EQ Never

Grim1 · Jun 28, 2013

Bellringer_sl said:
Even if you take away the numerical leveling system there will still be "levels". There will always be players that are higher level. Whether it be numerically or through some other complex system. It is the same either way, kinda like the tank/heal/control trinity. No matter how you make it, it'll be there in some way.

Yes, but there are ways to make it so the new levels are not so restrictive and linear. EvE is a good example. They have managed to make it so new players can almost immediately be able to play with people who have been around for years. New players don't have access to all of the ships but they are not totally blocked out of all the content either.

EvE's offline leveling system isn't the only way to accomplish eliminating levels and not what I would like to see in a fantasy mmo. But it does prove that it can be done.

Draegan_sl · Jun 28, 2013

Bellringer_sl said:
What do you do for a living Draegan?

editted because the quote was irrelevant.

I sell things (not retail).

Draegan_sl · Jun 28, 2013

Grim1_sl said:
As long as the levels are basically meaningless then players will quickly adjust to the new paradigm of infinite levels. The problem is that the in the current version of mmo's, levels trump all other factors. Level is more important that gear, stats, etc. It doesn't have to be like that and imo it shouldn't be.

But like I said, it's really just another way of making levels irrelevant. The reason to even have infinite levels would be as more of a joke and a slap in the face of all the Pavlovian gamers who have been trained by endless mmo clones that Level is greater than all.

My point is if levels are irrelevant why have them? Why not replace them (or attempt to) with something more interesting or failing that, something different.

Grim1 · Jun 28, 2013

Draegan_sl said:
My point is if levels are irrelevant why have them? Why not replace them (or attempt to) with something more interesting or failing that, something different.

Like i said, as more of a joke by the devs. Or they could be used to indicate time played or some other stat that is more cosmetic in nature but doesn't effect the players power. It doesn't really matter, and I just put it out there as another way to make levels irrelevant.

Quaid · Jun 28, 2013

Draegan_sl said:
My point is if levels are irrelevant why have them? Why not replace them (or attempt to) with something more interesting or failing that, something different.

Ya cool man good call. Know what? That works with a lot of things. Ex. Hamburgers. Like, I go to Licks and my girlfriend says I'm a blathering fatass and I should get the turkey burger. I mean, they are both meat so why not try something different AND THEN I RAGESPLOSION AND TELL HER CUZ I WANT A NORMAL FUCKING HAMBURGER

Itzena_sl · Jun 28, 2013

Caeden_sl said:
All I want is a good knight class that can tank as well but differently from a warrior. Also some non-mana based resource systems. Not fully Cd based either like gw2

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/game/class/death-knight

Bellringer_sl · Jun 28, 2013

Draegan_sl said:
Of course, you can always break things down to the simplest form. EQ has you grind mobs for levels. WOW had you grind mobs for levels, but it wrapped them up in the form of kill X bears and collect 10 of their asses. That was seen as much more entertaining, because it gave you series of short term goals you could complete and feel "rewarded" by finishing them. The whole system is so old that it lost it's original purpose, and now they just toss 10000s of quests at you and instead of grind mobs for levels, your grinding quests for levels and it's ultimately the same thing.

Time to introduce a new paradigm for assign power levels and advancement to characters.

I disagree. WOW was you had to go grind meaningless quests. The mobs did not grant the majority of XP, the quest reward was the xp. Also, the most efficient way was to grind these quests solo. In EQ, you had to grind mobs for xp, but you had to do with with other players, requiring the player to participate in the multiplayer environment. I find those two systems fundamentally different. But I do get your point and agree that a new paradigm would be rad.

shabushabu · Jun 28, 2013

Draegan_sl said:
So if you're a pick locker, your dps is worse, or your control is worse, or your healing is worse. Worse to the point where the game essentially scales you out of content outside just picking a lock. I only used DPS because DPS is the most prevalent role in today's game, but you can insert any role into that. Your example assumes that the pick locker is also awesome at CC as well (a combat ability).

It's a simple example, and shouldn't be looked into it for further depth. Can you make something like that work?Yes, but only if your game is primarily not about combat which all these games are.

And that is the problem... the trend is toward all combat, all action and not toward other ways of remaining in the game world.. until that returns I don't think we will see an MMO grow over time again. Simplistic combat even makes this worse as does soloing... there are only so many interesting things you can put in an encounter if its expected to be soloD and thus the repetition begins. I recall RIFT devs saying something where they were going to make each soul matter in raids... Like some you need a riftstalker or some you need a <<insert soul here>> with specific duties... well that is cool but a) I never saw it b) again, limiting classes to combat classes takes much away from RPGs.

I am all for bringing back rogues as trap removal experts or something.. traps that matter need to be in MMOs and not just DDO.

tad10 · Jun 28, 2013

Levels aren't the problem. The rush is the problem. Someplace between vanilla WoW and EQ is the right leveling speed, beta/early VG was pretty close but while it had nice dungeon design it had crappy loot and crappy bosses compared to EQ. Levels, properly implemented, provide a nice sense of accomplishment that got thrown out the window by Blizzard devs bullshitting about the game begins at 60. In Vanilla WoW the game began at level 1, and leveling was an enjoyable experience (albeit just a wee bit too fast - though TBH, STV quest grind really sucked, so I was happy to quickly level past it).

With the advent of games like TESO which seem designed for the "group of guys in a guild that go from game to game together" I think it is more important than ever to return to mostly non-instanced content to differentiate from the current crop of MMOs. I'll be disappointed if EQN is heavily instanced. Some instancing fine, heavy instancing will probably be a pass unless it is otherwise out-of-this-world good.

I'm posting with a 100ish degree fever so I don't give a fuck if I'm not making a ton of sense.

Oblio · Jun 28, 2013

Draegan_sl said:
My point is if levels are irrelevant why have them? Why not replace them (or attempt to) with something more interesting or failing that, something different.

I have often wondered why a new MMO doesn't make leveling to max like 10 hours of play time. Just enough time to understand the mechanics of your class, when to use what spell/ability etc. Then with all the time energy and resources they saved on the leveling system they could make the most robust end-game mankind has ever seen.

To put it in context imagine if you went from 1-max level in 10 hours in the Barrens and then the rest of the world was max level shit, itemization could be amazing. Certain types of gear (stats/art style) only drop in one area region based on the creatures there etc. You could make reputation actually matter and affect how you interact with other players instead of hard coded factions.

Draegan_sl · Jun 28, 2013

Bellringer_sl said:
I disagree. WOW was you had to go grind meaningless quests. The mobs did not grant the majority of XP, the quest reward was the xp. Also, the most efficient way was to grind these quests solo. In EQ, you had to grind mobs for xp, but you had to do with with other players, requiring the player to participate in the multiplayer environment. I find those two systems fundamentally different. But I do get your point and agree that a new paradigm would be rad.

One has you grind mobs, the other has you grind mobs to finish quests. Both result in you getting experience. That's fundamentally the same in my book. Do we really need to discuss the psych behind giving players smaller tasks to complete and mentally stimulate them with small rewards versus you just kill 1000 mobs for a level?

Draegan_sl · Jun 28, 2013

Oblio_sl said:
I have often wondered why a new MMO doesn't make leveling to max like 10 hours of play time. Just enough time to understand the mechanics of your class, when to use what spell/ability etc. Then with all the time energy and resources they saved on the leveling system they could make the most robust end-game mankind has ever seen.

To put it in context imagine if you went from 1-max level in 10 hours in the Barrens and then the rest of the world was max level shit, itemization could be amazing. Certain types of gear (stats/art style) only drop in one area region based on the creatures there etc. You could make reputation actually matter and affect how you interact with other players instead of hard coded factions.

If you are a game developer and your boss says "WE NEED TO HAVE LEVELS" this is the design theory I would push. The leveling process is only the tutorial, the rest of the game is whatever the game is (the game could be gear, spell, skill, reputation, power, whatever acquisition).

Grim1 · Jun 28, 2013

Oblio_sl said:
I have often wondered why a new MMO doesn't make leveling to max like 10 hours of play time. Just enough time to understand the mechanics of your class, when to use what spell/ability etc. Then with all the time energy and resources they saved on the leveling system they could make the most robust end-game mankind has ever seen.

To put it in context imagine if you went from 1-max level in 10 hours in the Barrens and then the rest of the world was max level shit, itemization could be amazing. Certain types of gear (stats/art style) only drop in one area region based on the creatures there etc. You could make reputation actually matter and affect how you interact with other players instead of hard coded factions.

GW1 had a very short run to max level (20) and an endgame that was much bigger than the leveling game. The reason they did away with that in GW2 is that the modern mmo player has been trained to think the more levels = better game. Even though that is wrong. It is very hard to retrain players who are so set in their ways.

Which is another reason to go with infinite levels that are meaningless.

tad10 · Jun 28, 2013

Oblio_sl said:
I have often wondered why a new MMO doesn't make leveling to max like 10 hours of play time. Just enough time to understand the mechanics of your class, when to use what spell/ability etc. Then with all the time energy and resources they saved on the leveling system they could make the most robust end-game mankind has ever seen.

To put it in context imagine if you went from 1-max level in 10 hours in the Barrens and then the rest of the world was max level shit, itemization could be amazing. Certain types of gear (stats/art style) only drop in one area region based on the creatures there etc. You could make reputation actually matter and affect how you interact with other players instead of hard coded factions.

DCUO sorta did this, it doesn't work as well as you think. You're just replacing levels with item tiers. Alternatively you have to design encounters with specific resists (e.g. nature resist/AQ BS in Vanilla WoW) so all you end up doing is forcing a different kind of grind.

Draegan_sl · Jun 28, 2013

Draegan_sl said:
If you are a game developer and your boss says "WE NEED TO HAVE LEVELS" this is the design theory I would push. The leveling process is only the tutorial, the rest of the game is whatever the game is (the game could be gear, spell, skill, reputation, power, whatever acquisition).

Quoting myself to add this:

Or if you have to have levels, and want to satisfy the "you need to take 18 hours per level" then make your game with like 5 levels. Hell you can not even call them levels and call them Tiers. As you progress in your game, you get points (gear, achievements, skills) and the more poitns you have the higher the tier. Same shit, different color pants. Totally different perception though.

Bellringer_sl · Jun 28, 2013

Draegan_sl said:
One has you grind mobs, the other has you grind mobs to finish quests. Both result in you getting experience. That's fundamentally the same in my book. Do we really need to discuss the psych behind giving players smaller tasks to complete and mentally stimulate them with small rewards versus you just kill 1000 mobs for a level?

My point is the solo level vs group level is fundamentally different. Pretty sure you see that. I find the comparison between the leveling in these games and the difference between numerical XP per level compared to the form of character development you mentioned to be completely different. However, properly executed a non-leveling character development could still be really fucking awesome. :0

Draegan_sl · Jun 28, 2013

tad10_sl said:
DCUO sorta did this, it doesn't work as well as you think. You're just replacing levels with item tiers. Alternatively you have to design encounters with specific resists (e.g. nature resist/AQ BS in Vanilla WoW) so all you end up doing is forcing a different kind of grind.

You can do it, but just like everything else, you can easily screw it up and make it bland as fuck. Especially when the only content is just instanced a limited number of raids/dungeons that you are grinding.

Oblio · Jun 28, 2013

Grim1_sl said:
GW1 had a very short run to max level (20) and an endgame that was much bigger than the leveling game. The reason they did away with that in GW2 is that the modern mmo player has been trained to think the more levels = better game. Even though that is wrong. It is very hard to retrain players who are so set in their ways.

Which is another reason to go with infinite levels that are meaningless.

GW1 was instanced and not intuitive from what I read, can't really comment from personal experience. I think it could work in an open world like WoW and really it is all about marketing as far as selling the MMO player base on the need of levels.

Draegan_sl · Jun 28, 2013

Bellringer_sl said:
My point is the solo level vs group level is fundamentally different. Pretty sure you see that. I find the comparison between the leveling in these games and the difference between numerical XP per level compared to the form of character development you mentioned to be completely different. However, properly executed a non-leveling character development could still be really fucking awesome. :0

If your focus is game interaction, solo vs group is fundamentally different. My point of view was regarding xp acquisition which can be design for solo or group play.

Grim1 · Jun 28, 2013

Oblio_sl said:
GW1 was instanced and not intuitive from what I read, can't really comment from personal experience. I think it could work in an open world like WoW and really it is all about marketing as far as selling the MMO player base on the need of levels.

I was just using GW1 as an example to the fast leveling issue brought up.

Other than that it was highly instanced. Which I don't like. GW1 was a great game and did a bunch of things much better than any other game (even GW2) but it had it's issues as well.

edit: One of the things GW1 did very well was the limited skill bar. You only had 8 to chose from. Much of your power was based on hunting for new skills (and choosing the right skill set for the encounters). Which is another great way to get away from standard leveling.

EQ Never

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

2 Minutes Hate

2 Minutes Hate

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Trump's Staff

shitlord

shitlord

Molten Core Raider

Elisha Dushku

Utah

2 Minutes Hate

2 Minutes Hate

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Elisha Dushku

2 Minutes Hate

shitlord

2 Minutes Hate

Utah

2 Minutes Hate

Ahn'Qiraj Raider