Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Successful MMO without progression
sargos7
Member UncommonPosts: 77
When I say progression, I am referring to any sort of mechanism that improves combat effectiveness. This does include horizontal progression, where you learn new skills, as well as systems where your skills become more effective the more you use them, and also gear that improves combat stats. This does not include progression of other kinds such as getting rich, gathering achievements/titles or anything else that does not effect combat effectiveness.
A lot of people seem to think that a successful mmo without progression is not possible. I disagree.
The first main argument is that an mmo without progression wouldn't have quests, or no one would be bothered to do them. First of all, what are quests? They are stories. People don't tell and listen to stories in real life to become more powerful, they do so for entertainment. A game without progression could certainly still have quests, and people's enjoyment of them would only increase without progression forcing every quest to be about killing a bunch of rats or collecting a bunch of herbs as quickly as you can so that you can get to the next quest hub and do it again. Without progression, quests could have complete creative freedom, and without progression shoving you along a linear path through quests, each one would seem like an adventure. But what would be the reward? Why would you even bother doing the quest if you aren't getting rewarded? Well just because you aren't getting rewarded with experience or gear doesn't mean you can't be rewarded at all. The individual rewards for quests could be just as creative as the quest itself. And of course, you could get gold from it, because what grateful citizen isn't going to pay someone who helped them out?
The second main argument is that an mmo without progression wouldn't have dungeons, or no one would have a reason to do them if it did. Well first of all, of course it would still have them. Just like how a quest is a story, a dungeon is, well a dungeon. The existence of a dungeon does not depend on progression any more than quests do. As far as whether or not anyone would bother with them goes, what many people are actually saying is that everyone will only clear them once. Perhaps some people will, but I know for a fact that there are many people who will do them over and over again, especially if they are really good. The reason is because they actually enjoy the whole healer-tank-dps setup. It is like a sport, in that you are playing on a team, but unlike a sport because you are not opposing another team. This half sport is something that people enjoy playing, in and of itself. Even without progression, these people will still enter dungeons and slay bosses over and over again, just because they like doing it. And again, just like questing, there doesn't have to be no reward at all. In WoW, there's all kinds of rare drops that people have run old content raids and dungeons over and over again trying to get, such as mounts, pets, armor that was just for the look and non-combat trinkets. And of course, you'd get a bunch of gold, because what monster living in a cave doesn't have a horde of treasure? Also, like questing, the experience of running a dungeon will be a lot better without progression, because the only people who will be doing dungeons will be the people who like doing them, rather than the people who just want that new gear to drop.
So there you have it, quests and dungeons can still be in a game without progression, and people will still do them without progression. But wait a minute, you say. New content is eaten up at an alarming rate, and without progression slowing people down, it will get old even faster. That's what progression is all about, after all- giving the developers enough time to make more new content. Well, my friend, you are wrong. Progression does not slow down the rate at which players go through new content, it speeds it up. It speeds it up because of isolation. Players who are not max level are isolated from the players who are, and thus want to be max level so that they can interact with everybody. All content before max level, therefore, is rushed through and trivialized.
Without progression as a driving force to rush through content, players will do new quests and run new dungeons at their leisure, and new content will still seem new for a lot longer, allowing the developers a lot more time to develop the next new content. More time to develop new content allows (though not guarantees) new content to be of much higher quality. High quality new content will be savored by the players even more, and so consumed even slower.
Well, what other things might an mmo be able to provide that doesn't require progression?
Well, first of all, you have pvp. There is absolutely nothing about progression that improves the pvp experience; it's quite the opposite, in fact, unless of course you are a troll who spends all of his time ganking noobs. A curious effect of not having progression in a game is that you don't have to waste personnel resources trying to track down such offenders and punish them... because such a thing can't exist in an mmo without progression.
Of course, there's also roleplaying. Though true roleplaying takes place with a minority of players to be sure, it is safe to say that everyone enjoys some aspects of it, such as customizing their avatar. Without progression dictating what gear you must use, you are free to make your character look however you want it to.
There's also the economy. Many players just log on to play the market, believe it or not.
And finally there's player housing. Just take a freaking look at Minecraft and how psychotically popular it has become. At this point in gaming history, no one can freaking say that player housing doesn't have potential, or that it isn't feasible, or that griefing would ruin it. The Minecraft community has very effectively squashed griefing, and come up with many different ways to make it feasible. Fill an mmo with a player housing system that is simple and intuitive, yet allows for endless possibilities, like that found in Minecraft, and holy freaking crap there's no way the argument that there won't be anything to do in the game without progression will ever stand a chance. To anyone thinking "Minecraft? Those shitty graphics?" how about you think about The Sims instead then. Not multiplayer, I know, and the multiplayer game they tried to make failed, I know. But the point is that it is possible to have a player housing that is simple and intuitive, allows for endless possibilities, and also has good graphics. The Sims is proof of that. Minecraft is proof that it can work in a multiplayer setting.
I forgot the argument that progression is necessary for the learning curve. Give me a break. In popular single player games with a high learning curve, there are tutorials, which can be skipped. In mmorpgs, the leveling process cannot be skipped. It is not a tutorial, it is about watching your character grow and become more powerful. If it was a tutorial, progression wouldn't also be in endgame content. Also, there are plenty of popular single player games that don't have a steep learning curve, and thus don't have a tutorial. The same can be true about mmos.
<.<
Comments
Wow this is confusing...
I don't even know if I should argue with you for wanting to take out progression form rpg, because you didn't mention rpg even once in here, so you mean mmo's, not mmorpgs right?
So you are not talking about mmorpg's, just mmo's....well, mmo's already don't have progression, it is just rpg perk... I just don't understand the message xD
I never once said anything about role playing games. I said mmos. Mmorpgs are massively multiplayer online role playing games, mmos are massively multiplayer online games. Yes, the heart of rpgs is progression, and yes progression appeals to a lot of people, I am not denying that at all. All I am saying is that there is a market for an mmo without progression.
Perhaps it is the term successful that you are getting confused with. I am not talking about financially stable, I am talking about popular.
<.<
Mmo's dont have progression, so what do you... take away something the don't have to begin with, I just don't understand... sorry xD
mmorpg's have progression, mmo's in general don't have... you can't take away progression from mmo becasue there is no progression in any mmo, just in mmorpgs xd
<.<
"Well, first of all, you have pvp. There is absolutely nothing about progression that improves the pvp experience; it's quite the opposite, in fact, unless of course you are a troll who spends all of his time ganking noobs. A curious effect of not having progression in a game is that you don't have to waste personnel resources trying to track down such offenders and punish them... because such a thing can't exist in an mmo without progression."
I think I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Your generalization here is way over the top. You're saying that absolutely everything about progression makes the pvp experience worse unless you are a troll who spends all of his time ganking noobs. Do you understand how extremist that sounds? Progression can serve pvp just fine. There is nothing inherent about progression that makes it bad, and there is nothing inherent in power gaps that make things unfair, or for that matter makes those with further progress trolls who spend all their time ganking noobs. It is the existing, poorly implemented power gaps caused by poor implementation of progression that are currently in use that lead you to believe this, but it is not an inherent flaw in progression in general.
Furthermore, the fact that you believe that eliminating progression from pvp completely prohibits the possibility of tanking noobs is beyond my comprehension. Many people don't gank to progress... They do it for other reasons. I think you have made some strange leaps in logic here, and I would like to hear exactly why you think these things.
<.<
Griefing with housing? I think this dude is about PvPers burning down your house and farm "as fun". -_-
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I think these things from talking with people who actually enjoy mmo's solely for the pvp, and reading threads and posts made by such people. There is never an argument in those threads. I'm not going to respond to your other remarks. You should probably read what you wrote.
<.<
mmo -> massive multiplayer in general, that has many subgenres, like:
massive multiplayer role playing games -> progression
massive multiplayer first person shooters -> no progress
Play the second one, problem solved.
Or are you one of those egocentric people that want every possible genre to be the way you like, and leave no choice for other people that have different preferences than yours?
Progression, in this context clearly refers to the progression of your character's combat effectiveness, via higher levels and better gear. Such progression is actually an illusion of progression, because new content is scaled up to the higher levels and better gear. Progression in the sense of becoming more influential on a server, such as by being rich is true progression, and is perfectly acceptable.
I never even mentioned anything about crafting.
A game can certainly still have an economy, even without crafting or gear, the sole purpose of which is only to make your character better at combat. It can still have gear, even gear that you get as loot from dungeons. For looks. And it can have vanity pets, mounts, toys, consumables, decorations for your house... all of which can be earned as loot in dungeons, or as quest rewards.
<.<
<.<
Ok. Perhaps you don't see these arguments in other threads. That is fine, but I am presenting these arguments to you in this one. You're not even going to respond to my assertion that there is nothing inherently unfair about progression, or nothing inherent in it that promotes ganking? I reread my post, and I'm not sure what makes it hard to respond to. What is it about progression that turns people into trolls who spend all of their time ganking if they enjoy progression?
<.<
I apologize if that is the impression I'm giving. I honestly just want to discuss this. I'm not trying to twist any words around here, which is why I provided a quote.
"Well, first of all, you have pvp. There is absolutely nothing about progression that improves the pvp experience; it's quite the opposite, in fact, unless of course you are a troll who spends all of his time ganking noobs. A curious effect of not having progression in a game is that you don't have to waste personnel resources trying to track down such offenders and punish them... because such a thing can't exist in an mmo without progression."
Here you say that there is absolutely nothing about progression that improves pvp. I disagree. You go on to say that the opposite is true. The opposite of "nothing about progression improves pvp" is "everything about progression is a detriment to pvp." again, I disagree. You go on to say that if one disagrees, he or she is a troll who spends all of his or her time ganking noobs. You can hopefully see why I think this is extremist generalization. I'm not trying to argue semantics here, I'm just suggesting that perhaps you would be better served in your argument to glorify the merits of progression free pvp than attacking arbitrary, uninherent problems in pvp due to poorly implemented progression.
I could see how progression free pvp would be popular. One could argue that many MOBAs utilize it in that every new match puts participants on a somewhat even level. Although there is progression in a match, it is not permanent. In the case of a persistent MMO world, pvp without progression could work as well. Whomever is more skilled or prepared for a battle would always have the upper hand. Look at how popular War of the Roses and Chivalry are. Inserting the pvp of those games into a large, immersive, persistent world would be a dream game to many people. So you see, I'm not outright disagreeing with you that it isn't possible or even desired. I'm just saying that your argument against progression, in the case of pvp, is groundless in my opinion.
Hmm, Planetside 2 has progression though. Building up your character classes, weapons and vehicles. You capture points/territories for your faction. Sure limited progression, but there it is. :-)
Thats partially true. I think a mmo needs progression.
The point is just what kind of progression, and to what degree?
In UO you got both, rather limited vertical progression and a lot of horizontal progression. But nevertheless you got both.
And by the way.. if you collect money, to scramble for wealth, for real estate, for political influence and all that kind is a some sort of progression, too. It is just not character bound progression, like skills, like levels, like gear.
In my opinion the best way is to go with rather limited vertical progression, like UO, like EvE, like DAoC @lvl50 with RRs, like most sandbox games, and with as much horizontal progression as possible, and as much other(politics, influence, wealth) progression as possible. In such a system you do have a world, and it will be accessable all the time, and then you can build up more dynamic scenarios. It works best in a sandbox kind of game, in a virtual world kind of game.. like you already said like UO supposed to be, like SWG. But however it is just preference.. some do like to get incredible stronger over time, to be able to kill lowlevels with ease, or for whatever other reasons... to feel progression more directly, to feel the power.. although, the content on your current level stays the same, or should even get harder.. whereby every progression will be nullified.
Planetside 1 & 2. Is there any progression in Planetside?
...no, lol... that's the point of this discussion. People have the idea that it's because it won't work. That's backwards logic, seeing a causal relationship where there is none. There aren't any (popular) mmos without progression because no company has put forth a serious effort into making one. I'm sure there probably are a few, but they likely have something fundamentally so wrong with them that is causing them to not be popular that there's no point in bringing them into this discussion.
There are some that come really close to not having progression, like Minecraft. There is progression because the different types of gear and weapons have different combat stats, and can be enchanted with enchantments that increase those combat stats even more, however it doesn't take very long at all to get the best gear possible on a server. Once you are pretty experienced with the game, you can do it in a few hours without resorting to shady methods like using an xray mod. And some people also say it is not an mmo, just a multiplayer online game because the average server cannot hold an amount of players that could be considered massive. On the other hand, the playerbase as a whole is certainly massive, as well as the number of servers, and the diversity of those servers.
Minecraft doesn't even have dungeons or quests. The main appeal is that you can pretty much make whatever the heck you want, and the pvp is basically as even playing field as it gets, to the point where a skilled, cunning player with no armor actually can take down a player who's wearing the best gear they can get, unless he has some God Apples... So if a game that almost has no progression can become that popular, even without everything else typically in an mmo (and by the way, people actually make such things in Minecraft) then imagine how popular a game with good graphics that actually does have all that would be.
Yes, minecraft is a sandbox, but this discussion is not about sandbox vs themepark. In my experience even sandboxes have progression, they just label it as skill points instead of levels. This discussion is about not having progression, as in increased combat stats.
<.<
Is it possible to make an MMO game not based on progression? Yes, as others have pointed out, the MMOFPS categories have many entries where there is no progression. So, since this is a site/forum focused on MMORPGs, let's ignore these other genres and focus the question on role playing games.
----------
Can the same apply to a role playing game? I don't know. Progression is a core element of the RP genre; gaining levels, collecting gear and learning new spells in order to be able to fight (and maybe defeat) stronger and stronger opponents. If you tried to remove Progression, players would need something to replace this carrot-on-a-stick. Progression is subtly, but powerfully addictive. It keeps players coming back, and ultimately, keeps the revenue flowing to companies.
Making a Progression-less RP game would probably need a revolutionary concept, something completely distinct from the D&D mold. It would need a similar psychological lure that would keep player willing to part with their money to play. It would need to eschew levels of any nature -- character levels, spell levels, skill levels, gear levels, or any kind of hidden system of ranking. I think it would need a completely unique way to represent the human body, healing and combat, also core components of RP games, because the traditional hit point system has been used as one of the hidden leveling systems. Likewise, the mana pools also need revision.
Characters in an RP game without Progression should be able to participate in any combat activities. One day, they might find themselves struggling to destroy a rat infestation in the town's granary, the next, they participate in slaying a dragon. Every opponent would bring a different degree of difficulty, but not at an individual level. A single player might be able to deal with the rats, but it might take a collaboration of dozens of people to defeat the dragon. A character summons a magical light to find something in the dark or helps summon a demon as part of a coven.
This actually diverges slightly from another of the foundations of RP games, the fantasy story. Stories frequently have single individuals tackling the problems that should realistically require dozens. A single hero stands up to the dragon, or confronts the giant or steals the roc's egg. A game where a character needs to be part of a team to overcome specific obstacles steps neatly away from the 'heroic figure' concept.
I had thought that a suitable alternative to Progression might be Achievement, but I'm not sure it hold the same lure. There's almost 40 years of Progression-centric tradition to overcome. While I like the Achievement systems in games like EQ1 or LotRO (Deeds), prior implementations have strictly been subordinate to the other Progression based systems. A new game would also need to break this association.
----------
Could this be done? Almost certainly, given the right initial idea. Would it be easy? No.
Would it be interesting? That could be a huge problem. A Progression-less RP game might become too binary, everything either IS or ISNOT. It could easily remove the various levels of grey that allow players to compare their persona with another player's and be able to say 'I am stronger. I am faster. I am better'. It could easily become a matter of the random number generator, and player decision would mean little or nothing, it could become a simple game of chance. It would require a lot of work to develop such a system and keep it interesting.
Would it sell? Unknown. Such a game would require a huge marketing effort. The game might not even appeal to the traditional RP crowd.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.