Daeven has an epiphany

[Daeven]

I’ve realized something. In all my railing against ‘levels’ I’m not really railing against levels. The problem with MMOG’s is the widely divergent power curve inherent in the ever increasing ability of a character to give and take damage over time. This, quite simply is the inappropriate hold-over from heroic pen and paper gaming that doesn’t fit in the MMOG space.

I think the best way to make PvP, leveling, advancement, differentiation, and all the rest of that work in this space is to minimize the hit point and damage dealing spread between veterans and newbies.

In martial Arts, the differences between the master and the beginner are the ability to prevent damage, and the ability to perform ‘one shot kills’. Both can take the exact same amount of ‘damage’. The master is simply better at dealing and avoiding it.

Thoughts?

[El Gallo]

I don't see how "catass your way to accuracy and avoidance" is different than "catass your way to damage and endurance."  One one hand,  the veteran obliterates the noob because the veteran has 1,000 hit points, does 1,000 damage per hit while the noob has 10 hit points and does 10 damage per hit.  On the other, the veteran obliterates the noob because the veteran has an armor class of 1,000 and an attack rating of 1,000 while the noob has an armor class of 10 and an attack rating of 10.

What you want is a game where characters either don't improve at all or improve only a very small amount.  You can do that in either a hit point/damage done focused game or an avoidance/accuracy game.

[Daeven]

Yep. Hense "I think the best way to make PvP, leveling, advancement, differentiation, and all the rest of that work in this space is to minimize the hit point and damage dealing spread between veterans and newbies. "

[Matt]

This is the solution text games have used for at least 12 years. All of our games use this as a way to make PvP much more interesting.

--matt

[Paelos]

I agree with this in the principle that I think damage and HP shouldn't be tied to levels in the exponential fashion that is so popular amongst developers today. I'd like to see a game where a group five to six lvl 10 guys could take on a lvl 50 because it makes mathematical sense. If you make the gains between levels flatter instead of the huge power curve we see now. Even if you wanted to have the proggression of character go from being a 10 HP weakling to a 1000 HP stud, you could make the gains steadier so as to give more purpose across level gaps. One way would be to make the gains constant across certain intervals, say every 5 levels. So for 5 levels every increase is the same, and then for the next five levels, the gain increases but is still constant.

[Daeven]

What, you mean the current gMUD's are simply crappy implementations of the originals with more of the shiney? Like I've never said that either.

Bah. Forget it.

[Mr_PeaCH]

Hmm, I think Daeven has a point; let me see if I can explain the difference with his proposed dynamic.

Traditional model, as you say, noob has 10 hit points, does his piddling damage while fighting the noob mobs or even a noob player in PvP.  Whereas the vet has catassed to 1000 hp and can dish out some mega-damage and vanquish the high-end mobs that would one-hit-kill our noob friend.  The noobs fights are short because the noob mobs have few hps; consequently, recovering from one fight to the next is short because only a few hps need to be regenerated.  The vets fights are longer because the mobs are given more hps, and if he loses a sizable number of his own hps his recovery is going to be much, much longer

Daeven's proposal, to my mind, works like this a little bit:  noob fighter vs. noob mobs; pretty much unchanged.  But the veteran displays his prowess in combat a bit differently; he's not better because he simply has a greater pool of hps or has a higher dps in combat... per se.  He's better because he kills his opponents quicker (higher % to do critical hits or something) and/or because he takes less damage being hit less, less susceptable to mob crits or taking less damage per hit.  So in Daeven's model, the noob and the veteran have a pretty easy time of it against mobs appropriate to their level.  As an extension of this notion, this might lead towards getting away from the hp recovery downtime sinkhole whereby the higher level you are the longer you are sitting and waiting for your red bar to fill back up.

[Arnold]

UO had the hit point cap and I think that worked quite well.  People with characters above total newbie level, but not even close to finished could lend a hand with PvM and PvP.   Sure, they died a lot, but they could still make the occasional weapon hit, or toss heal spells, bandage others, etc.

AC1 is a leveling game, but its power cost curve is relative to its level cost curve.  In AC1, level is just a general indicator of character power and you, the player, get to distribute experience points as you see fit (excpt points gained directly through skill use).  The more you spend, the more expensive it gets.

I can remember a time when it seemed like all the characters I ran into had a similar range of health.  It wasn't until rampant XP chaining and uber templates designed to be played at level 80 plus that I saw people with MASSIVE amounts of health.

I really miss the old days of AC1.  Darktide was a cool place and reminded me of Siege Perilous.  Then they started adding in too much no-drop equipment, people figured out the spell system, people learned how to exploit the XP system, etc.

[Arnold]

Daeven's proposal, to my mind, works like this a little bit:  noob fighter vs. noob mobs; pretty much unchanged.  But the veteran displays his prowess in combat a bit differently; he's not better because he simply has a greater pool of hps or has a higher dps in combat... per se.  He's better because he kills his opponents quicker (higher % to do critical hits or something) and/or because he takes less damage being hit less, less susceptable to mob crits or taking less damage per hit.  So in Daeven's model, the noob and the veteran have a pretty easy time of it against mobs appropriate to their level.  As an extension of this notion, this might lead towards getting away from the hp recovery downtime sinkhole whereby the higher level you are the longer you are sitting and waiting for your red bar to fill back up.

And Daeven's suggestion more closely follows reality.  The newb swordfighter and the vet swordfighter are going to have a similar amount of "health", though the vet might have more, due to a lifetime of physical training.  However, the vet is much harder to hit because he knows how to work his weapon.  He knows how to parry, attack, feint, etc.  He's also battle hardened and doesn't get the shakes, like our newbie will in his early battles.  Still, a crossbow bolt in the back of either will have the same effect.

Since all these games are the offspring of D&D, lets go back and remember what the "Hit Point" was originally meant to represent.  An "Attack", and the Hit Point damage it dealt, did not represent a single attack (though my friends and I pretended it did).  It represented one minute of combat.  

The game designers didn't want to model every single attack and hit for various reasons.  Hit Points represented an increase in skill and heroic nature of the character (as well as other skills going up).  10 points of damage to a newbie is a deathblow, but 10 points of damage to a hero is a scratch.  ALL the extra hitpoints a high level character has are basically a "Heroic Armor" that ablates away as he takes damage.  Once he gets down to his last hit die, his original Hit Point pool, then he's burning his real health.

I believe part of the reason this was done was to limit calculations and dice rolling.  It was also probably because the designers were fans of pulp fantasy and wanted characters to take on legions of lesser creatures.  But still, no one had thousands of hit points in D&D;  it was much more reasonable in that game.

Anyway, I think I got off track a bit.  Now we do have computers and we can correctly model combat, single hit per attack.  We don't have to pool abstract, multiple attacks into a minute long "round".  We can check for weapon speed, opponent defense, attack, hit, location, armor, resistances, and damage in an instant.  We can dispense with the old system and go with one that more closely models a real fight.

[El Gallo]

Yep. Hense "I think the best way to make PvP, leveling, advancement, differentiation, and all the rest of that work in this space is to minimize the hit point and damage dealing spread between veterans and newbies. "

And why I gave you an example where the master and the noob both have the same number of hit points and do the same amount of damage per hit, but the difference in power is still as big as it is in EQ.

In martial Arts, the differences between the master and the beginner are the ability to prevent damage, and the ability to perform ‘one shot kills’. Both can take the exact same amount of ‘damage’. The master is simply better at dealing and avoiding it.[/u]

I took you to be suggesting that we leave the hit points and damage the same but give the master higher avoidance and accuracy skills.  Which does the exact same thing that increases in hit points and damage do.  

Steeply increasing hit points and damage have the exact same result as steeply increasing avoidance and accuracy.  Minimally increasing hit points and damage have the exact same result as minimally increasing avoidance and accuracy.  The conclusion I draw from these two facts is that what will get you what you want are flat or nearly flat advancement curves, which you've said before.  Changing the stats that get increased from hit points and damage done to %to get hit and %to hit (your martial arts example) does nothing to achieve that goal.

[Arnold]

I took you to be suggesting that we leave the hit points and damage the same but give the master higher avoidance and accuracy skills.  Which does the exact same thing that increases in hit points and damage do.  

Steeply increasing hit points and damage have the exact same result as steeply increasing avoidance and accuracy.  Minimally increasing hit points and damage have the exact same result as minimally increasing avoidance and accuracy.  The conclusion I draw from these two facts is that what will get you what you want are flat or nearly flat advancement curves, which you've said before.  Changing the stats that get increased from hit points and damage done to %to get hit and %to hit (your martial arts example) does nothing to achieve that goal.

It won't be the same though.  As long as the newb has some remote chance to hit the veteran, he can cause real damage to him; not just a scratch of 1/500 of his health.  A gang of newbies could actually have a chance to bring this vet down.  Now we're getting closer to PvP balance.

[El Gallo]

I see where you are coming from, but my point is this:

Situation A, pure avoidance and accuracy game: 10 noobs with 10 hit points each who have a 1%chance of hitting a master for 10 points of damage vs a master with 10 hit points who has a 99% chance of hitting a noob for 10 points of damage.

Situation B, pure hit point and damage game: 10 noobs with 10 hit points each who have a 50% chance of hitting a master for 5 points of damage vs a master with 50 hit points who has a 50% chance of hitting a noob for 25 points of damage.

B increased hit points and damage from levelling.  A doesn't.  But the noobs in B have a much better shot of winning.  Obviously an extreme example, but the bottom line is that I think it is the overall steepness of the advancement curve that matters rather than the attributes you allow characters to advance.  If you want a game where everyone is roughly equal, you have to constrain every avenue of advancement to a very flat curve, not just one or two of them.

[Fargull]

Hmm...

I think the forest is being missed for the trees.  Take a HP range... 20 - 100, ala UO and stump armor on that provides protection so that THE Awesome weapon of Uber coolness does 50hp of damage on a cloth wearing newbie per hit or 20hp of damage on a fully armored up wearing vet.  The newbie would have a 20% chance to hit the vet and the vet would have a 90% chance to hit the newb, the chance to hit depends on a stat that falls on the 20 to 100 curve such as Dex.  You get five newbs and you have a fight that is the realm of probability, maybe not much, but some.  Now, toss skills that are gained through progressive action, say questing instead of levels, or out right purchase in what ever flavor of game currancy is available.  These skills influence the chance to hit or be hit, not damage dealt or received.  Chance to hit never rises above 95% and or miss less than 5%.

Keep the bloody bell curve in play and you have some level of competition.

Just thoughts.

[Arnold]

I see where you are coming from, but my point is this:

Situation A, pure avoidance and accuracy game: 10 noobs with 10 hit points each who have a 1%chance of hitting a master for 10 points of damage vs a master with 10 hit points who has a 99% chance of hitting a noob for 10 points of damage.

Situation B, pure hit point and damage game: 10 noobs with 10 hit points each who have a 50% chance of hitting a master for 5 points of damage vs a master with 50 hit points who has a 50% chance of hitting a noob for 25 points of damage.

B increased hit points and damage from levelling.  A doesn't.  But the noobs in B have a much better shot of winning.  Obviously an extreme example, but the bottom line is that I think it is the overall steepness of the advancement curve that matters rather than the attributes you allow characters to advance.  If you want a game where everyone is roughly equal, you have to constrain every avenue of advancement to a very flat curve, not just one or two of them.

The problem with your example is that in ALL the leveling games I've seen so far, the newbie has ZERO chance to hit the master(and even if they could hit him, they'd take away 1-2% of his health), but the master can hit them 100% of the time and he inflicts far more than enough damage to kill them in one hit.

Read Fargull's UO example to get what I'm talking about.

[El Gallo]

Yeah, in most games the noobie vs master difference is huge in hit points, damage dealing, accuracy, AND evasion.  I understand the thrust of the argument (one way to flatten the power distribution is to take out two of the avenues of advancement alltogether) but I think that because each of these four factors can cause huge differences in relative character power, you should focus on all four of them, not just two of them.

[daveNYC]

Just one point, from a PvE standpoint, a change to a character's health would mean major changes to the mobs in the game.  Fantastic monsters would continue to have more health than any character, and they would basically have the ability to one/two-hit any character in the game.

Not that I disagree that stats like HPs need to be changed, I'm just bringing up the point that it will have impact beyond the PvP action.

[Mr_PeaCH]

daveNYC,

Not necessarily.  I mean, you're right; "fantastic, epic and otherwise truly monstrous" creatures would have more 'life' and both could and should be able to one-hit just about any character in the game.  But the veterans, the high-level players would be able to avoid taking the full brunt of devestation possible 'most of the time' whereas noobs would just be squished to jelly.  But occasionally, yeah, you miss your 'saving roll' to borrow yet another D&D convention and you're croaked.  Just doesn't happen as often for the vets.

I was thinking that, PvE-wise, at higher levels a distinction could be made in the mob make-up... some monsters are 'high level' because they are capable of doing dangerous amounts of damage or taking copious damage and so present a heavy challenge; yet they're 'dumb animals' to a certain extent.  Other mobs are high level because they are crafty, intelligent or otherwise skilled; such as monsters that forge and use weapons of their own; presumably they train themselves to fight and so on.  So for the first monster type, you can simply represent them with greater HP and DPS figures; but for the latter, much like the veteran players, you make them more capable of doing critical damage to the players and having similar chances of avoiding same owing to their skill.

[Daeven]

Just one point, from a PvE standpoint, a change to a character's health would mean major changes to the mobs in the game.  Fantastic monsters would continue to have more health than any character, and they would basically have the ability to one/two-hit any character in the game..

To which I would point out that Jackie Chan our Bruce Lee would whip any of our asses six ways to sunday. They'd still get 'one-shot killed' by an 18-wheeler.

;)

On 'PvE' I really feel that NPC's should be subject to the same advancement mechanisms as players. The Orc King should be for a reason other than 'he was coded thataway'. 'High level mogs' should be everything from the crafty Orc who has defeated a significant number of PC's and now owns someone Fort as a result, to the Dragon who models the proverbial Mac Truck above.

Finally, El Gallo raises some very good points. There are lots of pieces to the advancement puzzle. One of my primary reasons for starting this thread was to bring up an issue that I think is mostly overlooked - the impact on HP and damage output potential in segregating the player base and effectively rendering PvP a factor of time played.  I *do* think a 'master' should generally be able to defeat a newbie. But sometimes, even a tyro gets lucky. Or brings 5 friends. Or snipes the Master form the corner with a poison tipped dart.

I think one of the biggest 'wins' from this sort of a mechanic is that at the very least, the perception of vulnerability exists. And who knows, perhaps you may get lucky.

The most important idea I think is the 'Any given Sunday' rule - without which most reasonable direct player conflict is out the window.

[daveNYC]

On 'PvE' I really feel that NPC's should be subject to the same advancement mechanisms as players. The Orc King should be for a reason other than 'he was coded thataway'.

I like it, but I don't think any MMOG has tried the evolving PSW thing since early UO.

Nor do I believe that AI is very high on the list of 'things to put in my game'.

My ideal game would have both elements, I just don't think that there is much of a knowledge base in both areas.  Especially as they are/would be used in MMOGs.

It'd be nice to see how Fable ends up, since that seems to have some of these elements in it.

[MrHat]

I believe the view been expressed that veterans shouldn't be ub-er because the time investment to get to that level. Why should leveling automatically award them the 'nub-kill2004 skill' or allow them to do quest A and get the 'Dragonflame Sword of nub-kill2004'?   Instead, they are awarded more skills to use that would counter certain skills and it is up their discretion to learn which skills counter what and when to use them correctly.

After that, separating the apprentice and master would be a matter of versatility.  The master knows that using the nub-kill2004 skill could potentially kill his apprentice but because if on the off chance that the apprentice avoids his attack (3%), a chance to counter could be awarded, i.e. big offence means low defense.  The apprentice will gain skill in avoidance and will have more of a chance next time nub-kill2004 is used on him, perhaps even have a chance to do damage to the master!

This reinforces the whole defensive view set forth by focusing on avoidance.  Our numbers focus shifts from HP to avoidance and defense.  And our skill gain, usually awarded for leveling (time investment), is instead gained after facing a certain situation or sparing w/ masters.

Edit: Perhaps rough drafts should be made a requirement.

[Arnold]

On 'PvE' I really feel that NPC's should be subject to the same advancement mechanisms as players. The Orc King should be for a reason other than 'he was coded thataway'.

I like it, but I don't think any MMOG has tried the evolving PSW thing since early UO.

Hehehe.  Monsters in Asheron's Call can level up!  I've seen them gain levels after killing a player.  I seem to recall some people on one server macroing up a 1st level monster to a much higher level, just for kicks.

[Death_Mule]

I like the idea of reigning in the D&D-style hitpoints.  daveNYC mentioned it on another thread and I can't think of a better place to start.  

The main problem with newbie equality is it allows, promotes even, throwaway characters (and zergs) which removes social stability.  Throwaways are a griefer's dream.  Zergs are a little too based in reality; the generals sit back and grunts rush forward to stab each other in the face.  

The adjustment needed for "monsters" doesn't seem to be as much of a problem if advancement versus a particular catagory were allowed.  A vet may kick butt against reptiles, insects and/or the undead, but not against other players.  It's not much of a conceptual leap from differing resistances to heat, cold, acid, whatever.  This would allow for character investment while not widening the gap between newb and vet.  

This is the solution text games have used for at least 12 years. All of our games use this as a way to make PvP much more interesting.

--matt

I can't fathom why you posted this comment.  What is interesting about bored, wealthy, powerful elders one-shotting excited, poor, weakling newbs?  What is interesting about after-thought restrictions, such as safe areas and level-difference blocks, that keep the frustration alive?

[Dren]

I agree that UO had something when they restricted HP and MANA (Magic pool) caps.  It did keep everyone on a somewhat level playing field (before the current uber item based game.)

Many times you would have players using characters that were no where near 7xGM (maxxed char skills) and they could take out the 7xGM just based on skill and "know how."  I was one of those highly skilled characters that got pwned all the time just because I wasn't all that good at the twitch game.  I did get better in the end though.

One problem with UO's strategy was mentioned above.  The high level monsters were too much for any one character (except for mages casting Energy Vortex or other ways of avoiding direct damage.)

Normally this would be great, because it meant gathering groups of evenly distributed skills (mage to melee) and going out to vanquish the epic monster.  However, UO fell short in the fact that at the time there was not much incentive in doing this.  The payback wasn't much better than other monsters being destroyed solo.  Thus you had characters going toe to toe with the monster risking dieing and losing their equipement for not much return.  Many monsters (balrons/balrogs sp) could take down most characters in 2-3 hits easy.

UO moved away from all this by introducing uber items and also making it more likely to get better items from higher monsters.  They probably would have been fine by just tweaking the treasure allotments *shrug*.  Now it is easy to kill epic monsters solo and the treasure is abundant, but to get there you need lots of time invested and lots of loot.

For some reason they started with a nice system and gradually moved away from it.  Their customers were screaming for something different and that is what they got.  I tend to think people cried for something different just because they didn't know any better.  Once they got what they wante you basically heard a great chorus of "meh" and the unsubs began to wash in.  Just my take.

[shiznitz]

It is important to force tradeoffs. Considering a UO-like skill system, characters should have to choose between things like melee avoidance and spell resistance. So in the "5 newbies ganging up on a master" example, the master might be able to defend himself against the newbie swordsmen, but a journeyman mage would wipe the floor with the master.  If the tradeoffs are done right, a game can provide a diverse skill system that doesn;t lock people into "classes."

[Calantus]

The main problem with newbie equality is it allows, promotes even, throwaway characters (and zergs) which removes social stability.  Throwaways are a griefer's dream.  Zergs are a little too based in reality; the generals sit back and grunts rush forward to stab each other in the face.

The griefer problem can be solved (I'm only talking about the added grief caused by a system like this) by locking down characters for a period of time. In UO you can only delete a character 7 days after it was first created, which stops you from creating endless annonymous grief characters. It is also annoying if you mess up your guy, but that could be alleviated by forcing you to keep the name, but allowing you to otherwise recreate the character.


I think the best way to make monsters epic is to change what they do, not what their numbers are. A monster who can paralyze, poison, curse, and throw down powerful combo's is much more epic than a monster who just has heaps of hp and damage. If you have to think, prepare, and stay on your toes because the fight can change suddenly depending on what the monster does... that's much more epic.

Fighting an Ogre Lord in UO is like fighting Skeletons, the numbers just change. But fighting a dragon is a different beast entirely. They can poison, curse (though curse is pretty weak), breathe fire, cast explode (delayed damage, perfect for combos), paralyze, cast high damage spells... and if you let them get close they will whack you.

Unless you've got alot of uber gear, are exploiting AI, or are a tamer, you always have to pay attention when fighting dragons. Ogre Lords can kill just as fast, and take about as much damage to go down, but you either sit back and kite their stupid asses, or you joust them (run up, hit, run off, heal if needed, repeat). Dragons are fun, and if you don't do them all the time, epic. Ogre Lords are walking vending machines.

[WayAbvPar]

Ogre Lords can kill just as fast, and take about as much damage to go down, but you either sit back and kite their stupid asses, or you joust them (run up, hit, run off, heal if needed, repeat). Dragons are fun, and if you don't do them all the time, epic. Ogre Lords are walking vending machines.

In Jux Hur Ylem. Rinse, repeat. Best way to deal with Ogre Lords. Once you can cast 5th Circle spells, they are trivial.

Dragons, as mentioned, are a whole different kettle of fish.

[shiznitz]

The UO summons were overpowered. They should have been tweaked with much lower HPs and given a damage boost - make them deadly but frail if attacked. Blade Spirits was a fun spell, though.

[HaemishM]

Yep. Hense "I think the best way to make PvP, leveling, advancement, differentiation, and all the rest of that work in this space is to minimize the hit point and damage dealing spread between veterans and newbies. "

Yes.

Q: And if text games have been doing this for 12 years, why aren't graphical games doing it?

A: Because Dikumud with graphics became more popular than UO.

EDIT: As for the damage avoidance problem, if you just tweak HP and To hit numbers, and keep the MMOG combat interfaces we have now, not only will nothing change, it will SUCK MUCH ASS, because combat in MMOG's is dead boring. If you were to change the HP and to hit numbers to be flat, allowing a master to avoid more hits than the n00b, you'd have to actually design the combat system differently. Maybe even, gasp! add player skill into the mix, via semi-twitch, or some other mechanic. Combat would have to be a completely different type of game than we see now.

[Matt]

This is the solution text games have used for at least 12 years. All of our games use this as a way to make PvP much more interesting.

--matt

I can't fathom why you posted this comment.  What is interesting about bored, wealthy, powerful elders one-shotting excited, poor, weakling newbs?  What is interesting about after-thought restrictions, such as safe areas and level-difference blocks, that keep the frustration alive?

I think you misread what I posted. I posted that the solution that some text games have used for at least 12 years is to reduce the difference between highbies and lowbies. You seem to be attributing the opposite to my statement.
--matt

[Matt]

EDIT: As for the damage avoidance problem, if you just tweak HP and To hit numbers, and keep the MMOG combat interfaces we have now, not only will nothing change, it will SUCK MUCH ASS, because combat in MMOG's is dead boring. If you were to change the HP and to hit numbers to be flat, allowing a master to avoid more hits than the n00b, you'd have to actually design the combat system differently. Maybe even, gasp! add player skill into the mix, via semi-twitch, or some other mechanic. Combat would have to be a completely different type of game than we see now.

Yep, again, much like text muds have done for at least 12 years. It's frustrating to me that the model most graphical muds have chosen to emulate so far is the DIKU model, which is often the receiver of much scorn in the text mud world. It's clearly popular with many folks and I won't begrudge them that, but it's not popular with (and I wince as I write this) the text mud cognescenti.

--matt

[daveNYC]

Combat would have to be a completely different type of game than we see now.

Fencing styles as they were talked about in The Princess Bride.
Styles that give advantages based on terrain, styles that boost offense/defense.  That give access to/restrict special attacks or defences.  Combat abilities that involve moving the character (leaps, rolls).  All tied into some sort of auto-attack, just so you're character will always do something and not just stand there and take it.

Some combo of the above might improve MMOG combat.  Not by a whole hell of a lot though.

[Alluvian]

I am responding after reading the first dozen or so posts here.  There is an argument over whether a health/damage based game or a armor/accuracy based game are any different.

The person saying they are the same is correct.  The argument that a bunch of newbies can hurt a pro in the latter but not the former is innacurate.  It is just a matter of how steep the curves are.  The real problem is that what you are calling health/damage games are NOT just health and damage.  Health and damage increasing over time alone would give us a linear relationship.  Current games increase BOTH health/damage AND armor/accuracy over time.  The problem is that the newbie cannot hit the uber AND even if he did hit would not do a sizable percentage of damage.  You can increment either of these modes and still give a group of youngsters a chance at an uber, but if you change BOTH with level (as almost all mmogs do) then you need an exponential amount of newbies to kill the uber.

For an idea, lets say we use the health/damage model and leave accuracy and armor alone.  We assume that health represents armor and avoidance on its own.  Then if the uber has 100 hp and does 100 damage and the newbie has 10 hp and 10 damage then we are talking in the range of 4 newbies to take on an uber in this model.  Notice it is not 10, because the uber can only kill them one at a time.  If we assume 100 percent accuracy and full damage the fight would be over in 4 swings with both sides dead (4+3+2+1=10*10=100).

The other mode is abit more complex, and requires statistics to understand.  But if we stick with an uber being 10x more accurate vs a newb we are on similar grounds.  Instead we would have to figure out how many newbs it would take to have a 50% win percentage.  Too complex for my blood but it would be about 4 I suspect.  The only difference is that assuming both sides can do enough damage to deathblow in one hit, then the a newb could statistically kill and uber in a one on one fight.  I don't personally think that would be terribly fun for either side because it would be total luck or total bad luck unless player skill was involved.

The bottom line is that most games increase BOTH these modes, and that is just wrong.

[Mr_PeaCH]

Combat would have to be a completely different type of game than we see now.

Fencing styles as they were talked about in The Princess Bride.
Styles that give advantages based on terrain, styles that boost offense/defense.  That give access to/restrict special attacks or defences.  Combat abilities that involve moving the character (leaps, rolls).  All tied into some sort of auto-attack, just so you're character will always do something and not just stand there and take it.

Some combo of the above might improve MMOG combat.  Not by a whole hell of a lot though.

The model that I come back to time and again stems from the twitchy-mini-game that you do to swing a golf club.  I'd propose something like this for melee combat to the point where you quickly select things like left or right, high or low, thrust or slash, feint, 1/2 strength or full-power.  Again, it might be sort of haywire for the newbies by design and later, once you've leveled up and aquired some in-game skill with your weapon you're granted abilities like pre-setting your default attack modes.  Tie that in with your notion, Dave, of fighting styles or stances (actually one of the things SB did and did well imo) and maybe you have something.  Note: I can't see why this would have to be static either... why you couldn't be in motion while you attack in this way.  Strafing and moving in and out with the keyboard and perhaps clicking attack options or even moving the mouse to simulate sword strokes, etc.

[Djamonja]

Yep. Hense "I think the best way to make PvP, leveling, advancement, differentiation, and all the rest of that work in this space is to minimize the hit point and damage dealing spread between veterans and newbies. "

Yes.

Q: And if text games have been doing this for 12 years, why aren't graphical games doing it?

A: Because Dikumud with graphics became more popular than UO.

In SWG, n00bs have exactly the same base HPs as a maxed out veteran character. Accuracy, attack speed, and defense improves as your character advances up the combat trees.

[Death_Mule]

I think you misread what I posted.
--matt

It looks like I need help with the definition of "this" and other reading comprehension skills.  Thanks for the reorientation to reality.  And thank goodness, it all makes more sense now.  

So ... how has the last 12 years of using the other approach turned out?  Any glaring holes or special problems with flattening the HP/power gap?