Should a low-level reward necessarily be less than a high-level reward?

Should a low-level reward necessarily be less than a high-level reward?

This thought came to me when I saw that some games make the choice to turn to rewards without level.

For example:
- The new Cyberpunk update removes levels, and prefers a rarity system for items. As a result these remain interesting throughout the progression of the character.

- The Pillars of Eternity equipment system, the first one anyway (I don’t know the 2), makes that objects have a value according to the amount of improvement given to them (0 to 13 if I remember correctly), and not the level of the object.

It also came to me by comparing my experience of WoW vanilla and the extensions that followed. If in the first version, low-level actions could have a high-level impact (Trinket of Stranglethorne, various reputations, etc.), this completely disappeared with the arrival of extensions, which created a clear break between the collection of item and reputations lvl 0-60 and lvl 60-70, 70-80...

My thought is: at equal time of accomplishment, and with equal relative difficulty, why should a low-level task have a lower* value reward than a high-level task?

*I mean less the fact that the reward will quickly lose value in level amount, while a high level reward will retain its value (as long as the level limit is not pushed in any case)

My opinion

A level 10 player who plays 10 hours in an area of his level, implies as much as a max level player who does the same, if we put aside the additional challenges like raids. So I think he should be rewarded for his efforts in a sustainable way. For example*:
- Reputations that remain useful from level 1 to max
- Quests that give useful access at high level
- Sequences of actions throughout the progression that end up being relevant at high level (raise a jewel in quality as the lvling)
- Acquisition of currencies usable at any time
- etc.

*I say anything, that’s what comes to mind immediately.

In fact, I find that the involvement in the progression is much stronger in the case where we know that everything we do, will not be rendered useless by the rise in level. The negative counterpart of such a system can be a loss of interest in some mid-lvl content: a question of balance without doubt.

In short, I wanted to share this reflection with the community. What do you think? What kind of mechanics do you think are relevant to make low-level play relevant in the long run?

ps : english isn't my first language, i wish i'm understandable

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae

Heljy wrote: »

Should a low-level reward necessarily be less than a high-level reward?

My opinion

A level 10 player who plays 10 hours in an area of his level, implies as much as a max level player who does the same, if we put aside the additional challenges like raids. So I think he should be rewarded for his efforts in a sustainable way. For example*:
- Reputations that remain useful from level 1 to max
- Quests that give useful access at high level
- Sequences of actions throughout the progression that end up being relevant at high level (raise a jewel in quality as the lvling)
- Acquisition of currencies usable at any time
- etc.

*I say anything, that’s what comes to mind immediately.

In fact, I find that the involvement in the progression is much stronger in the case where we know that everything we do, will not be rendered useless by the rise in level. The negative counterpart of such a system can be a loss of interest in some mid-lvl content: a question of balance without doubt.

In short, I wanted to share this reflection with the community. What do you think? What kind of mechanics do you think are relevant to make low-level play relevant in the long run?

ps : english isn't my first language, i wish i'm understandable

You're fully understandable, I basically didn't even think about it until your 'ps' at the end.

I think the problem with games that don't set levels on rewards, is that they don't have a way to stop people from ignoring the content by obtaining very powerful things with RMT.

Those games are fun at the beginning, when no one has high powered gear to just give to low level friends, or to sell. Then, after that, it usually feels worse.

Ludullu

It seems like you just want horizontal rewards to be equal throughout the lvling process and I'm somewhat sure that this is already the case.

Vertical progression will have to stay lvl-dependent due to the stuff Azherae mentioned.

Liniker

yes

Percimes

I think most players associate "reward" and "level" to gear/items. If "level" is taken out, they broaden the meaning of "reward" to title, cosmetics and other non-direct power character progression. Glad you mentioned reputation as a reward, I think that's the intended role for the social organizations in AoC, or at least part of their role.

I'd say the best rewards are those that expend what your character can do. It goes for both horizontal and vertical progression. Getting your first mount is great. That first big bag that grow your inventory space is a godsend at low level. Once a new door is open though, it's more an incremental ascension: the new mount goes a bit faster, the new bag is a bit better, the new sword as bigger stats and might look better, but it could allow you to defeat mobs you couldn't before.

I hope rewards that are intended to be significant for all a character's "life" (such as things unlocked by improving reputations) are challenging whatever the level the character is at when getting it. Meaning, no high level going to a new place and getting the reward easily by slaughtering low level mobs, but it could allow you to defeat mobs you couldn't before.

Either the challenge is scaled for the level of the character (level at completion, not when it's accepted) or it's a long process in steps following the levelling progression, in which case, you begin on the step appropriate for your level and you have to somehow compensate for the missed steps. It's not so much a question of time, but of challenge.

edit: when you add a thought to a sentence but somehow put it in the wrong paragraph and only notice 2 days later.

GrappLr

Absolutely true to an extent. Most of your best rewards have to be at the highest level, nothing else makes sense. But, having horizontal progressions that start at level 1 are great as well. There being meaningful things you get at level 10, that help you at 50, is a huge deal. It makes the leveling process feel like journey where every step matters, and not just a "chore" that means nothing, and the game "starting" at level 50.

leamese

Generally yes.

Well, on a scale of probabilities. if the lower tier reward has a 1% chance (or something) to be equal or above a high-tier award (in the same context), then i'd see that as acceptable.

Heljy

Percimes wrote: »

I'd say the best rewards are those that expend what your character can do. It goes for both horizontal and vertical progression. Getting your first mount is great. That first big bag that grow your inventory space is a godsend at low level. Once a new door is open though, it's more an incremental ascension: the new mount goes a bit faster, the new bag is a bit better, the new sword as bigger stats and might look better, but it could allow you to defeat mobs you couldn't before.

I’ve always done a lot of rerols that never reach the lvl max. Not that I am lazy since I usually try to make a maximum of maxlvl content. The reason is precisely what you explain there: the new start with the first improvements, the possibilities that open up gradually, etc.

GrappLr wrote: »

Absolutely true to an extent. Most of your best rewards have to be at the highest level, nothing else makes sense. But, having horizontal progressions that start at level 1 are great as well. There being meaningful things you get at level 10, that help you at 50, is a huge deal. It makes the leveling process feel like journey where every step matters, and not just a "chore" that means nothing, and the game "starting" at level 50.

I totally agree

Spif

Low level content won't be a challenge at max level. Why should it give rewards that are meaningful at 50? That just means 50's will camp lowbie areas, ruining the lowbie content.

That said, I very much like the idea of higher quality items being good for longer than a couple levels even with AoC's slower leveling pace. If I kill a L10 dungeon boss at L10, I want the blue drop from it to be better a L15 green. If I get a lucky purple drop from that boss, I want it to be better than a L20 green.

Saying it another way, I want rarity progression to be a lot more meaningful than level progression in an item.

Although, given that very few items are going to bind to a character, I get the feeling that there will be a glut of blues on the market

Heljy

Spif wrote: »

Low level content won't be a challenge at max level. Why should it give rewards that are meaningful at 50? That just means 50's will camp lowbie areas, ruining the lowbie content.

That said, I very much like the idea of higher quality items being good for longer than a couple levels even with AoC's slower leveling pace. If I kill a L10 dungeon boss at L10, I want the blue drop from it to be better a L15 green. If I get a lucky purple drop from that boss, I want it to be better than a L20 green.

Saying it another way, I want rarity progression to be a lot more meaningful than level progression in an item.

Although, given that very few items are going to bind to a character, I get the feeling that there will be a glut of blues on the market

About the 1st argument, i agree with it. That's why the reward should maybe decrease with the level gap. However this kind of feature isn't available with items but currencies

Azherae

I guess a proper feedback note is that if the game lowers droprates to zero as the player exceeds the target in level (this would not necessarily work properly in Ashes as we currently understand Ashes to work), I don't mind if low level rewards are only slightly less valuable than high level rewards.

I think it's pointless for high level players to be spending their time camping low level Elites/similar targets to then oneshot them and take the rewards, but there are ways to make this less stupid.

But overall, if a low level reward is still 'good overall' for many levels, I'm fine with it as long as higher level players mechanically 'can't' get the drop. Unfortunately this only works in games where you can't attack someone else's tagged mob, and even in those games, high level help being given to some low level player to manipulate the droprate is still basically impossible to avoid.

GrappLr

Apart from what lots of other people said, if you made low level content just as profitable as high level content, bot farms would become a thing. Usually, the investment to max level your bot, then to start making gold, makes it much tougher to justify paying a monthly price on bots (if the ban rate is high enough). If you make level 1 bots just as profitable as a level 50 player... I guarantee there will be no way to control the amount of bots that would farm the game.

Kilion

this wont work in Ashes because lower level items will be deconstructed to become essential components for higher level items. Also I am against the idea of flattening out the item values. First, because a lv 10 player chasing bears off a pumpkin field is NOT having the same impact as a lv 50 player doing his quests which usually are directly related to the conclusions of specific stories or confrontation with a much bigger threat. Secondly, because too much horizontal progression will crush the PvP incentives.

Child Item