Howdy, Stranger!

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

Is Linear Leveling Progression dead?

1101112131416»

Comments

  • katzklawkatzklaw Member UncommonPosts: 94
    Does XPadder have a preset for DDO?  I think I have a license for when I play Mass Effect 1.  The limited amount of time I've given to this, I kinda thought it would be more fun on my couch with a controller.  It's really the only way I can play games with targeting comfortably.
    ya know, i don't know. i made my own. 
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,667
    Does XPadder have a preset for DDO?  I think I have a license for when I play Mass Effect 1.  The limited amount of time I've given to this, I kinda thought it would be more fun on my couch with a controller.  It's really the only way I can play games with targeting comfortably.
    XPadder does work quite well for DDO.

    Keep in mind that DDO can be played in as "Action Targeting", "Assisted Targeting", and "Tab Targeting"
    Cuddleheart
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • RungarRungar Member RarePosts: 478
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    I mean the core idea is there in DDO in principle. They have all the cool monsters with interesting abilities for sure kinda like old D&D had in the monster manual.

    Its not like its difficult to put that in any game. I would just like to see it integrated with character roles as it would serve to make the game more social without preventing players from killing things on their own.  


    Apparently, it is, as almost no modern game has these features, if it was easy, you would think it would common, but it's not.

    As far as roles go, Ok.. Get this.

    DDO has all the core ideas of roles, like Cleric's heal, Mages blow stuff up, Fighters hit stuff, etc, etc, and all that jazz. It was a lot more simplistic when I started over a decade ago, and the game has evolved quite a bit since then.

    But even back then, "Soloing" was a challenge all in it's own right, where players would make class combos so they could be self reliant, healing themselves, via various means, and no joke, back in the day, this took a lot of work to make happen. It was it's own challenge and art form for a lot of players to be, what was deemed as self sufficient.

    And this was derived from the idea that no one wanted to be the person that had to enable someone else to have fun (Also called: Babysitting).

    People who enjoyed playing clerics and healers, began to step up into more aggressive roles, where if the melee/tank was being stupid or sloppy, they would just let them die and kill the mobs themselves, drop their stone at the rest shrine and either the melee player would catch a clue to play smarter, or they would end up a soul stone for the rest of the dungeon.

    The idea of forced roles is an archaic one, one that rightfully has gone the way of the dodo. The ideal game for the smart player in this era, is not needing roles, but needing to think about tactics, prep, and how to handle situations as they arise. This is why a lot of players have stayed with older games, but learned to far more self sufficient in them. Because the challenge of a dungeon should not be "Need a Healer" should be "Don't be stupid"

    I almost exclusively play healers and tanks in mmos so I quite understand how that system works in regards to dependency. It is an unhealthy design for 80% of players being dependent on 20% of players. 

    This is why ( if you read my thread on roles) i don't have either healing or tanking in it. Instead the better route is to leverage situational combat aspects like damage types and damage mitigation so that everyone is good everything and also bad at everything depending on the situation at hand. 

    The difference is that this manifests itself not according to what you are, but what your enemy is. 

    I dont agree with your roles assessment unless your specifically talking about the tank/healer/dps specific roles. My roles are more like archetypes but they are specific roles in the sense that they have an orientation. 

    Gonna slug out the controller remap and give it another shot :)  

    .33 of a second to midnight
  • CuddleheartCuddleheart Member UncommonPosts: 341
    Ungood said:
    Does XPadder have a preset for DDO?  I think I have a license for when I play Mass Effect 1.  The limited amount of time I've given to this, I kinda thought it would be more fun on my couch with a controller.  It's really the only way I can play games with targeting comfortably.
    XPadder does work quite well for DDO.

    Keep in mind that DDO can be played in as "Action Targeting", "Assisted Targeting", and "Tab Targeting"
    Herp derp.  I did not know that...mostly because I dismissed it as something that plays like never winter before I looked at ui settings.  That'll teach me.

    Thanks!
    Ungood
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,667
    Ungood said:
    Does XPadder have a preset for DDO?  I think I have a license for when I play Mass Effect 1.  The limited amount of time I've given to this, I kinda thought it would be more fun on my couch with a controller.  It's really the only way I can play games with targeting comfortably.
    XPadder does work quite well for DDO.

    Keep in mind that DDO can be played in as "Action Targeting", "Assisted Targeting", and "Tab Targeting"
    Herp derp.  I did not know that...mostly because I dismissed it as something that plays like never winter before I looked at ui settings.  That'll teach me.

    Thanks!
    The Tab targeting is kinda cool, if you set the buttons yourself, like you can target Closest Mob, Farthest Mob, or do a Mob Cycle, not just Tab.

    This is more to do with play style, as a Melee might want to just the use Closest Mob Button, as that does not end up with them targeting a mob that is across the room, and a Ranged Player might want to use Farthest Mob, so if they are using Improved Precise Shot, they can shoot and hit all the mobs from front to back.

    It's a pretty in-depth game.
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,667
    Rungar said:
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    I mean the core idea is there in DDO in principle. They have all the cool monsters with interesting abilities for sure kinda like old D&D had in the monster manual.

    Its not like its difficult to put that in any game. I would just like to see it integrated with character roles as it would serve to make the game more social without preventing players from killing things on their own.  


    Apparently, it is, as almost no modern game has these features, if it was easy, you would think it would common, but it's not.

    As far as roles go, Ok.. Get this.

    DDO has all the core ideas of roles, like Cleric's heal, Mages blow stuff up, Fighters hit stuff, etc, etc, and all that jazz. It was a lot more simplistic when I started over a decade ago, and the game has evolved quite a bit since then.

    But even back then, "Soloing" was a challenge all in it's own right, where players would make class combos so they could be self reliant, healing themselves, via various means, and no joke, back in the day, this took a lot of work to make happen. It was it's own challenge and art form for a lot of players to be, what was deemed as self sufficient.

    And this was derived from the idea that no one wanted to be the person that had to enable someone else to have fun (Also called: Babysitting).

    People who enjoyed playing clerics and healers, began to step up into more aggressive roles, where if the melee/tank was being stupid or sloppy, they would just let them die and kill the mobs themselves, drop their stone at the rest shrine and either the melee player would catch a clue to play smarter, or they would end up a soul stone for the rest of the dungeon.

    The idea of forced roles is an archaic one, one that rightfully has gone the way of the dodo. The ideal game for the smart player in this era, is not needing roles, but needing to think about tactics, prep, and how to handle situations as they arise. This is why a lot of players have stayed with older games, but learned to far more self sufficient in them. Because the challenge of a dungeon should not be "Need a Healer" should be "Don't be stupid"

    I almost exclusively play healers and tanks in mmos so I quite understand how that system works in regards to dependency. It is an unhealthy design for 80% of players being dependent on 20% of players. 

    This is why ( if you read my thread on roles) i don't have either healing or tanking in it. Instead the better route is to leverage situational combat aspects like damage types and damage mitigation so that everyone is good everything and also bad at everything depending on the situation at hand. 

    The difference is that this manifests itself not according to what you are, but what your enemy is. 

    I dont agree with your roles assessment unless your specifically talking about the tank/healer/dps specific roles. My roles are more like archetypes but they are specific roles in the sense that they have an orientation. 

    You totally lost me with this.
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • RungarRungar Member RarePosts: 478
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    I mean the core idea is there in DDO in principle. They have all the cool monsters with interesting abilities for sure kinda like old D&D had in the monster manual.

    Its not like its difficult to put that in any game. I would just like to see it integrated with character roles as it would serve to make the game more social without preventing players from killing things on their own.  


    Apparently, it is, as almost no modern game has these features, if it was easy, you would think it would common, but it's not.

    As far as roles go, Ok.. Get this.

    DDO has all the core ideas of roles, like Cleric's heal, Mages blow stuff up, Fighters hit stuff, etc, etc, and all that jazz. It was a lot more simplistic when I started over a decade ago, and the game has evolved quite a bit since then.

    But even back then, "Soloing" was a challenge all in it's own right, where players would make class combos so they could be self reliant, healing themselves, via various means, and no joke, back in the day, this took a lot of work to make happen. It was it's own challenge and art form for a lot of players to be, what was deemed as self sufficient.

    And this was derived from the idea that no one wanted to be the person that had to enable someone else to have fun (Also called: Babysitting).

    People who enjoyed playing clerics and healers, began to step up into more aggressive roles, where if the melee/tank was being stupid or sloppy, they would just let them die and kill the mobs themselves, drop their stone at the rest shrine and either the melee player would catch a clue to play smarter, or they would end up a soul stone for the rest of the dungeon.

    The idea of forced roles is an archaic one, one that rightfully has gone the way of the dodo. The ideal game for the smart player in this era, is not needing roles, but needing to think about tactics, prep, and how to handle situations as they arise. This is why a lot of players have stayed with older games, but learned to far more self sufficient in them. Because the challenge of a dungeon should not be "Need a Healer" should be "Don't be stupid"

    I almost exclusively play healers and tanks in mmos so I quite understand how that system works in regards to dependency. It is an unhealthy design for 80% of players being dependent on 20% of players. 

    This is why ( if you read my thread on roles) i don't have either healing or tanking in it. Instead the better route is to leverage situational combat aspects like damage types and damage mitigation so that everyone is good everything and also bad at everything depending on the situation at hand. 

    The difference is that this manifests itself not according to what you are, but what your enemy is. 

    I dont agree with your roles assessment unless your specifically talking about the tank/healer/dps specific roles. My roles are more like archetypes but they are specific roles in the sense that they have an orientation. 

    You totally lost me with this.
    ha ha lol.. yea. You kinda do have to read it all.  

    almost got the controller working to my liking. 
    katzklawUngood
    .33 of a second to midnight
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 4,480
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    I mean the core idea is there in DDO in principle. They have all the cool monsters with interesting abilities for sure kinda like old D&D had in the monster manual.

    Its not like its difficult to put that in any game. I would just like to see it integrated with character roles as it would serve to make the game more social without preventing players from killing things on their own.  


    Apparently, it is, as almost no modern game has these features, if it was easy, you would think it would common, but it's not.

    As far as roles go, Ok.. Get this.

    DDO has all the core ideas of roles, like Cleric's heal, Mages blow stuff up, Fighters hit stuff, etc, etc, and all that jazz. It was a lot more simplistic when I started over a decade ago, and the game has evolved quite a bit since then.

    But even back then, "Soloing" was a challenge all in it's own right, where players would make class combos so they could be self reliant, healing themselves, via various means, and no joke, back in the day, this took a lot of work to make happen. It was it's own challenge and art form for a lot of players to be, what was deemed as self sufficient.

    And this was derived from the idea that no one wanted to be the person that had to enable someone else to have fun (Also called: Babysitting).

    People who enjoyed playing clerics and healers, began to step up into more aggressive roles, where if the melee/tank was being stupid or sloppy, they would just let them die and kill the mobs themselves, drop their stone at the rest shrine and either the melee player would catch a clue to play smarter, or they would end up a soul stone for the rest of the dungeon.

    The idea of forced roles is an archaic one, one that rightfully has gone the way of the dodo. The ideal game for the smart player in this era, is not needing roles, but needing to think about tactics, prep, and how to handle situations as they arise. This is why a lot of players have stayed with older games, but learned to far more self sufficient in them. Because the challenge of a dungeon should not be "Need a Healer" should be "Don't be stupid"

    I almost exclusively play healers and tanks in mmos so I quite understand how that system works in regards to dependency. It is an unhealthy design for 80% of players being dependent on 20% of players. 

    This is why ( if you read my thread on roles) i don't have either healing or tanking in it. Instead the better route is to leverage situational combat aspects like damage types and damage mitigation so that everyone is good everything and also bad at everything depending on the situation at hand. 

    The difference is that this manifests itself not according to what you are, but what your enemy is. 

    I dont agree with your roles assessment unless your specifically talking about the tank/healer/dps specific roles. My roles are more like archetypes but they are specific roles in the sense that they have an orientation. 

    You totally lost me with this.

    Basically, he's advocating for systems where every individual is capable of performing every task.  You need to kill a mob?  Do some DPS.  You need someone to tank?  Do it yourself.  Owie!  The mob bit me?  Heal yourself.  No specialists, only jacks-of-all-trades.

    I might agree (partially) that too many players are overly dependent on pre-defined character classes to determine their role.  But that only determines one aspect of the character, their function (focus) in combat situations.  That is a limitation that the game systems force on the players -- you don't get XP from anything except killing mobs.  That totally ignores the more social aspects of Role Playing.



    AlBQuirky

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • RungarRungar Member RarePosts: 478
    Mendel said:
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    I mean the core idea is there in DDO in principle. They have all the cool monsters with interesting abilities for sure kinda like old D&D had in the monster manual.

    Its not like its difficult to put that in any game. I would just like to see it integrated with character roles as it would serve to make the game more social without preventing players from killing things on their own.  


    Apparently, it is, as almost no modern game has these features, if it was easy, you would think it would common, but it's not.

    As far as roles go, Ok.. Get this.

    DDO has all the core ideas of roles, like Cleric's heal, Mages blow stuff up, Fighters hit stuff, etc, etc, and all that jazz. It was a lot more simplistic when I started over a decade ago, and the game has evolved quite a bit since then.

    But even back then, "Soloing" was a challenge all in it's own right, where players would make class combos so they could be self reliant, healing themselves, via various means, and no joke, back in the day, this took a lot of work to make happen. It was it's own challenge and art form for a lot of players to be, what was deemed as self sufficient.

    And this was derived from the idea that no one wanted to be the person that had to enable someone else to have fun (Also called: Babysitting).

    People who enjoyed playing clerics and healers, began to step up into more aggressive roles, where if the melee/tank was being stupid or sloppy, they would just let them die and kill the mobs themselves, drop their stone at the rest shrine and either the melee player would catch a clue to play smarter, or they would end up a soul stone for the rest of the dungeon.

    The idea of forced roles is an archaic one, one that rightfully has gone the way of the dodo. The ideal game for the smart player in this era, is not needing roles, but needing to think about tactics, prep, and how to handle situations as they arise. This is why a lot of players have stayed with older games, but learned to far more self sufficient in them. Because the challenge of a dungeon should not be "Need a Healer" should be "Don't be stupid"

    I almost exclusively play healers and tanks in mmos so I quite understand how that system works in regards to dependency. It is an unhealthy design for 80% of players being dependent on 20% of players. 

    This is why ( if you read my thread on roles) i don't have either healing or tanking in it. Instead the better route is to leverage situational combat aspects like damage types and damage mitigation so that everyone is good everything and also bad at everything depending on the situation at hand. 

    The difference is that this manifests itself not according to what you are, but what your enemy is. 

    I dont agree with your roles assessment unless your specifically talking about the tank/healer/dps specific roles. My roles are more like archetypes but they are specific roles in the sense that they have an orientation. 

    You totally lost me with this.

    Basically, he's advocating for systems where every individual is capable of performing every task.  You need to kill a mob?  Do some DPS.  You need someone to tank?  Do it yourself.  Owie!  The mob bit me?  Heal yourself.  No specialists, only jacks-of-all-trades.

    I might agree (partially) that too many players are overly dependent on pre-defined character classes to determine their role.  But that only determines one aspect of the character, their function (focus) in combat situations.  That is a limitation that the game systems force on the players -- you don't get XP from anything except killing mobs.  That totally ignores the more social aspects of Role Playing.



    that is exactly not it. lol
    Ungood
    .33 of a second to midnight
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 8,296
    385 posts on a topic we have debated hundreds of times?
    AlBQuirky
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,667
    Mendel said:
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    I mean the core idea is there in DDO in principle. They have all the cool monsters with interesting abilities for sure kinda like old D&D had in the monster manual.

    Its not like its difficult to put that in any game. I would just like to see it integrated with character roles as it would serve to make the game more social without preventing players from killing things on their own.  


    Apparently, it is, as almost no modern game has these features, if it was easy, you would think it would common, but it's not.

    As far as roles go, Ok.. Get this.

    DDO has all the core ideas of roles, like Cleric's heal, Mages blow stuff up, Fighters hit stuff, etc, etc, and all that jazz. It was a lot more simplistic when I started over a decade ago, and the game has evolved quite a bit since then.

    But even back then, "Soloing" was a challenge all in it's own right, where players would make class combos so they could be self reliant, healing themselves, via various means, and no joke, back in the day, this took a lot of work to make happen. It was it's own challenge and art form for a lot of players to be, what was deemed as self sufficient.

    And this was derived from the idea that no one wanted to be the person that had to enable someone else to have fun (Also called: Babysitting).

    People who enjoyed playing clerics and healers, began to step up into more aggressive roles, where if the melee/tank was being stupid or sloppy, they would just let them die and kill the mobs themselves, drop their stone at the rest shrine and either the melee player would catch a clue to play smarter, or they would end up a soul stone for the rest of the dungeon.

    The idea of forced roles is an archaic one, one that rightfully has gone the way of the dodo. The ideal game for the smart player in this era, is not needing roles, but needing to think about tactics, prep, and how to handle situations as they arise. This is why a lot of players have stayed with older games, but learned to far more self sufficient in them. Because the challenge of a dungeon should not be "Need a Healer" should be "Don't be stupid"

    I almost exclusively play healers and tanks in mmos so I quite understand how that system works in regards to dependency. It is an unhealthy design for 80% of players being dependent on 20% of players. 

    This is why ( if you read my thread on roles) i don't have either healing or tanking in it. Instead the better route is to leverage situational combat aspects like damage types and damage mitigation so that everyone is good everything and also bad at everything depending on the situation at hand. 

    The difference is that this manifests itself not according to what you are, but what your enemy is. 

    I dont agree with your roles assessment unless your specifically talking about the tank/healer/dps specific roles. My roles are more like archetypes but they are specific roles in the sense that they have an orientation. 

    You totally lost me with this.

    Basically, he's advocating for systems where every individual is capable of performing every task.  You need to kill a mob?  Do some DPS.  You need someone to tank?  Do it yourself.  Owie!  The mob bit me?  Heal yourself.  No specialists, only jacks-of-all-trades.

    I might agree (partially) that too many players are overly dependent on pre-defined character classes to determine their role.  But that only determines one aspect of the character, their function (focus) in combat situations.  That is a limitation that the game systems force on the players -- you don't get XP from anything except killing mobs.  That totally ignores the more social aspects of Role Playing.



    I love the hell out of that system in GW2, where everyone could DPS, and Heal themselves, and there was no defined roles, like Tank, Healer, DPS, CC, Buffer, etc, but each class had their pro's and con's they brought to the group, to augment the group. Like Necros being able to lay down some amazing dots, and Guards being able to group buff and grant stability and the like. So, there was a lot to work with the dynamic of that, and they even put in fields and finishers to make group play more interwoven.

    It ended with "Max Meta DPS or you Suck!" "We need Roles to have Challenge" "Class X, Y, and Z, Sucks as a general whole, and are not welcome in most groups"
    AlBQuirky
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,667
    385 posts on a topic we have debated hundreds of times?
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I rather a discussion then a debate.

    A debate is where I am trying to win

    A discussion is where I am trying to learn.
    ChampieAlBQuirky
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • RungarRungar Member RarePosts: 478
    Ungood said:
    Mendel said:
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    Ungood said:
    Rungar said:
    I mean the core idea is there in DDO in principle. They have all the cool monsters with interesting abilities for sure kinda like old D&D had in the monster manual.

    Its not like its difficult to put that in any game. I would just like to see it integrated with character roles as it would serve to make the game more social without preventing players from killing things on their own.  


    Apparently, it is, as almost no modern game has these features, if it was easy, you would think it would common, but it's not.

    As far as roles go, Ok.. Get this.

    DDO has all the core ideas of roles, like Cleric's heal, Mages blow stuff up, Fighters hit stuff, etc, etc, and all that jazz. It was a lot more simplistic when I started over a decade ago, and the game has evolved quite a bit since then.

    But even back then, "Soloing" was a challenge all in it's own right, where players would make class combos so they could be self reliant, healing themselves, via various means, and no joke, back in the day, this took a lot of work to make happen. It was it's own challenge and art form for a lot of players to be, what was deemed as self sufficient.

    And this was derived from the idea that no one wanted to be the person that had to enable someone else to have fun (Also called: Babysitting).

    People who enjoyed playing clerics and healers, began to step up into more aggressive roles, where if the melee/tank was being stupid or sloppy, they would just let them die and kill the mobs themselves, drop their stone at the rest shrine and either the melee player would catch a clue to play smarter, or they would end up a soul stone for the rest of the dungeon.

    The idea of forced roles is an archaic one, one that rightfully has gone the way of the dodo. The ideal game for the smart player in this era, is not needing roles, but needing to think about tactics, prep, and how to handle situations as they arise. This is why a lot of players have stayed with older games, but learned to far more self sufficient in them. Because the challenge of a dungeon should not be "Need a Healer" should be "Don't be stupid"

    I almost exclusively play healers and tanks in mmos so I quite understand how that system works in regards to dependency. It is an unhealthy design for 80% of players being dependent on 20% of players. 

    This is why ( if you read my thread on roles) i don't have either healing or tanking in it. Instead the better route is to leverage situational combat aspects like damage types and damage mitigation so that everyone is good everything and also bad at everything depending on the situation at hand. 

    The difference is that this manifests itself not according to what you are, but what your enemy is. 

    I dont agree with your roles assessment unless your specifically talking about the tank/healer/dps specific roles. My roles are more like archetypes but they are specific roles in the sense that they have an orientation. 

    You totally lost me with this.

    Basically, he's advocating for systems where every individual is capable of performing every task.  You need to kill a mob?  Do some DPS.  You need someone to tank?  Do it yourself.  Owie!  The mob bit me?  Heal yourself.  No specialists, only jacks-of-all-trades.

    I might agree (partially) that too many players are overly dependent on pre-defined character classes to determine their role.  But that only determines one aspect of the character, their function (focus) in combat situations.  That is a limitation that the game systems force on the players -- you don't get XP from anything except killing mobs.  That totally ignores the more social aspects of Role Playing.



    I love the hell out of that system in GW2, where everyone could DPS, and Heal themselves, and there was no defined roles, like Tank, Healer, DPS, CC, Buffer, etc, but each class had their pro's and con's they brought to the group, to augment the group. Like Necros being able to lay down some amazing dots, and Guards being able to group buff and grant stability and the like. So, there was a lot to work with the dynamic of that, and they even put in fields and finishers to make group play more interwoven.

    It ended with "Max Meta DPS or you Suck!" "We need Roles to have Challenge" "Class X, Y, and Z, Sucks as a general whole, and are not welcome in most groups"
    I played GW2 a long time ago and i understand where your coming from. That game had no roles, or specifically each class was its own role. This is the wrong thread to discuss roles but there is a happy medium between tank and spank and no roles. That happy medium imo is situational  damage type and mitigation type based roles.

    The reason why it will work is because we remove some of the focus from the player to the monster. The 3 role system i propose has no healing role, tanking is purely situational and your "dps" has alot to do with "correct tool for the job, which you might not have" as opposed to how fast you can press buttons or what level you are. 


    The roles are still there and very clear, no one can do it all, but its structured in a way that doesn't promote dependency but at the same time promotes teamwork.  


      
    AlBQuirky
    .33 of a second to midnight
  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 3,287
    Meh Guild Wars 2 and ESO already solved this with level scaling and it doesn't really matter in MMOs without level scaling because you will be max level in 2 weeks anyway. 

    On top of that I don't care about levels. I liked UO and SGW and they both used more of a skill/profession system.

    As far as linear level progression being dead... I want what you're smoking.
    AlBQuirkyUngood

    "You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon

    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer

    Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/ 

Sign In or Register to comment.