Levels... Why?

ArchivedUser

@Elder writes:

Levelling systems are designed to give people a sense of accomplishment. Alternate systems could work but the reason levels are everywhere is because it gives players a visible indicator of their progress. 

ArchivedUser

Wow I think that's way to radical. In my opinion  I don't think it would be popular with 95% of people on here. 

ArchivedUser

_ Players increase a skill by using/crafting it = Leveling in its own right. 

- If you don't use a skill within a certain timeframe the ability is diminished or lost, that creates a daily or weekly that must be completed.

That be my only major qualms with your thoughts on levels - I am sure there are games that have it where the HP increase isn't a need and there for not done, this will -heavily- depend on what combat system they use however and it does make the rest of the world hard, if not impossible, to balance with just that one change in mind. A stagnant High Hp will make Soloing content too easy and the community aspect of the game is diminished, while a stagnant Low Hp will make having certain things like AoE extremely unusable for both PvPers and Creatures to fight unless Hordes of Players were online to attack at once to essentially 'one shot with many bolts' something.

ArchivedUser

A game with no levels is not an RPG - especially not a high fantasy RPG.
RPGs are about character skills and abilities - not player skills and abilities.
Roleplaying trumps Game.

HP progression and damage progression and stat progression are all crucial for the Hero's Journey.
Doesn't have to be to the insane levels of MMORPGs.

I expect Ashes to fall in line with EQNext's game design -which they are already doing with the wide variety of horizontal progression- by keeping vertical character progression comparatively shallow.

ArchivedUser

So instead of playerlevels that show some overall progres and unlock stuff across the board.... you level abilities..you earn exp for them by using them, probably by "how often you cast it" or "what you killed/killamount"
At the end of the day, it's the same thing just in a different wrapping.
At the end of the day you can't go into the most difficult dungeon right from the start with your level 1 fireball and level 1 strike, to show some amazing indepth knowledge to outskill it.

Sorry if I sound harsher than intended, but like I said, same thing just shifted to a different place.
In my opinion, levels are not the problem, the implementation is. The common practice of neglecting the levelphase in favor of " endgame" is what is the problem.
Ashes seems to work a bit against that, there will be horizontal skill progression. What that means in detail is still to be written down, but in the context of removing endgame, where this came up, it could very well be something along your suggestion.

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

A game with no levels is not an RPG - especially not a high fantasy RPG.
RPGs are about character skills and abilities - not player skills and abilities.
Roleplaying trumps Game.

HP progression and damage progression and stat progression are all crucial for the Hero's Journey.
Doesn't have to be to the insane levels of MMORPGs.

I expect Ashes to fall in line with EQNext's game design -which they are already doing with the wide variety of horizontal progression- by keeping vertical character progression comparatively shallow.

You didn't mention Harry Potter this time @Dygz. *so proud!*

ArchivedUser

AndyW85 said:

How about:
-Players increase a skill (swords or healing magic for example) by using it.
-The higher the skill, the POTENTIALLY better abilities the player unlocks.
-The higher level abilities have a higher risk, higher gain, requiring higher real life skill to pull off.
-If a player stops using a skill to focus on other skills, eventually the skill will start to fall again, loosing access to the best abilities.

This sounds something like Chronicles of Elyria...another game I backed. You start out at age 15. Your character actually ages. He will live to be 100 years old (unless you manage to kill him off before then) and eventually perma-dies. As you grow older, your strength wanes, but your wisdom is higher. You can leave lineages, heredity traits to your next life. The skills you learned in your original progress faster in your heir's life. It's rather hard to explain. Interesting concepts, though.

ArchivedUser

I like what Andy is proposing. Levels are not the only way to have character progression. 

ArchivedUser

If you don't want levels, go play an adventure game, or an FPS.

ArchivedUser

SaeyoPrayers said:

This sounds something like Chronicles of Elyria...another game I backed. You start out at age 15. Your character actually ages. He will live to be 100 years old (unless you manage to kill him off before then) and eventually perma-dies. As you grow older, your strength wanes, but your wisdom is higher. You can leave lineages, heredity traits to your next life. The skills you learned in your original progress faster in your heir's life. It's rather hard to explain. Interesting concepts, though.

Sounds too depressingly like real life for me

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

nagash said:

[LOL]

ArchivedUser

there will be levels for progress of a lot of people like to see progress , many then leave once max level so making not to much of a grind but have skills increases will prolong these players 

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

A game with no levels is not an RPG - especially not a high fantasy RPG.
RPGs are about character skills and abilities - not player skills and abilities.
Roleplaying trumps Game.

HP progression and damage progression and stat progression are all crucial for the Hero's Journey.
Doesn't have to be to the insane levels of MMORPGs.

I expect Ashes to fall in line with EQNext's game design -which they are already doing with the wide variety of horizontal progression- by keeping vertical character progression comparatively shallow.

Maybe I've not had enough sleep but I keep re-reading this and am confused.
First a game with no levels can be an RPG.
 Improved character and ability skills can and should  increase damage and stats. Without the improved skills you don't earn improved damage. Without improved character where are the improved stats?
Is this a game about a Hero's journey or is it about everyone, or many heroes  working to create a new world? 

Seems to me Intrepid is opening new doors and possibilities in the MMORPG world.

ArchivedUser

@AndyW85
I like your idea, in theory, but it does present it's own set of problems.

Like a previous poster stated, without levels, how do the game mechanics work for hp/mp?  If those values are static, then how does that effect the values of mob hp/mp, in relation to players hp/mp?

Also, I'm not sure how gear works in Ashes, yet.  I THINK they're going for a more tabletop D&D approach, over the standard WoW approach, when it comes to gear.  Meaning gear is going to be agnostic, and that gear will affect defense, spell failure, stealth checks, and the like, but it won't effect the values of your characters stats.  

If they make hp/mp static, then gear will probably have to have stat boosting elements added, to keep pace with the increase of difficulty in relation to mobs, dungeons, and raids.

ArchivedUser

It's an idea worth discussing, but as far as implementation goes, I would sway away from it.

ArchivedUser

CylverRayne said:

Dygz said:

A game with no levels is not an RPG - especially not a high fantasy RPG.
RPGs are about character skills and abilities - not player skills and abilities.
Roleplaying trumps Game.

HP progression and damage progression and stat progression are all crucial for the Hero's Journey.
Doesn't have to be to the insane levels of MMORPGs.

I expect Ashes to fall in line with EQNext's game design -which they are already doing with the wide variety of horizontal progression- by keeping vertical character progression comparatively shallow.

Maybe I've not had enough sleep but I keep re-reading this and am confused.
First a game with no levels can be an RPG.
 Improved character and ability skills can and should  increase damage and stats. Without the improved skills you don't earn improved damage. Without improved character where are the improved stats?
Is this a game about a Hero's journey or is it about everyone, or many heroes  working to create a new world? 

Seems to me Intrepid is opening new doors and possibilities in the MMORPG world.

Improved character and ability skills and damage and stats = levels.
High fantasy RPGs are all about the Hero's Journey. Without the levels and the Hero's Journey, that is something other than an RPG.
More akin to Second Life or a Sim. It could be an MMO. But not an RPG.
You are going to need and want some form of gauge to measure the skills and abilities and damage output and stamina and stats of your opponents...
And that gauge will be levels.

Intrepid is opening new doors and possibilities in the MMORPG world - bringing back more RPG elements - while maintaining levels.
Heck, even nodes have levels in Ashes.

ArchivedUser

Dygz

Thanks, I'll sleep on it.  

ArchivedUser

I am tired of levels. I think if we must have levels it should be level zero through infinity plus one. Each level should take 1 year of real time and during the year skills, stats and abilities improve based on usage, reading old books, quests and interference of the gods. 

ArchivedUser

AndyW85 said:

I would love to see them have the balls to not include levels. I'm seeing a lot of posts about "end game" "grinding" and "level cap". All these things are boring as hell. Character progression is important of course, but why does it need to be levels? I personally would love to see them scrap the standard leveling system and instead have players unlock new skills and abilities, spells and utility instead of hit point and DPS increase. Levels are a habit not a necessity.

How about:
-No levels.
-Players increase a skill (swords or healing magic for example) by using it.
-The higher the skill, the POTENTIALLY better abilities the player unlocks.
-The higher level abilities have a higher risk, higher gain, requiring higher real life skill to pull off.
-If a player stops using a skill to focus on other skills, eventually the skill will start to fall again, loosing access to the best abilities.

With that system a player could constantly shift their play style, experimenting with different skills, that would keep players busy without it being a grind, and skill levels would give players an advantage, but not guaranteed victory over players with lower skill. New players and veterans would be able to play together against the same mobs, and a mob/boss or region would be more or less difficult due to the mechanics and intelligence of the mob, of number of enemies, etc rather than hit points and DPS.

People's thoughts?

Levels are simply a number used to help us identify where we should level or who we should level with, without having to do complex equations ourselves.

A cap must be held or the game will die due to a player surpassing everyone by a mile.

In order for a game to lose the levels they would have to lose many other things. How will you know where your going to find mobs your strength? How are you going to set a penalty for having a strong character party a new character? There must be a way to prevent him from boosting the lowbie right?

No "veteran" wants to be stuck in the same area and fighting the same mobs as the new player, that sounds like i'll be stuck killing the same thing forever. I need a feeling of accomplishment and that I have moved on since when I first started

I think the issue is that there has never been an issue with levels. Maybe i'm missing your point but it's almost like you'd rather them just hide the level "number"? But, that wouldn't make any sense....

ArchivedUser

UO never had "levels" you would increase your skills by using them and the higher the skill the more dmg/healing/accuracy the weapon type/ item would have. Personally that was my favorite type of progression.

I also liked how the armor/weapons worked everything was useful if you wanted to fight something with high physical dmg you would use a dull copper set of armor while if you went up against most dragons Valorite armor was a better choice.

But I think at this point it would be too late for them to change from a level based progression to a skill based progression system. Levels also allow us to easily see what we should be doing in the game. Is X mob too strong for me? Will that guy from my enemy guild one shot me if I attack him? 

ArchivedUser

http://www.uoguide.com/Grand_Master

ArchivedUser

Actually this skill lvl is more interesting (+ actual reflexes on hitting with mouse/bouttons pattern) than lvl'ing we only will see after few months the game dying on community because people will only grind like in TS2 (twelve sky 2) only the market gave the community a life but nothing else and the game died because it was a spamming process and lvl differences ... not actual skill of the player, Vindictus combat style or Devil May cry is the best way to show that you don't need to click once or have a lvl to beat up a powerfull monster or player SAO style games using normal lvl's as requirement for equipements but you actually need to hit to make your for example sword skill go up then give you more challenges and unlock new things until you hit the max and unlock something like a secret skill for this type of weapon etc.

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

http://www.uoguide.com/Grand_Master

I'm not sure a title based on your how high your skills are is considered a level based progression. Its still skill based progression.

ArchivedUser

It's all still levels.
Yes, a title indicates levels.
King, prince, duke.
Pope, bishop, priest.
Black belt, green belt, yellow belt.

ArchivedUser

Kyama said:

Actually this skill lvl is more interesting (+ actual reflexes on hitting with mouse/bouttons pattern) than lvl'ing we only will see after few months the game dying on community because people will only grind like in TS2 (twelve sky 2) only the market gave the community a life but nothing else and the game died because it was a spamming process and lvl differences ... not actual skill of the player, Vindictus combat style or Devil May cry is the best way to show that you don't need to click once or have a lvl to beat up a powerfull monster or player SAO style games using normal lvl's as requirement for equipements but you actually need to hit to make your for example sword skill go up then give you more challenges and unlock new things until you hit the max and unlock something like a secret skill for this type of weapon etc.

The way to deal with that is to have relatively shallow vertical progression and wide horizontal progression. So, that it's not so much about the massive power difference, and more about the choice of skills and abilities you use.

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

I find it odd that I can't use reactions on this thread. Maybe a bug?

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

I laughed irl. I immediately tried to hit the LOL button. I was betrayed.

Ugh! 

ArchivedUser

Interesting comments and opinions. I would agree maybe removing levels altogether might not be necessary, as long as those levels don't become the deciding factor. I think a good example is Dragons Dogma. You can go back to a level one area as a level 50, and you are massively more powerful than them because you have a wide range of powerful skills.... BUT, you can still die if you get cocky and charge into a hoard of bandits before your team catch up. They surround you, one grabs you and the rest slowly kill you. You still need to fight smart. As for when you know whether you are an appropriate skill to enter a specific region... You DON'T always know, but you run away if a fight is too hard, because the level difference is never enough to cause an unavoidable one hit kill, and NPC's drop plenty of hints about how tough enemies are anyway, which is far more immersive than a magical floating number telling you exactly how strong something is. In a multiplayer RPG I think it's a cool concept to not know how tough an area will be, to maybe start a fight only to find you have to run away. You'll quickly learn to ask around the other player characters how safe the area is and how tough the monsters are. And hey, there you go, more role playing, a reason to interact with other players. Bonus. I would reinforce that level should only be a contributing factor, along with the TYPE AND QUALITY of gear you have equipped, not it's "level", the players available abilities, and the players skill. No one or two of these things should dictate the winner, only the combination of all these things.

Against, I'd love to hear other opinions again on this slightly revised thought process.