly swords. I think there should be a lot of variation but some of these games are silly with it.


    Yet, above you were stating you want PvP to be more gear-based, and that equipment should have a flat number across the board instead of level requirements.

    What would you like for variation besides potential damage?






    Sorry had to get that off my chest. I know most of these problems are seriously impacted by making a game level based. Level based games are a developer’s EASY way of advancing your character without having to seriously worry about balance issues and having loads of details statistics that a SKILL based game would solve. Ehh.. I don’t know.. I have given up hope for now. I guess I have been playing too much GEAS, and UO.


    And again: You're wrong. You haven't shown us at aLL in this article how most of these problems are impacted by making a game level-based. You haven't stated how a SKILL-BASED game would solve balance issues better than a level-based game (which still has different skills all over the place; just associated with a level.)

    In short: Your arguments suck. 'Enough said.'


    Well mate, you invested quite a bit of time going through the flaws in the argument of a rather stupid post.

    It's a sad fact of life that people will bitch about something without suggesting a workable superior alternative.

    If there is a workable alternative, rest assured that sooner or later some budding company will try it to knock WoW or one of it's successors off the top spot, but there is a reason that Level based games have proven so durable for so long. Expect them to stick around, because lets face it, getting those levels is really satisfying.

    Nick

     


     

    The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.

Sign In or Register to comment.