www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Friday, September 14, 2007
Imagine WoW without levels
In yesterday's discussion of end game option I mentioned that MMORPG games are scaleable. And several commenters mentioned that they would prefer games without levels. So I was thinking how to combine these facts and make levels in WoW irrelevant and came up with several different solutions. Imagine the following hypothetical World of Warcrafts:
A) All instances would scale the difficulty of their monsters and all the rewards according to the level of the group entering the dungeon. If a level 70 group entered the Deadmines, the mobs would be level 70, and there would be level 70 blue items dropping. If a level 20 raid group entered Karazhan, the mobs would level 20ish. The bosses would drop purple epics, but they would be level 20 epics, barely better than level 20 blue gear. Thus dungeons would never become irrelevant. If you liked Gnomeregan, you could go there with your friends at whatever level you are, and always get rewards appropriate to your level.
B) The dungeons of World of Warcraft would remain at the level where they are. But whenever a group enters the dungeon, all group members are set to the standard level of the dungeon, regardless of their previous level. So a level 20 could group with a level 70 and other characters of whatever level, and when they enter the cathedral part of Scarlet Monastery, they would all be level 42. Their gear would likewise be scaled up or down to level 42. The monsters would drop whatever item they usually drop, for example Whitemane's Chapeau from High Inquisitor Whitemane. In the instance everybody would see the normal stats of that item (Cloth head armor, 52 Armor, +14 Spirit, +14 Intellect, +9 Stamina). But once out of the dungeon, the chapeau adjusts to the real level of the user at the time he entered the dungeon. Thus it would always remain a head cloth armor with bonuses to spirit, intellect, and stamina; but for a level 20 it would give less of those than normal, and for a level 70 it would give more.
C) The most radical solution would be to forget about levels altogether. Every character on creation starts in a single-player instance, or even offline like in Age of Conan. In this instance he levels up to 70 in a few hours, learning all the spells and abilities of his class. Once he enters the multiplayer part of the World of Warcraft, all the monsters he sees are level 70, all zones are level 70, as well as all dungeons. With everything at the same level, basically there are no levels any more.
I don't think that any of these hypothetical WoW's would work much better than the current one. It solves some problems of content becoming obsolete, or people not able to play with each other. But it creates bigger problems with a loss of motivation. Leveling up and character development are major driving forces of MMORPGs, if you take them away many people just won't be interested any more in playing. If anything would work, then probably a more individual system of mentoring / sidekicks like in Everquest 2 or City of Heroes, with people being able to adjust their level to that of a friend to play together. But I don't see that used all that often in EQ2, because the rewards don't scale.
- posted by Tobold @ 1:42 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
I believe that lvls are really appreciate by ppl. It's the basic achievement for a MMO player, and maybe get the last lvl is one of the major achivements for casual player. And it's one of the few things that in a MMO give you a feeling of completitions.
Also who don't remeber her fisrt lvl 10?
Or in Wow the first lvl 40 with the mount "price". etc...
And by far are more simply that skilled based games like Eve or SWG were the "gimp factor" is far greater than the based lvl ones...
Also who don't remeber her fisrt lvl 10?
Or in Wow the first lvl 40 with the mount "price". etc...
And by far are more simply that skilled based games like Eve or SWG were the "gimp factor" is far greater than the based lvl ones...
# posted by 
: 14/9/07 14:32
: 14/9/07 14:32
I find levels to take away a lot of the 'immersiveness' of a game. Levels just don't seem very realistic. Many games allow you to not see other people/mobs levels but you still have to deal with levels for your own character's progression.
What I would prefer is a game where, as you play the game your character starts to get stronger (ie. combat mods increase, stats increase) but all the xp, stats, mods, levels, ... etc are hidden to the players.
What I would prefer is a game where, as you play the game your character starts to get stronger (ie. combat mods increase, stats increase) but all the xp, stats, mods, levels, ... etc are hidden to the players.
good points. But looking at the benefits of these ideas if WOW had Mentoring tied with scalable instances that would solve the obsolete content problem too. Assuming the gear that drop was scalable also.
I think that people like accomplishment and if they do away with levels they'll have to add something else like titles for finishing certain encounters or content or people will revolt.
People want goals to move towards.
The problem now though is for new characters or rerollers there are no goals worth anything till 70. Thats a freaking long way away when your level 1.
I think that people like accomplishment and if they do away with levels they'll have to add something else like titles for finishing certain encounters or content or people will revolt.
People want goals to move towards.
The problem now though is for new characters or rerollers there are no goals worth anything till 70. Thats a freaking long way away when your level 1.
I think the MMORGP system should resemble real life at least in a tiny bit. The cool thing in a real life is that some total noob could go on and kill a train assassin just by freaking chance. In games like WoW it is rather impossible.
I mean who need levels ? Players need some achievement out of the game thats all.
I would like to finally see a game where you have skills in stead of levels and your skills as in real life grow better with training and weaken with time passing by when you do casual stuff or use other skills. You could have a set of skills which you could extend and all skills would become better for ex your speed with making use of them. Then also as in real life your skills would weaken with time spent online just afking for ex. and once trained skills would grow back real fast also as in our human world.
With such a system you could grab a sword and with mere skill vanquish a player much more experienced who moves a bit faster and is a bit stronger etc but its not like in todays MMORPGs where lvl 70 can flag himself and go afk while 100 lvl 1 try to hit him.
I mean who need levels ? Players need some achievement out of the game thats all.
I would like to finally see a game where you have skills in stead of levels and your skills as in real life grow better with training and weaken with time passing by when you do casual stuff or use other skills. You could have a set of skills which you could extend and all skills would become better for ex your speed with making use of them. Then also as in real life your skills would weaken with time spent online just afking for ex. and once trained skills would grow back real fast also as in our human world.
With such a system you could grab a sword and with mere skill vanquish a player much more experienced who moves a bit faster and is a bit stronger etc but its not like in todays MMORPGs where lvl 70 can flag himself and go afk while 100 lvl 1 try to hit him.
# posted by : 14/9/07 16:43
: 14/9/07 16:43
I will never understand why all MMOs don't solve the "play with your friends" problem the same way CoH did. For all the talk of the super-flexible character creation system, the best aspect of that game was the Sidekick/Exemplar system. Want to hang out with your 40 level friend? If he's too high, just become his sidekick for the day, and be (mostly) scaled up to his level. If he's too low, become an exexmplar for him, and be (mostly) scaled down.
Why every game doesn't loot this system and incorporate it is beyond me. After playing CoH, one of my friends wondered, "Why does Blizzard hate people grouping?" It's not that, really, it's just that Cryptic did it so well.
Why every game doesn't loot this system and incorporate it is beyond me. After playing CoH, one of my friends wondered, "Why does Blizzard hate people grouping?" It's not that, really, it's just that Cryptic did it so well.
I don't think it's that they hate people grouping. I think they entered BC believing the things they posted on the forums that people grouped and raided soley for fun. The problem is MMO"s squeeze players to be efficient. And since they didn't do anything to make grouping as efficient as soloing till end game grouping was effectively killed at lower levels. And at higher levels everyone feels the pain because of all the people that soloed to end game.
I don't know; I think I'd really like option C. Not WoW remade as option C, but a game designed to be that way from the start.
The issue of motivation and achievement is still important, of course. Levels are an easy to understand, familiar form of that. But lots of other things motivate, too.
For instance, getting a mount could be a huge, proud accomplishment. Some WoW classes of elaborate quests to achieve mounts, but a game designed differently could require such quests of everyone. In a fairy-tale style game, for example, a character interested in riding a unicorn could have quests to obtain a magical bridle, to find a maiden willing to help out, and so on. These quests could easily keep a player busy for quite some time.
Other rewards--equipment and access to content, for example--can obviously be great motivators. Look at the hardcore end-gamers.
But gaining personal attributes is possible as well. Tabula Rasa's quests to get logos (though I find them a bit boring) could motivate. Restricting ability acquisition to trees can add some control to character growth, and there's no reason not to cap growth to encourage roles.
But the fun is (1) the rewards don't have to be tied to leveling (as WoW mounts are, for example), (2) your achievements give you definition but not exclusively out-and-out more power (so the newer players are effectively CoH-style sidekicks all the time), (3) you can pursue the rewards that most interest you at any time.
Oh, such a game would need careful design, of course, but what game doesn't?
I'm all for getting rid of levels . . . but then, I'm for getting rid of visible hit points and instead having damage (inflicted and received) visible through in-game effects, and crazy schemes like that.
--Alec
The issue of motivation and achievement is still important, of course. Levels are an easy to understand, familiar form of that. But lots of other things motivate, too.
For instance, getting a mount could be a huge, proud accomplishment. Some WoW classes of elaborate quests to achieve mounts, but a game designed differently could require such quests of everyone. In a fairy-tale style game, for example, a character interested in riding a unicorn could have quests to obtain a magical bridle, to find a maiden willing to help out, and so on. These quests could easily keep a player busy for quite some time.
Other rewards--equipment and access to content, for example--can obviously be great motivators. Look at the hardcore end-gamers.
But gaining personal attributes is possible as well. Tabula Rasa's quests to get logos (though I find them a bit boring) could motivate. Restricting ability acquisition to trees can add some control to character growth, and there's no reason not to cap growth to encourage roles.
But the fun is (1) the rewards don't have to be tied to leveling (as WoW mounts are, for example), (2) your achievements give you definition but not exclusively out-and-out more power (so the newer players are effectively CoH-style sidekicks all the time), (3) you can pursue the rewards that most interest you at any time.
Oh, such a game would need careful design, of course, but what game doesn't?
I'm all for getting rid of levels . . . but then, I'm for getting rid of visible hit points and instead having damage (inflicted and received) visible through in-game effects, and crazy schemes like that.
--Alec
# posted by : 14/9/07 18:28
: 14/9/07 18:28
I'm suprised to see levels looked at this way when most ideas are viewed on a broader scale at this blog. "Level" might as well be x, where x=tracking of progress. If you truly take away levels, then what you are talking about is taking away progress. Do you really want to play a game that has no progress?
Scaling a dungeon wouldn't work either. It would take all of one month for players to figure out which dungeon yielded the best advantages and the rest would get abandoned. And if you scale the loot but keep the levels, it wouldn't take long to hear the argument "you're level 20, I'm level 70. This item would be way better for me, you'll just outgrow it"
The level is a means of tracking play time, experience in game, access to greater things, etc. No levels? Then you have progress tracked by gear, or skills, talents, exploration, wealth. You would end up with the same thing, a means of tracking progress. All you would accomplish is the changing of what "level" is called.
If you truly had no levels (a means of distinguishing player experience and game time, by any name), that would mean no progress of any kind. How long would you play an MMORPG that held you to the same capabilities of the guy who just started his account today?
Scaling a dungeon wouldn't work either. It would take all of one month for players to figure out which dungeon yielded the best advantages and the rest would get abandoned. And if you scale the loot but keep the levels, it wouldn't take long to hear the argument "you're level 20, I'm level 70. This item would be way better for me, you'll just outgrow it"
The level is a means of tracking play time, experience in game, access to greater things, etc. No levels? Then you have progress tracked by gear, or skills, talents, exploration, wealth. You would end up with the same thing, a means of tracking progress. All you would accomplish is the changing of what "level" is called.
If you truly had no levels (a means of distinguishing player experience and game time, by any name), that would mean no progress of any kind. How long would you play an MMORPG that held you to the same capabilities of the guy who just started his account today?
# posted by : 14/9/07 18:31
: 14/9/07 18:31
I also think Option C wold work. I really think we could live without leveling.
Guild wars comes very close to this already. The low level cap and strictly limited itemisation means players reach maximum stats early on in their playing career. Including expansions there is now lots of PVE content for players at this level and many many players are content to keep playing the PVE game without the carrot of increasing stats.
I think it is fabulous that new players can quickly catch up with older friends and guild members and meaningfully play with them.
Guild wars does have other incentives: Experience new content, Collect titles, Collect Vanity armour sets, Collect new skills.
The world of Guild Wars is not as immersive as WOW or LOTRO but a lot of this is due to the use of instancing. I think that a game with a rich non-instanced world could survive very well even without a never ending stat ladder.
Guild wars comes very close to this already. The low level cap and strictly limited itemisation means players reach maximum stats early on in their playing career. Including expansions there is now lots of PVE content for players at this level and many many players are content to keep playing the PVE game without the carrot of increasing stats.
I think it is fabulous that new players can quickly catch up with older friends and guild members and meaningfully play with them.
Guild wars does have other incentives: Experience new content, Collect titles, Collect Vanity armour sets, Collect new skills.
The world of Guild Wars is not as immersive as WOW or LOTRO but a lot of this is due to the use of instancing. I think that a game with a rich non-instanced world could survive very well even without a never ending stat ladder.
Oh, I agree completely with that. I ran out of content for CoH in a few months (that was the MMO I was the most addicted to. I hit level 50 cap before Issue 3 came out, and that was when leveling was still super slow - and I did it with a controller!).
What kept me was an immersive environment, where you could constantly tweak your character, and a game system that actively encouraged RPing, to the point that even though it didn't have an official RP server, I saw FAR more "world RP" in CoH than I do on my supposedly RP-PvP WoW server. We could make bases (very customizable) we constantly got new costume pieces to play with... it kept me going even after I was done with leveling content.
What kept me was an immersive environment, where you could constantly tweak your character, and a game system that actively encouraged RPing, to the point that even though it didn't have an official RP server, I saw FAR more "world RP" in CoH than I do on my supposedly RP-PvP WoW server. We could make bases (very customizable) we constantly got new costume pieces to play with... it kept me going even after I was done with leveling content.
City of Heroes/Villains has a little bit of all three options
a) Instances scale to the level of the mission owner at the time it was obtained, as well as the current difficulty setting.
b) In PvP all scale to a specific level for that zone (up or down), making everyone the same level.
c) Giant Monsters and Rikti Invasion forces are level-less and they adjust individually to each player fighting them.
I must say that I agree with other comments that I am a bit surprised that some of the ideas to make it easier for people to play together that you have in CoH/CoV has not made it into other games.
a) Instances scale to the level of the mission owner at the time it was obtained, as well as the current difficulty setting.
b) In PvP all scale to a specific level for that zone (up or down), making everyone the same level.
c) Giant Monsters and Rikti Invasion forces are level-less and they adjust individually to each player fighting them.
I must say that I agree with other comments that I am a bit surprised that some of the ideas to make it easier for people to play together that you have in CoH/CoV has not made it into other games.
# posted by : 14/9/07 23:38
: 14/9/07 23:38
Some of the major problems with no level system is the only thing you would have to work toward is gear. Once you have got the best gear you would get, what then? You could say the same thing about most MMOs that people currently play but how long does it take for them to get to that point?
The first time you level up a character it takes quite a while. While to some this is just viewed as a time sink until they can start raiding, to some of us this is the best part (casual players). Yes, some content will not get used after people out level it and they become barren zones you only find a few people in. All part of the game. EQ2 has did a great job of revamping older zones to make them more playable. Adding more named or redoing the loot the named drop to keep it current.
I would love to see idea A on alot of the old raid zones that no longer get used. But how much loot does the game really need? If you went by that idea why would you need new content? What the uber hat, go to instance X. Which ever instance gave the "best" loot would be the only places that people would go to. With 14 gear slots (made up number... varies from game to game) you would only need 14 instances in the game then. People would get bored to quick with them.
OR if you had more instances and the loot split up between them all you would see people saying "that instance does not drop anything I need, I dont want to go."
After you reach level 70 what is the point of doing any quests? you don't gain exp and most of the items are crappy compaired to "instance loot"
Same deal with option B & C. While no levels would be nice for a short time, it would make the game get old to fast. People need the time sink of leveling. It gives people a sense of accomplishment.
The first time you level up a character it takes quite a while. While to some this is just viewed as a time sink until they can start raiding, to some of us this is the best part (casual players). Yes, some content will not get used after people out level it and they become barren zones you only find a few people in. All part of the game. EQ2 has did a great job of revamping older zones to make them more playable. Adding more named or redoing the loot the named drop to keep it current.
I would love to see idea A on alot of the old raid zones that no longer get used. But how much loot does the game really need? If you went by that idea why would you need new content? What the uber hat, go to instance X. Which ever instance gave the "best" loot would be the only places that people would go to. With 14 gear slots (made up number... varies from game to game) you would only need 14 instances in the game then. People would get bored to quick with them.
OR if you had more instances and the loot split up between them all you would see people saying "that instance does not drop anything I need, I dont want to go."
After you reach level 70 what is the point of doing any quests? you don't gain exp and most of the items are crappy compaired to "instance loot"
Same deal with option B & C. While no levels would be nice for a short time, it would make the game get old to fast. People need the time sink of leveling. It gives people a sense of accomplishment.
Content doesn't become obsolete. There's always level 10 characters around. Or level 33s. Or 47s. Just because someone has outgrown content doesn't make it obsolete. It isn't all about them, is it? "Multiplayer" implies other people. We aren't all level 70 with 2000 hours played. Not all of us. Nor would we want to be in those shoes. That's not why we're playing.
Yes, if the purpose of World of Warcraft was to be an End-Game Instance Game, ala Guild Wars roll a Level 20 PvP Character to PvP with, then it would be fine to do away with levels.
However I believe a few enjoy leveling up. And World of Warcraft offers that experience marvelously.
I know there are some for whom enjoyment can only be had by first touching, then caressing, then knocking their heads against the current ceilings, whether it's in their given profession or in their raiding, but Blizzard shouldn't be building the game around them. Should it? It's not about them. It's about all of us.
Because those same people can't be appeased. Knocking their head against ceilings hurts after a while. That dull headache is boredom.
And scaling dungeons to one's level? That won't work nor matter. The min-maxers will find the easiest dungeon with the maximum reward and grind that endlessly, all the while bemoaning how awful boring it all is.
Yep, you bang the nail on the head. It would rob us of motivation. We're here to play, not to assist in our enjoyment's own suicide.
Yes, if the purpose of World of Warcraft was to be an End-Game Instance Game, ala Guild Wars roll a Level 20 PvP Character to PvP with, then it would be fine to do away with levels.
However I believe a few enjoy leveling up. And World of Warcraft offers that experience marvelously.
I know there are some for whom enjoyment can only be had by first touching, then caressing, then knocking their heads against the current ceilings, whether it's in their given profession or in their raiding, but Blizzard shouldn't be building the game around them. Should it? It's not about them. It's about all of us.
Because those same people can't be appeased. Knocking their head against ceilings hurts after a while. That dull headache is boredom.
And scaling dungeons to one's level? That won't work nor matter. The min-maxers will find the easiest dungeon with the maximum reward and grind that endlessly, all the while bemoaning how awful boring it all is.
Yep, you bang the nail on the head. It would rob us of motivation. We're here to play, not to assist in our enjoyment's own suicide.
Diablo 2 has a nice lvl scale, reaching the lvl cap is merely a way to go the extra mile to tweak out your pvp char. Pvp vs a lvl 90 vs a lvl 99 wouldnt make a difference skill wise because the skill trees are setup so that you get your core skills by around lvl 40, and beyong that its mostly to tweak your char into a special role.
Guildwars has instanced pvp that doesnt require the typical arsenal of hardcore games... (massive amounts of time lvling :<) You can jump right in and experience fairly advanced fights with no time commitment. The reason this works well on GW is that you earn "faction" that you can spend towards learning new content (skills,weapons,heros, runes, etc) and the ammonut of content that you can pvp towards so far has kept me busy for over a year with just casually playing the game.
I think what many people are holding their breathe for is a non-instanced pvp game that eliminates some of the toxic parts of the game (grind/timeconsuming/outrageous commitment to play (raids,groups,etc). There are a few games that look promising in 2008 and until then its gonig to be pretty bland imo.
Guildwars has instanced pvp that doesnt require the typical arsenal of hardcore games... (massive amounts of time lvling :<) You can jump right in and experience fairly advanced fights with no time commitment. The reason this works well on GW is that you earn "faction" that you can spend towards learning new content (skills,weapons,heros, runes, etc) and the ammonut of content that you can pvp towards so far has kept me busy for over a year with just casually playing the game.
I think what many people are holding their breathe for is a non-instanced pvp game that eliminates some of the toxic parts of the game (grind/timeconsuming/outrageous commitment to play (raids,groups,etc). There are a few games that look promising in 2008 and until then its gonig to be pretty bland imo.
also wanted to point out a newer version of diablo type of game, called titans quest which has some great multiplayer concepts (lvls hardly make a dif, low lvls catch up quick). The game is beautiful and one of the funnest LAN games you could play currently imo.
There is also a little bit for everyone, as you can collect gear, pvp (custom games, i think?), and try out 3 modes of difficulty (they are a challenge actually).
There is also a little bit for everyone, as you can collect gear, pvp (custom games, i think?), and try out 3 modes of difficulty (they are a challenge actually).
The reason RPGs have translated well into MMOs is that the slow level-based approach offers a constant layer of satisfaction leading to the amount of addiction necessary if the developers are going to get enough subscription revenue to run the mammoth servers.
However, its likely that one day the server issues will be non-issues and I look forward to some casual free or cheap pay-as-you-go MMO gaming when that happens.
Post a Comment
However, its likely that one day the server issues will be non-issues and I look forward to some casual free or cheap pay-as-you-go MMO gaming when that happens.
# posted by : 23/11/08 23:36
: 23/11/08 23:36<< Home
