How long should character advancement last?

maplestone · March 2011

A character starts at level 1 or 0 skill. They gain levels or skills. Old content gets easier, new challenges open up. Veteran players move away from where the starting characters are. At some point you reach the endgame - a level cap, a skill cap or simply the limit of the difficulty of challenges that are coded into the game. How long should this be designed take?

Is it a bad thing if people reach the level cap within hours of the game being released? Is it a bad thing if people buy the game and never manage to reach the level cap by the time the next expansion is released? What percentage of subscribers should reach the level cap before its time to release a new expansion?

Or, have MMOs become too focused on the hero's journey? Have achievement systems removed the need for levels as a way of motivating people? The way I see it, there are four key reasons for character advancement systems:

(1) it's fun to get noticably more powerful. But in practice, the monsters always seem to match you gain for gain, so it sometimes feels like you're just treading water (after epic victories against level 40 dragons, running across random level 60 wolves seems a little odd) - level is often a proxy for how far you have advanced in the story rather than how powerful your character really is.

(2) it provides a gentle learning curve to all the complexity and options available to the player. But in practice, it damages replay value and thins out the player base across many levels of play (and in many games puts a huge barrier-to-entry in front of PvP play)

(3) it lets people find their own difficulty level (do I attempt that quest now or wait until I'm a couple of levels higher? Now that the level cap has increased, I can finally go back and finish that old dungeon). On the other hand some people complain that this devalues achievements.

(4) If everyone is a hero, then nobody is a hero. But no matter how hard you set the bar, eventually you have a lot of maxed out characters and making the level cap a high bar to reach seems to over-reward a lot of bad behaviours (scripting, exploits or general no-life powergaming).

So here's the thought I keep coming back to: do we really need the McGuffin of experience points to motivate players? Could an all-endgame MMO work? It would be a game where the advancement from peon to skill cap is actually considered a phase of character creation, something that either you don't play through, or play through very fast. Rather than killing 10,000 orcs for the experience to gain a level, your reward for killing 10,000 orcs would simply be the decorative achievement/title "killed 10,000 orcs". You might still go from zone to zone advancing a story arc, but because you were trying to complete the story rather than because it was the only way to gain more exp.

Thoughts on any of this?

Disdena · March 2011

Originally posted by maplestone
How long should this be designed take?

Is it a bad thing if people reach the level cap within hours of the game being released? Is it a bad thing if people buy the game and never manage to reach the level cap by the time the next expansion is released? What percentage of subscribers should reach the level cap before its time to release a new expansion?

I think all of these are questions that developers should ask themselves from the earliest point of development. However, I'm sure that there is no correct answer. These numbers vary quite a lot depending on what kind of game you're making and who you want to attract to it.

I'm sure of one thing, though: developers do need to ask this question and then they need to stick to their answer once they are sure of it. One of the things that contributed to my decision to leave Aion was how fast NCSoft caved to complaints about "the grind" and cranked up the XP. I thought, "Doesn't that throw off everything else in the game? Won't people spend less time in each area? Won't they have less money than you expect them to at each level?" It seemed as though they weren't aware of how the game would change as the XP rates increased, or didn't care about it as much as they cared about placating the players.

(1) it's fun to get noticably more powerful. But in practice, the monsters always seem to match you gain for gain, so it sometimes feels like you're just treading water (after epic victories against level 40 dragons, running across random level 60 wolves seems a little odd) - level is often a proxy for how far you have advanced in the story rather than how powerful your character really is.

The "level 40 dragon" thing is a necessary evil in my opinion. While it would make sense if you fought wolves and bats only at the beginning of your character's career and fought dragons and demons only at the end, it'd be too long to wait for a payoff. Fighting a really high level goat or lion isn't something that makes me think less of past exploits. To me, it's as much about where you are fighting than what you are fighting. It's not "It's fun to get more powerful... I couldn't have killed this Mutant Crag Goat 5 levels ago", more like "It's fun to get more powerful... I couldn't have ventured into the Mountains of Mutation 5 levels ago."

(2) it provides a gentle learning curve to all the complexity and options available to the player. But in practice, it damages replay value and thins out the player base across many levels of play (and in many games puts a huge barrier-to-entry in front of PvP play)

I do agree that levels do cause problems for PvP because it's a given that you will have to reach the max level to get to where "the real PvP" is, and not get stomped by people who have outleveled you. As far as damaging replay value, I don't think so. Even if the endgame is more complex, it's not automatically more fun or even equally fun. You can enjoy the options that you have at the level cap and yet still think the game was awesome back when your options were restricted. Best example I can give is a single player game like Zelda. If you loved the game and want to replay it, it'd be silly to say "I want to play through that awesome game again, but naturally I want to start at the last dungeon with all the weapons."

The issue of the playerbase being thinned out is where you've got to consider what the game's focus is. If the main draw of the game is that you can jump in and play with any of your friends, then obstacles to grouping up are to be avoided. A levelless system (or a Sidekick/Mentor system) would make sense. If that's not something that's being focused on, such a system probably does more harm than good. To use the same example again, it will be more rewarding to finally arrive at the Mountains of Mutation if I have heard about guildmates doing well there but I wasn't able to join them yet.

(3) it lets people find their own difficulty level (do I attempt that quest now or wait until I'm a couple of levels higher? Now that the level cap has increased, I can finally go back and finish that old dungeon). On the other hand some people complain that this devalues achievements.

This is probably the biggest reason that I like a level-based system, even moreso than (1). The game gives a number to an enemy to denote how strong it is. The game gives you a number to denote how strong it thinks you are. Proving the game wrong is intensely rewarding. Fights that the game says you should lose according to your level are just great when you win. A really bad pull comes in or a rare mob appears that your group is a litlte too low for, and you tough it out and win. That is what justifies the extra effort you've put into learning your class, deciding which skills/talents to focus on, taking the time to make money to buy better equipment, keeping good consumables on hand for emergencies, making good decisions during the combat. I don't think you could get that same feeling in a levelless game... the feeling of having the game say "You shouldn't fight these yet, you'll die" and you respond "No, I'm stronger and smarter than you think, I can beat them where anyone else my level would fail."

(4) If everyone is a hero, then nobody is a hero. But no matter how hard you set the bar, eventually you have a lot of maxed out characters and making the level cap a high bar to reach seems to over-reward a lot of bad behaviours (scripting, exploits or general no-life powergaming).

On this point, I do agree. One of the advantages to having levels is that you feel as though the time you've spent levelling up has put distance between you and the other people who are still back down in the lower levels. But because there's always someone willing to drink more Red Bull than you and go longer without showering than you, there's always someone climbing that ladder faster. And it sucks that the basement dwellers and exploiters will always make it to the top first. But I can shrug a little and say that's life in an MMO.

Rather than killing 10,000 orcs for the experience to gain a level, your reward for killing 10,000 orcs would simply be the decorative achievement/title "killed 10,000 orcs". You might still go from zone to zone advancing a story arc, but because you were trying to complete the story rather than because it was the only way to gain more exp.

To be honest, sounds more like Left 4 Dead than an MMO. Plain old co-op online multiplayer. Which I enjoy—don't get me wrong—but I'd play it for about as long as I played Left 4 Dead co-op: just long enough to consume all of the story, and then never again.

xcalibur · March 2011

Sounds more like COD than an MMO.

I would like more games that provide ever growing ways to advance your character, even if at a diminished rate or in different areas...and not just through gear.

theEmeal · March 2011

Well...

If it was supposed to be realistic, then as i do in real life my advancement lasts untill i die

I think guy who slaughters endless armies alone is unrealistic even for a world with magic etc, maybe it could be done without having to level in the game.

anemo · March 2011

If the developer has tons of cash to toss at content developement, as long as they want.

If the developer has almost no cash to toss at content developement, as short as possible.

________

Here's the hint, even blizzard speeds up their leveling curve because they don't have enough cash to toss at content developement.

Axehilt · March 2011

You can choose to play RPGs (progression/story) or non-RPGs (everything else.) It's up to you. There are plenty of games that fall under both categories.

maplestone · March 2011

Originally posted by Axehilt
You can choose to play RPGs (progression/story) or non-RPGs (everything else.) It's up to you. There are plenty of games that fall under both categories.

What are some examples of progression-free persistent worlds? (other than Second Life)

khanstruct · March 2011

This is the big question. I played Matrix Online, which capped at level 50, which you could reach in a couple weeks. I also played Ultima Online, which was skill-based and could take a year or more to max out your skills. Personally, I preferred UO, but that is, of course, simply preference.

I think developers need to think outside the box to truly tackle this question. I don't think the future of gaming will involve such a linear view of progression.

Germaximus_S · March 2011

Everquest games and DCUO have character advancement after level cap which is cool. Id love to see more of that kind of advancement. I hate Everquest and always will have the worst memories of that game but the different aspects of gameplay it has are awesome.

DCUO's advancement is more casual and like an extra reward just for exploring and doing either small or big tasks.

I wouldnt mind if character advancement lasted "forever" as long as it wasnt grindy like Everquest. I dont mean that i want advancement to be easy, just not grindy.

theinvader · March 2011

How about this simple idea:

Character progression takes a long time, let's say a month to max level playing "hardcore". But instead of taking days to get from level 54 to 55 there are 1000 levels and the curve is relatively flat (but not completely flat like GW2), so getting from level 876 to 877 takes longer than it did from 12 to 11 but you barely notice the difference.

Disdena · March 2011

Originally posted by theinvader
How about this simple idea:

Character progression takes a long time, let's say a month to max level playing "hardcore". But instead of taking days to get from level 54 to 55 there are 1000 levels and the curve is relatively flat (but not completely flat like GW2), so getting from level 876 to 877 takes longer than it did from 12 to 11 but you barely notice the difference.

You get one of two problems if you do that. Either the increase in power with each level is very small, which means that low levels are too slow compared to other games because it's a long time before you get more powerful and leave the low level areas. Or the increase in power with each level is as large as it normally is, which means that you need hundreds of tiers of mobs and equipment that you're constantly outlevelling. That also has the side effect of making it virtually impossible to find people to group with—LF1M tank lv 872-880 pst.

On the other hand, if you make the power level grow fast enough for the earlier levels and slow down the power gain per level during the later levels, then you haven't really changed anything. The progression would work the same as a normal RPG, and you'd only be disguising it by juggling the numbers.

maplestone · March 2011

But aren't the wolves at level 10 and level 50 already usually the same other than the size of the numbers scrolling past? I would expect that many games already use a formula behind the scenes where you just feed it the monster's name and level and it spits back the appropriately-scaled stats.

Using such a formula, one could create a game with randomly generated zones/dungeons of monsters scaled to whatever level needed, allowing for an endgame of upcapped levels. The trick would be figuring out how to avoid making it boring and repeditive.

Although I can't remember seeing a dev come out and explicitedly say it, I've always imagined that the reason the low-end game is made progressively easier in expansion after expansion of level-based games is to allow a starting player to go from level 1 to the level cap in the same fixed amount of time, no matter how far that cap has been raised.

rokrow · March 2011

If your game has a good end game, plenty of raids, pvp, stuff to do at max level, then it doesn't matter how fast you get to max level.

If your game is primarily a leveling game, then you don't want players to hit max level for a long time else they run out of stuff to do.

It's all about having enough content to keep players happy.

Some games don't even have a leveling system. Most do have some kind of progression system even if it's just getting better equipment.

TheMinn · March 2011

it's hard to keep players happy because, imo, players are more idiots in MMOs than they used to be. It's quite impossible for a company to have enough content to please people because everyone is so wanting to reach endcap asap. Take RIFT for example, already lvl 50 people who just rushed through the game, instead of enjoying it, who will become bored quick because all they do is play MMOs and thats it. Sandbox mmos help a little more since they try and not be level based, especialyl the pvp ones, again imo. I wish every mmo player would just sit back and enjoy the game, explore, and then have a life and go out and do something instead of sit inside and hit levelcap within a week to only bitch that the game sucks because they rushed. thats only my opinion, and i'm right

Loktofeit · March 2011

Is it a bad thing if people reach the level cap within hours of the game being released?

Although 'hours' is an unrealistic extreme, if there are players that enjoy just the final content then why not let them go straight to it. Guild Wars is a perfect example of that. They are playing for the PVP, not for the plant gathering and tail collecting.

Is it a bad thing if people buy the game and never manage to reach the level cap by the time the next expansion is released?

There's no one ideal answer. Asheron's Call had a level cap of 126 and they continued to add content almost every month for all ranges of players. Since everyone levels at different speeds what they did for a while was with the major quests they created level-based tiers of them - iirc, it was often 20-39, 40-59, 60-79, 80-119, 120+. This meant that all payers of all levesl could enjoy the new content without having to feel they need to PLevel or rush through the content to get ot the fun stuff.

What percentage of subscribers should reach the level cap before its time to release a new expansion?

Depends on if you are making yet another linear eq/wow variant or if you are making something with a bit more depth. The more linear your game is, the more people should be at that cap before you release your next expansion. They're going to say it's a patch and not an expansion if you dont give them new levels - they'll say it's lacking content if that cap isn't bumped. However, there's no point in putting in content thatno one can use, so it's not uncomon for MMOs to put in content that gently 'bumps' people up in levelling speed (new quests, upgraded quest/mob xp, slightly more powerful features) prior to a major expansion just to get more people into the range where they can use it.

In games like Asheron's Call, Fallen Earth and Ultima Online it seems to make sense to branch outward with expansions and not just pile on top as the gameworld and its mechanics make for less linear and more diverse play. Some players are on a race to the cap, but that's simply not the norm.

Yamota · March 2011

It should last forever...

Asherons Call had the best advancement system ever. There you had skills that you could put experience points in and the curve was exponential, but never capped. So you could advance indefinetely.

What this did was two things. First there was constant battle for high level exp grounds, on PvP servers. Second, since the curve was exponential and the game skillbased, it meant a level 80 could stand a chance against a level 120 because the skill difference was not all that great.

It is really a shame that no company has tried to build on Asherons Call advancement system. It was simply put: ingenious.

Yamota · March 2011

Originally posted by TheMinn
it's hard to keep players happy because, imo, players are more idiots in MMOs than they used to be. It's quite impossible for a company to have enough content to please people because everyone is so wanting to reach endcap asap. Take RIFT for example, already lvl 50 people who just rushed through the game, instead of enjoying it, who will become bored quick because all they do is play MMOs and thats it. Sandbox mmos help a little more since they try and not be level based, especialyl the pvp ones, again imo. I wish every mmo player would just sit back and enjoy the game, explore, and then have a life and go out and do something instead of sit inside and hit levelcap within a week to only bitch that the game sucks because they rushed. thats only my opinion, and i'm right

You cannot tell people how to enjoy their game. You like taking it slow but others like to race, as they are more competetive.

It is up to the devs to make sure both playstyles are supported, or they risk losing a group of players. But you can never tell someone how to enjoy a game, they will simply just leave instead.

Loktofeit · March 2011

Originally posted by maplestone
Although I can't remember seeing a dev come out and explicitedly say it, I've always imagined that the reason the low-end game is made progressively easier in expansion after expansion of level-based games is to allow a starting player to go from level 1 to the level cap in the same fixed amount of time, no matter how far that cap has been raised.

It's more to allow players to move through the lower levels faster in order to get them into the main populace sooner. Here's two examples:

In Asheron's Call, the starter dungeon was changed to almsot immediately get 5 levels under the players belt and get him some starting gear and a new skill or two. This also often gave them more survivability to get to where the big kids are to get buffed and go adventuring.

Lineage 2 players used to hang out in Dion (no longer a hotspot) and Giran, which are 20+ and 30+ zones. During one of the patches, they put in new player quests that could not only get a player to level 18 in a matter of hours, but also gave them 'shadow' weapons to improve their leveling after that and a decent wallet of cash. They also changed the level 20 class change quests from epic world-travelling projects to simple one town, one NPC missions.

In both cases, the goal was to get players up into the main group of players faster. Such is the reason for hub cities in a lot of MMOs. It makes sure that players aren't in empty zones and simply leveling to try to get to where everyone else is as no one but the most diehard of EQ flagellates finds that fun.

jpnz · March 2011

Infinite but somethings I consider 'advancement' might not be by other people.

I consider wealth to be an advancement of my character. Whether this is through in-game auctions/trade or questing.

At max level in WoW, you advance your character through gear.

theinvader · March 2011

Originally posted by Disdena

Originally posted by theinvader

How about this simple idea:

Character progression takes a long time, let's say a month to max level playing "hardcore". But instead of taking days to get from level 54 to 55 there are 1000 levels and the curve is relatively flat (but not completely flat like GW2), so getting from level 876 to 877 takes longer than it did from 12 to 11 but you barely notice the difference.

You get one of two problems if you do that. Either the increase in power with each level is very small, which means that low levels are too slow compared to other games because it's a long time before you get more powerful and leave the low level areas. Or the increase in power with each level is as large as it normally is, which means that you need hundreds of tiers of mobs and equipment that you're constantly outlevelling. That also has the side effect of making it virtually impossible to find people to group with—LF1M tank lv 872-880 pst.

On the other hand, if you make the power level grow fast enough for the earlier levels and slow down the power gain per level during the later levels, then you haven't really changed anything. The progression would work the same as a normal RPG, and you'd only be disguising it by juggling the numbers.

Yes, that was the idea. Instead of spending ages levelling from 79 to 80 you can level from 790 to 800 in 10 smaller chunks. The content stays exactly the same, only the numbers change.

Aconsar · March 2011

If I'm not able to progress in some form is usually when I grow bored of a game. This is typically due to most of the games being "level up to max level, get gear" and nothing more. I enjoy building a character, leveling, advancing, gaining attributes, stats, skills, whatever. Obtaining "gear" is just a small portion of the RPG aspect.

I miss the games where it would takes months or longer to reach "max" level/stats/skills, but had tons of content for all ranges of levels or character strengths. Rush to "end game" (which is a fallacy, cancel subscription is the 'end game') is just not enjoyable to me at all.

Sovrath · March 2011

Originally posted by khanstruct
This is the big question. I played Matrix Online, which capped at level 50, which you could reach in a couple weeks. I also played Ultima Online, which was skill-based and could take a year or more to max out your skills. Personally, I preferred UO, but that is, of course, simply preference.

I think developers need to think outside the box to truly tackle this question. I don't think the future of gaming will involve such a linear view of progression.

I played lineage 2 and never touched cap (always close).

I played LOTRO and easily hit cap.

I prefer how Lineage 2 does it.

(hmmm lot of I's up there).

The thing is, leveling was what one did but it wasn't really what the game was about. I think this is the issue here. leveling was only one part of the game. The rest of the game was more about pvp or crafting/making money/clan-alliance relationships, trying to get people for certain raids, etc.

So for me a long leveling curve is opiumum, maybe even an alternate advancement track. However, I want the thrust of the game to be there from lvl 1 through all my levels. Being higher lvl just makes me better at it.

UsulDaNeriak · March 2011

in EQ1 i needed 90 days ingame playtime to level 60. that wasnt very fast, the best necro i knew made it in 52 days. i found that appropriate: the journey is the destination. you know?

nowadays i miss the challenge in most games: Maestia, Lotro, Aika, Loong, RIFT, Forsaken World ... the list is pretty long. it is easy to become Level 20 without dying once or facing any challenge. just follow the questline. they are fully refined and designed in a way so that every hillbilly can make it.

so no, the opportunity to rush to endgame ruins my game. i am fully against unchallenging and fast levelling.

Daitengu · March 2011

I honestly hate arbitrary leveling mechanics of most MMOs. I really prefer skill based leveling. I think it's because I have a need for explaining why my strength went up as a mage, or my agl went up as a plate armor wearing war.

But towards the OP's question I really think it depends on the kind of MMO. If I'm forced to grind the same dungeon for a month, there's something wrong with the curve. Though I'm also in the realist camp in regards of "why do I gotta kill the same person more than once?"

ryuga81 · March 2011

Originally posted by maplestone

So here's the thought I keep coming back to: do we really need the McGuffin of experience points to motivate players? Could an all-endgame MMO work? It would be a game where the advancement from peon to skill cap is actually considered a phase of character creation, something that either you don't play through, or play through very fast. Rather than killing 10,000 orcs for the experience to gain a level, your reward for killing 10,000 orcs would simply be the decorative achievement/title "killed 10,000 orcs". You might still go from zone to zone advancing a story arc, but because you were trying to complete the story rather than because it was the only way to gain more exp.
Thoughts on any of this?

It won't work even more. No matter how long (how many hours), content will have an end. Even 50 hours of content can be finished in a month (and it's really hard to actually design 50 hours of *meaningful* content). And if you don't even have character progression to keep people playing (or replaying), it's just a multiplayer co-op game. Definitely not a MMORPG.

Personally, I feel the "end game" as a "game end". If my character can't progress further, it's a game over for me, i beat the game, yay, next one please. I'm definitely not into "farm a raid until you get a +50 helmet to replace your old +48 helmet, then farm the next raid for the +52 helmet".

Loke666 · March 2011

First of all: As a old pen and paper player is it my opinion that the powergap in all MMOs between new chracaters and old characters are way too large. Of course the character should get better when you play but going from clumsy farmer to demigod is just too much.

But it is my feeling that character advancement really shouldn't stop ever, just getting really slow. Today have all this been moved to gear but I prefer if the player once in a while gets a new skill, improve an old or raise an attribute.

I also feel that maybe we should rethink a little what you get experience for. Killing trashmobs really wont make anyone better. I think the best might be mixing experience points with achivement instead of giving loads of xp for doing the same thing. It would allow good players with less time to advance as fast as bad players who have a lot of time on their hands.

Currently are MMOs moving away from RPG games and getting to FPS games where you start fully developed and only improve yourself with gear. That certain MMOFPS games do that is fine but if the whole genre gets there it will be the last drop for me.

As for levels, skill based games where you raise the skills you use or skill/attribute based systems where you get points and place them out yourself, all 3 works fine for me. They are all just simple mechanics to simulate experience, what really matters is how much you can improve your toon.

Howdy, Stranger!

How long should character advancement last?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

How long should character advancement last?

Comments