Do we need Character Levels?

I had an idea that I would like your thoughts on.

With so many ways to play this game and level your character, do we really need some arbitrary character level? If someone levels a character to 50 through combat, and another character to 50 by professions, then their level 50 really doesn't mean much.

An idea I had was to allow your character to level in many different areaa, like combat, professions, trade, etc. Let's say you can level to 50 in each of these categories, and then your "character level" would be the combination of all these different levels.

Is there another game out there that does this? Is this a good idea or bad idea?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DesyncGaming

I’m in the minority that actually likes the BDO no max level thing, felt like I never really finished or hit a wall but also levels weren’t that important and only gave a minute increase in power.

Noaani

Maezriel wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Saedu wrote: »

For example, it feels bad when your a new tank trying to "experience" tanking for a group at low level and you don't have your taunt because you don't get that till level 20

I have never played a game that has not given all classes the abilities they need to function in a group before the same game also gives those players group content in which use them on.

What game is it you are talking about here - or are you making up a hypothetical that means nothing and adds nothing to the conversation since it never happened?

WoW has had moments where it happens. Not every tank has a taunt yet alone an AoE threat generator when you first start doing dungeons.

I think I need to make a signature for these forums that says something along the lines of "WoW is a shit game, Blizzard are shit developers, if I am asking for an example of a game that has done something poorly, Blizzard games are not acceptable answers."

I have no doubt that Blizzard would have done this at some stage - I was hoping to get examples from real MMO developers.

Vhaeyne

Noaani wrote: »

I think I need to make a signature for these forums that says something along the lines of "WoW is a shit game, Blizzard are shit developers, if I am asking for an example of a game that has done something poorly, Blizzard games are not acceptable answers."

I have no doubt that Blizzard would have done this at some stage - I was hoping to get examples from real MMO developers.

You should make that signature.

In any case classic WOW had some very rigid ideas of what classes should and should not do. They did not think that a hybrid class should ever be on par with a class that specializes in one thing. They took this idea from another game that was popular at the time. EQ1... which got its idea from 1st and 2nd edition D&D.

The lesson to me is that as great as some old school games and systems are. They don't have all of the answers. Also blizzard is very unoriginal. The only original IP blizzard has is diablo, and they have been managing that IP very "questionably". Star Craft and War Craft are direct rips of 40k and fantasy Warhammer. They just made things more generic. Old school Blizzard could get away with this because they had talented DEVs pushing the boundary of what a RTS could be. Now that they have fired all their talent they are left stealing ideas from FFXIV and ESO. I would not be surprised if the next WOW xpack had a "NODE" system, but they would call it something stupid like a "War point".

So yes, if you make that signature. I would salute it.

Maezriel

Noaani wrote: »

Maezriel wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Saedu wrote: »

For example, it feels bad when your a new tank trying to "experience" tanking for a group at low level and you don't have your taunt because you don't get that till level 20

I have never played a game that has not given all classes the abilities they need to function in a group before the same game also gives those players group content in which use them on.

What game is it you are talking about here - or are you making up a hypothetical that means nothing and adds nothing to the conversation since it never happened?

WoW has had moments where it happens. Not every tank has a taunt yet alone an AoE threat generator when you first start doing dungeons.

I think I need to make a signature for these forums that says something along the lines of "WoW is a shit game, Blizzard are shit developers, if I am asking for an example of a game that has done something poorly, Blizzard games are not acceptable answers."

I have no doubt that Blizzard would have done this at some stage - I was hoping to get examples from real MMO developers.

Everyone knows your opinion on WoW @Noaani b/c you never fail to bash it.

Regardless of how you feel about it though, WoW is objectively the most successful MMO of all time and you can't fault people for using it as the base of their knowledge.

In Classic there are classes that don't get proper AoE attacks until as late as level 30 making tanking very difficult and since we don't know exactly what each Archetype in AoC is going to bring it makes sense as something people would bring up to ensure there's functional Tanks for lower level content.

bloodprophet

So classes never got functional AOE untill BC or Wrath leading to the lazy design we see now. Round everything up and AOE it down. This is weak game play. Picking your way through a dangerous area with many mobs should not be handled like BDO or current WOW. Face rolling your way through group content shows a lack of skilled development.
Back to the main point. Learning your class and roll in the group is important. Not all classes will or SHOULD be the same and getting your abilities and learning to play in a group with limited skills I think should be paramount.

Maezriel

bloodprophet wrote: »

So classes never got functional AOE untill BC or Wrath leading to the lazy design we see now. Round everything up and AOE it down. This is weak game play. Picking your way through a dangerous area with many mobs should not be handled like BDO or current WOW. Face rolling your way through group content shows a lack of skilled development.
Back to the main point. Learning your class and roll in the group is important. Not all classes will or SHOULD be the same and getting your abilities and learning to play in a group with limited skills I think should be paramount.

No one is talking about wanting to blitz through a dozen enemies at a time, but playing a Tank that's incapable of keeping aggro on multiple enemies isn't fun.

Whereas it's important to be taught the fundamentals of combat before being overrun w/ abilities I just don't think it needs to take weeks of dedicated playtime just to unlock your abilities. I've played MMOs since the early 90s and the obsession some people have for long leveling times is just a mystery to me. It's just a drop dead boring timegate and I would prefer to see a game that takes the focus away from raw character levels and focuses more on the skills needed to progress the nodes.

bloodprophet

I agree to a point.
I prefer more stragic play. Using crowd control and picking your way through with limited abilities and finding away through is more fun then just allowing the tank to purely control the battlefield.
Using the whole group to control the field through different abilities is a lot more fun.

Tyranthraxus

Noaani wrote: »

Saedu wrote: »

For example, it feels bad when your a new tank trying to "experience" tanking for a group at low level and you don't have your taunt because you don't get that till level 20

I have never played a game that has not given all classes the abilities they need to function in a group before the same game also gives those players group content in which use them on.

What game is it you are talking about here - or are you making up a hypothetical that means nothing and adds nothing to the conversation since it never happened?

In his defense, SWTOR (which is a WoW clone) unfortunately also does this. However, they also make it so that the sub-max level content can be done with groups entirely of DPS characters. It can be a pain without a Tank or Healer, but still do-able.

With the gaming-industry vets onboard that Intrepid has, however, I don't foresee them making such an oversight as @Saedu is concerned about.

bloodprophet

Recently tried to get back to SWTOR.
They have gutted the base game. I jumped in the que with a level 10 and ended up in a max level dungeon with no clue WTF is going on. Super confusing. Can't even imagine what a new player that has never played an MMO would think.

Leonerdo

Before I make my own point here's what I agree with that's already been said: Long leveling times are fine. They give a sense of progression and what not. Core abilities should be given pretty early though, for the same reason that fun content should exist during the leveling process, and not just at endgame.

Basically, every few levels should be it's own adventure. There should be a new place to explore, a new story, a bit of grind, a few new abilities, and some challenges to tackle.

I think where some MMOs have dropped the ball while streamlining the leveling process, is that they removed the challenge and the fun. They may have an okay story, but you don't care about it because you zoom through it with no challenge or consequences, and no chance to bond with the characters. They may have lots of cool abilities that you get over time, but no reason to use them, because everything is a faceroll and it doesn't matter what buttons you press. They may technically have early challenges, but everyone skips right over them because the rewards are worthless, and it's easier/faster to just powerlevel without them.

So yes, I'm all for the idea of bringing end-game content back into the leveling process. Every 5-10 levels should feel like an expansion, in terms of progression and content.

But there's a huge obstacle to that idea that needs to be addressed first. Early levels are pointless if they are dominated and trivialized by max level players/systems.

People say they want to contribute to nodes during the leveling process. And they want to participate in sandbox content, which is largely PvP. But none of that is possible if low-level characters are unable to compete with higher level players. And it's possible that the early crafting and gear economy could be flooded and trivialized by a few max level crafters.

Now, there are a few solution to deal with that problem. I don't really have a preference for any particular one at the moment. So I'll just mention the two most obvious ones: Level-scaling, which has many possible implementations that I'm not going to get into. And level bracketing, by which I mean every 5-10 levels is encapsulated/insulated from all the other levels. For example, each Caravan could be specific to one level bracket, so you have the level 10-20 people fighting over different caravans than the level 50 people. And then imagine a similar separation for every other aspect of the game, like questing, node progression, and if possible... the entire economy.

I don't think it should be possible for a level 50 friend to powerfarm all of your materials/gear for you in 30 minutes, invalidating every leveling reward except EXP.

McShave

DesyncGaming wrote: »

I’m in the minority that actually likes the BDO no max level thing, felt like I never really finished or hit a wall but also levels weren’t that important and only gave a minute increase in power.

I like this idea to some extent too. I didnt play in the New World testing, but one of the things I thought was interesting about the game was that end game content started at 10 levels below max. The rest of the levels didnt give you much, but still give the feeling of progression. This would work with the long leveling times, so that players can experience more of the game earlier without it just being a mad rush to end game content.

Saedu

@Noaani, I'm good with you not liking WoW so long as I'm allowed to be a fanboy.

Diversity of opinions is a good thing. I think we both hope AoC will be the best MMO ever... The best products are built on recognizing diversity and coming up with new/better ways of doing things. As we think about all of the past games, they all have good and bad components to them (don't throw out the baby with the bath water). Hopefully IS can take the best, disregard the rest, and most importantly put in some new/unique stuff that is fun (like the node system).

@Leonerdo5, great ideas and I think you are highlighting some of the core problems of the traditional MMO leveling system. That's why I recommend minimizing leveling. It'd trying to be too many things that causes unfun friction between players. Use it just to get players oriented to the game and their class as quickly as possible and we have better balance/more true in game competition, etc.

McShave

Leonerdo5 wrote: »

But there's a huge obstacle to that idea that needs to be addressed first. Early levels are pointless if they are dominated and trivialized by max level players/systems.

People say they want to contribute to nodes during the leveling process. And they want to participate in sandbox content, which is largely PvP. But none of that is possible if low-level characters are unable to compete with higher level players. And it's possible that the early crafting and gear economy could be flooded and trivialized by a few max level crafters.

This sounds like a real issue that can occur, because each node is supposed to have a wide variety of content for many levels (metropolis node will have content for all levels). We don't know the specific numbers, but Steven said as a node levels up, it keeps it's leveling content while adding more content for higher level players. This sounds like a mess.

Noaani

Saedu wrote: »

The best products are built on recognizing diversity and coming up with new/better ways of doing things.

Which is why I dislike WoW.

Almost everything about WoW is tipped off from somewhere else - right down to the very concept of the franchise (the original Warcraft was intended to be a Warhammer game).

The few things that the game did that were new were decidedly not good - LFG was WoWs first attempt at not compying someone else.

So sure, you can be a fan of WoW if you like, just be aware that if you claim to be a fan of WoW, and also claim to be a fan of companies/products that look for either new or better ways to do things, then there is either some ignorance of hypocrisy in there somewhere.

In my experience, people that claim to like WoW simply had it as their first MMO, and while they were playing it they didnt understand what it got wrong, as they had no point of reference for how else things could be.

Noaani

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Saedu wrote: »

For example, it feels bad when your a new tank trying to "experience" tanking for a group at low level and you don't have your taunt because you don't get that till level 20

I have never played a game that has not given all classes the abilities they need to function in a group before the same game also gives those players group content in which use them on.

What game is it you are talking about here - or are you making up a hypothetical that means nothing and adds nothing to the conversation since it never happened?

In his defense, SWTOR (which is a WoW clone) unfortunately also does this. However, they also make it so that the sub-max level content can be done with groups entirely of DPS characters. It can be a pain without a Tank or Healer, but still do-able.

I would draw a line between content that is designed for multiple level appropriate players and content that is designed for an actual, organized group.

I would also draw a line to distinguish WoWs original plan of giving classes their secondary roles from level 40 (only parts of which made it to the vanilla release - such as armor types). You were supposed to be a very specific singular role until that point, and I wouldn't be surprised if some classes that were able to tank at end game didn't have the full set of abilities to tank at lower levels, because they originally weren't meant to be tanks until that level 40 mark.

That is just a slightly deeper explanation of my above "but Blizzard are shit and don't count" point.

bloodprophet

One of the biggest problems I am seeing here and other games is the idea that the game only begins at end game. I think this is a bad premis as the game should start at the beginning and have quality stuff all throughout. If end game is all that matters then there is no need for levels and I would agree. I am just hoping they get back more towards the rpg part and the whole thing is interesting.

Noaani

bloodprophet wrote: »

One of the biggest problems I am seeing here and other games is the idea that the game only begins at end game.

As someone that played mostly at the end game, I totally agree.

A part of the reason people do think this is because as soon as you hit the level cap,your primary focus for progression in the game moves from wanting to gain experience, to wanting to gain the best equipment you can find.

That is a fairly large shift in how you do things in game, and there is a definite line drawn between the two.

rikardp98

Noaani wrote: »

In my experience, people that claim to like WoW simply had it as their first MMO, and while they were playing it they didnt understand what it got wrong, as they had no point of reference for how else things could be.

I think that it's very immature of you to disregard a person's opinion just because they haven't played the games you have.

You have your opinion because of your experience and other people have their opinion because of their experience, and that needs to be respected.

Now, I know that a lot of people see wow as the best mmo ever and have no flaws, but a lot of people that praise wow also know it's weaknesses and it's flaws.

Maezriel

rikardp98 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

In my experience, people that claim to like WoW simply had it as their first MMO, and while they were playing it they didnt understand what it got wrong, as they had no point of reference for how else things could be.

I think that it's very immature of you to disregard a person's opinion just because they haven't played the games you have.

You have your opinion because of your experience and other people have their opinion because of their experience, and that needs to be respected.

Now, I know that a lot of people see wow as the best mmo ever and have no flaws, but a lot of people that praise wow also know it's weaknesses and it's flaws.

First time here? There's a small core of the AoC fanbase that hates WoW and anything to do w/ Blizzard.

That said, I agree w/ you that all but the most hardcore WoW fanboys know there's problems w/ the game. Nobody badmouths Blizzard's actions more than Blizzard players.

Saedu

Noaani wrote: »

Saedu wrote: »

The best products are built on recognizing diversity and coming up with new/better ways of doing things.

Which is why I dislike WoW.

Almost everything about WoW is tipped off from somewhere else - right down to the very concept of the franchise (the original Warcraft was intended to be a Warhammer game).

Very few things are totally original now. Every game (including AoC) is drawing up on inspiration from other prior games/culture. The key here is to innovate: You build on what works, change what doesn't, add some new dynamics, and make it fun/engaging for the players. Don't try to do everything completely different just to be different/new. If you do that you will have a bad product. WoW's come up with plenty of creative things in their storytelling, but only so many people can invent Orcs/Elves/Dwarfs... (oh wait, AoC has those too!!!)

Noaani wrote: »

The few things that the game did that were new were decidedly not good - LFG was WoWs first attempt at not compying someone else.

Other games before WoW had matchmaking systems. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. LFG has evolved quite a bit since they first rolled it out (I don't think it was used much at all originally cause it wasn't that good).

In the current version of the LFG system there are two core components:
1) Helping players find other players to do the same content - In terms of community building, I find this tool to be working out really well with my personal use of it. I've actually found several friends through this over the past few years. I've built up my core competitive RBG PvP team through it. I found my current guild through this system and I've recruited people into my guild through this system. Without something like this, when you don't have enough people in your guild, you are spamming general/trade chat like channels trying to find people (which in turn devalues the use of those channels for other more intended purposes). This part of the feature helps build community by connecting people together who want to do the same content in a better way.
2) Automatically putting people into a group for lower difficulty activities like raidfinder, and normal battlegrounds/dungeons - This functionality is not good. It takes away the concept of needing a group leader and the associated choices of putting together the group forming process. It's intended to open up the game more for the casuals, but destroys community building in the process.

The problem with this second component is further compounded by the fact that WoW does not have enough incentive/value for being in a guild. It has some perks here and there, but you can do most of the game's content without a guild and that's a problem. I think people actively involved in a guild should have significant advantages by doing so. There needs to be motivation not only to join a guild, but also to actively participate in a guild (these rewards can be quality of life, new cosmetics (only awarded to users who participate in helping the guild in some measurable way), better bonuses for completing things as guilds, even some direct power... or better yet perhaps unique guild-only content that players will want to do). If WoW had only the first component of LFG above + a much stronger purpose for guilds, then you wouldn't even see the complaints that people have about the LFG system.

WoW's current guild finder system is a bit lacking. Sure you can browse and apply for guilds, but I don't want to just recruit random people. I want to do some content with them first and that's where a good LFG + good reasons to be in guild come together.

WoW doesn't take this approach of course because they consider being in a guild to be an optional activity and are okay with minimal rewards/content for guilds.

Noaani wrote: »

So sure, you can be a fan of WoW if you like, just be aware that if you claim to be a fan of WoW, and also claim to be a fan of companies/products that look for either new or better ways to do things, then there is either some ignorance of hypocrisy in there somewhere.

In my experience, people that claim to like WoW simply had it as their first MMO, and while they were playing it they didnt understand what it got wrong, as they had no point of reference for how else things could be.

I played Warhammer and Warhammer 40k as a young kid before the first Warcraft game ever came out. I see the parallels and the differences just fine. No hypocrisy or ignorance here. I look for companies to iterate and make things better with their added spin to it. Not make 100% never before seen content. Warhammer had its inspiration from fantasy content before it existed (e.g. Orcs/elves/etc in Lord of the rings).

WoW has found many ways to innovate on the MMO Genre. One of their first innovations was reducing the harsh death penalties! (oh noes!!!!!! how dare they!!!!!! What about the hardcore players?!?!?). Guess what, death is still something you avoid in the game... the world didn't end and this didn't destroy the game for most people. They still have very challenging content for hardcore players, its just all inside instances.

Sure they don't do well with the outdoor world (which some will argue means they are not a MMO, but that's technically not the definition of a MMO). Things like M+ and RBGs are great instanced "themepark" content. They don't try to be a sandbox and that's fine... you can have sandbox games that are good and themepark games that are good.

My first MMO was DAOC. You may shake your head at this... I started playing DAOC about a year before WoW came out because I wanted to be prepared to make the transition from Warcraft 3 to WoW and I needed to figure out this whole MMO thing. Before that I dabbled a bit into EQ, but nothing serious as the game didn't look like it was worth the time investment, nor required the skill of a RTS (My brother's were hardcore EQ players).

Since then I've played a number of other MMOs, but none lasted more than six months for me (GW2, Star Wars, Aion, Lineage 2, Wildstar, Planetside 2, Destiny, Destiny 2, are just a few that come to mind). Ironically enough, its probably because WoW's always where I've had the easiest time finding good guild communities...

Child Item