Do levels suck?

[heck]

A fun virtual world, in and of itself, won't exist until someone invents a working holodeck.  Until then, virtual worlds are going to require a bit of effort on behalf of the participants.  No?

What's the point here?

Cevik says "no one has yet succeeded in making a fun virtual world".  I'm asking whether or not that fun exists in a vacuum.  I'm not saying I know the answer and I'm not defending any particular games.

Does the virtual world have to be something you can passively enjoy?  Does the virtual world provide more of a rewarding experience to those who put more effort into working within that world?

I'm not saying that we should accept a shitty virtual world as something that we have to force ourselves to have fun in.  But he said there have been no fun virtual worlds...none!  So I'm just kind of exploring that.

"Holodeck" was a bonus Star Trek TNG reference.  I'm using that as an example of a virtual world that can be passively experienced (until Data dresses as John Wilkes Booth and attempts to shoot Capt Picard dressed as Abraham Lincoln.  Then you must intervene)

[Velorath]

/generalizing

You guys don't want a game, you want Reality 2.0 with an optional elf boobies upgrade    Fuck all that 'my bronze sword ought to have a .037 chance to hit the armpit of the guy in steel plate armor' and 'skill points ARE/AREN'T levels' ... people want a FUN game, and while stuff like that may be fun for the hardcore masochists on this board, most people wont give a shit about the small details.  I am 100 percent sure that you can make a FUN level based system (WoW seems to do it pretty damn well) and a FUN skill point or whatever system (UO, EVE, ATITD).  There's too much worrying about perfecting the small stuff and not enough worrying about if its FUN.  As has been said before, WoW is a great game, but a very average world.  One could argue that power creep for equipment is a very necessary thing, in that it becomes

Ralph Wiggum:  Fun toys are fun!

My take on levels/some kind of grind:  They're necessary for player retention.  If you give everyone (quick) access to the good stuff immediately, they're not going to want to stick around once they've tried everything.  There's no attachment to a character if he can be replaced in a few minutes, and therefore, probably not much attachment to the game.  How many people played Guild Wars beyond a month or two?  I hear people complaining about power creep, but really, why the hell would you stay in the game otherwise? Just move the whole guild to the next shiny game.

As a player, I don't give a fuck about player retention.  I'm not going to wade through crap for $15 a month to access the good stuff, which may never even come, just so I can help pay someone's bills.  No matter how great an MMO is, I don't see myself playing one for more than a few months anyway.  Even my favorite single-player games don't get that much of a commitment out of me, why do people expect MMO's to be different?

[HRose]

Does the virtual world have to be something you can passively enjoy?  Does the virtual world provide more of a rewarding experience to those who put more effort into working within that world?

Well, my post vanished. I must have cut/pasted it out of the box to my site and then posted the wrong one and forgot to update the previous.

Anyway, the point here is: what the "sandbox" or virtual game has LESS compared to a linear one? Why you (Cevik) say that one is fun while the other isn't?

My answers are here (the post that I cut out):

I hear people complaining about power creep, but really, why the hell would you stay in the game otherwise?

Straight from Raph:

I don’t at all equate levels and character advancement. Levels is one means of providing character advancement. I very much disagree that increasing power is the sole way of doing this.

Why I would play a game? Because I'm interested in the experience it offers me and having lots of fun in it. Consequence -> I really want to be part and active subject of this world.

The power creep is really a detail, even for those who love the progression. Again from Raph (I'm starting to feel like a well-trained bot) :

Rather, I agree with what you said the first time, which is that it’s about the journey. I don’t think very many people get much enjoyment solely from the levelling process. Rather, the levels are the markers on the road. The road is what needs to be interesting and fun. You seem to be saying that as long as the growth via levels is there, the game can be less. I think that the ways in which we acknowledge achievement — and yes, even grant increased power — are secondary to the actual journey. Saying that “the enjoyment is less about the game and more about the growth” is exactly what is parodied in ProgressQuest.

This is REALLY the most basic stuff. We shouldn't discuss about this in this sort of community. We aren't five years ago. With WoW there's a REAL RISK to demolish all we learnt if observed superficially like that.

I find it's best to stir things up occasionally by pointing out that thousands of fun games have been made, but no one has yet succeeded in making a fun virtual world.  They'll deny that fact, but that's what puts them firmly in the "wrong" camp.  :)

Well, I didn't deny the fact at all. Quoting from above comments:

We all know how sandbox games SUCK. And they do. But this doesn't mean that they HAVE TO.

--
What's the first flaw of a sandbox? It's lack of direction. The fact that you don't know what you are supposed to do next and you feel overwhelmed and lost.

--
Still today the sandbox games are those where I had the LESS fun. So why I love them anyway? Because what I see is their potential beyond those flaws that have been impassable barriers for me. And if have that silly dream of becoming a developer it's because I dream about what these games will be when those barriers will be removed.

That's the myth I'm chasing.

Back to Raph:

Many many MMO devs disagree with you. I have heard many MMO devs cite “story” as the principal reason and strength for MMOs, for example. I happen to disagree with that, but there’s little doubt that this rigid control is a major success factor for WoW.

And back to me:

The point is: the rigid control is needed to overcome the huge flaws of freeform games (see the discussion on F13). What is interesting to figure out is why the rigid control is a success factor.

Imho, because it adds accessibility. And this whole genre has HUGE problems in the accessibility. ESPECIALLY Raph’s games (take that).

But it’s still possible to have direction and a whole collection of linear paths *within* a freeform sandbox. You would still preserve the possibility to go on your own, but the presence of those paths would allow you to still have a definite “purpose” if you need one. And learn/enjoy the game progressively instead of feeling 'lost and overwhelmed'.

That’s the core point that isn’t working in the “other type” of games.

[Nija]

... people want a FUN game, and while stuff like that may be fun for the hardcore masochists on this board, most people wont give a shit about the small details. 

Dude, the details are the only things worth noticing.

Playing Soldiers and pulling charred corpses out of a blasted tank so I can get inside and pilfer it for ammo does in fact make the game experience better.

[Margalis]

Raph's piece was well written, but I had the following problem:

There was not one concrete suggestion in the entire thing.


Most people grasp on some level that levels in MMORPGs, or at least how they are implemented, leave a lot to be desired. That's basically a given. You have a bunch of criteria, and levels fail some of those. Fine. Now suggest something that doesn't! That's the hard part.

[Raging Turtle]

... people want a FUN game, and while stuff like that may be fun for the hardcore masochists on this board, most people wont give a shit about the small details. 

Dude, the details are the only things worth noticing.

Playing Soldiers and pulling charred corpses out of a blasted tank so I can get inside and pilfer it for ammo does in fact make the game experience better.

I agree, that does sound cool.  The point I was trying to make - not very clearly, and I'm too tired right now to fix the whole post - is that people in the thread were focusing too much on minor gameplay mechanics that often have very little to do with how much most players actually enjoy the level procses. 

But I know if I ask 'how do you remove the levels from WOW and still make it fun for the players and profitable (sales and retention) for the company, people will bring up all many things that have very little to do with the overall fun factor, IMHO.  But ya know, why am I even posting on a message board at 1:30 AM if not to quibble the details.  That's not really a good point, is it.   

[HRose]

You have a bunch of criteria, and levels fail some of those. Fine. Now suggest something that doesn't!

I did.

[Typhon]

There was not one concrete suggestion in the entire thing.
[...]
Now suggest something that doesn't!

I believe Raph mentions near the end of article 2 that he won't be able to post implementation ideas.  The reason for this is cause, like, that's his day job.  SOE pays him to think big thoughts, they could stop paying him if he was just going to post them on a free website.

[Xilren's Twin]

You have a bunch of criteria, and levels fail some of those. Fine. Now suggest something that doesn't!

I did.

...and it's still just as meaningless without an implementation plan that makes the moment to moment experience fun.  It's not the design, nor the advancement scheme, which determines the success or failure of this projects, it the embedded game systems.  If they arent fun the whole project is moot b/c it wont attract and keep players.  You need look no further than SWG for a glowing example of this (the failure of the original combat game system to the latest tempest over their replacement of it and it's effects on the project as a whole)

To sum, start with the mirco view of your embedded games, then build on them to the macro view of the worldspace, not the other way around.  /Insert analogy of chain's weakest link of buildings with shaky foundations here

Xilren
PS It's possible somewhere in your tons of prose on your site or elsewhere you have actually gotten to this level; sorry, I'm not going spelunking to find it.  Besides, reading too much of you make my head hurt in a "warrior needs alcohol" kind of way...

[Nija]

I agree, that does sound cool.  The point I was trying to make - not very clearly, and I'm too tired right now to fix the whole post - is that people in the thread were focusing too much on minor gameplay mechanics that often have very little to do with how much most players actually enjoy the level process. 

But I know if I ask 'how do you remove the levels from WOW and still make it fun for the players and profitable (sales and retention) for the company, people will bring up all many things that have very little to do with the overall fun factor, IMHO.  But ya know, why am I even posting on a message board at 1:30 AM if not to quibble the details.  That's not really a good point, is it.   

I get what you are saying. I think the reason people are offering up examples of specific, small things because 'showing your work' when you answer 'yes' or 'no' to this question is hard. I talked about the 'stabbing the armpit' type of thing to provide an example of something that would be fun to me. If I had just said, "I'd like 3rd person combat controls" or something along those lines, maybe someone would have gotten the idea that I would like Rune Online.

That would be just as bad, if not worse than EQ, because it's very shallow. Taking the extra 10 steps past Rune, though, and allowing you to expose weak points in the opponents armor such as the armpits and the back of the knee shows some depth, strategy, and that you'll probably need player skill in combat. You need a strong core combat system to build the game on, because it always comes back to the combat. I do not understand why people use these games for online chatrooms, but Habbo Hotel is definately lacking in the graphics department so maybe they just like that type of shiny.

Then again, I could have just said "I'd like player skill in combat." A few steps past M&B and I'll be a happy camper.

[cevik]

The problem, and I think this has been pointed out above, is that the interface to our games is severely lacking.  SEVERELY.

Sure, dragging corpses out of tanks to scrounge for ammo sounds fun.  So does stabbing people in armpits.  The problem stems from the fact that the interface we have (typically a keyboard and a mouse, maybe a joystick, occasionally a game pad, unless we are talking about consoles, then turn that entire sentence on it's head, but it doesn't matter) lacks in it's ability to accurately convey our desired actions into this virtual world.

An example, someone on the Cornered Rat design team looked at WWII rifles, thought "wow, that's complex to shoot, it requires lots of different actions", then decided to put each of those actions as a separate action in the game.  WWIIO came out, required 17 button presses to aim and fire your rifle, and we had two years of comedic fun at their expense.  The intuitive actions on a rifle do not translate well to keys on a keyboard.  Battlefield 1942 came out and required one, maybe 2, button presses FOR THE SAME ACTION, and we had tons of fun killin' n00bs.

We are in the very baby stages of interface design on computers.  We have before us a device intended for nothing other than to make transcribing words (English words none the less) quick and easy.  Well, quick and easy by turn of the century standards, and not even the most recent turn of the century (inventend in 1868 no less).  We've added only one improvement over the last 100 years (unless you want to count the extra keys, which hardly seems worth counting), and that's a device that lets us move our cursor around the screen (an accessory that was only needed when we added screens to these keyboards, i.e. in the last 20 years).

Look at how I play WoW.  I have the "1 2 3 4 5 q w e r t a s d f g z x c v b and tab" keys and 4 buttons plus a scroll wheel all mapped to something I use in pretty much every battle, including shift + most of those keys.  There are other things I'd LOVE to map, but I'm out of real estate.  If the game gets more "complex", as in calling shots at a specific area of the body, I'd be screwed, there simply is no available interface left for me to capitalize on.  I have one hand on the mouse for moving/targeting the other hand has EVERY key that it is intended to press (plus a couple that it was never meant to press) mapped to something VITAL to the game as is.  All of that and I'm supposed to use THE SAME interface to talk to other people in the game (i.e. when I'm busy telling the /raid that there are two incoming 29 rogues to the flag room, I CANNOT fight, It's a half duplex interface, either I talk or I fight).

The dilemma for game makers becomes making a game that is FUN with the interface that is available.  Good console games take the interface in to account first, then design the game around the interface available (the dual shock, or the type S controller, whatever they are designing for).  The "best" console games are the ones that most intuitively let you use the interface they have to enjoy the game.  For some reason, PC developers NEVER seem to take this into account (aside from Flight Sims, which often are the best Sim type games, because most of their consumers purchase identical interfaces to their real world counter parts).  The difference between a "fun game" and a boring click fest is really the difference between a game designed with the limitations of the interface in mind and a game designed around a concept and forced to fit into the interface at the last moment.

Here is where you tell me I'm an uninformed jackass:

ETA:  For the techincally minded, yes I used Half Duplex incorrectly above, I realized that when I typed it, but it's a good way to describe the interface, it can only do one thing or the other (both actions are transmitting, the interface is incapable of recieving, so Half Duplex doesn't really apply, it'd be better to call it a toggle). 

[Sky]

Steel Battalion. Best input for a game ever, outside some arcade setups.

I agree with your sentiments, but I find console controllers to suck on their own (IE: on consoles). As a supplement for analog control on a pc, with the keyboard and mouse, they rock. In GTA I use a controller for driving and flying, the key/m for foot control and fps segments.

[Akkori]

As with all things, there are two camps here at f13.  I find it easiest as a "game guy" to let the "virtual world" guys wax poetically about how, when someone finally makes the "ideal" virtual world, that genre will be fun.  I find it's best to stir things up occasionally by pointing out that thousands of fun games have been made, but no one has yet succeeded in making a fun virtual world.  They'll deny that fact, but that's what puts them firmly in the "wrong" camp.  :)

Well, I still fondly remmeber the virtual world that existed in SWG till the first CURB. Yes, it wasnt a fully virtual world, but one of the things about a "world" is the variety of things available to do. Call it virtual or not, all I want is a single, persistent game that offers several fun things to do, ranging from mindlessly slaughtering animals to managing a business/city/Guild.

The thing that amazes me is that it *seems* like no one believes the two camps can co-exist inside one game. Why does it HAVE to be one or the other?

[Sky]

Darniaq and I posited that the best of all possible worlds could have been a grafting of SWG and PS (not the NGE, heh). The trades and VW of SWG with the fast-paced fps combat of PS would have been the ultimate mmo, in my book. It became something of a joke for us, and the NGE is kind of a sand-kick to the face in that light. They both have the strengths the other lacks, SWG needed good combat, PS needed a world to exist in.

Still do, I guess.

[cevik]

Well, I still fondly remmeber the virtual world that existed in SWG till the first CURB. Yes, it wasnt a fully virtual world, but one of the things about a "world" is the variety of things available to do. Call it virtual or not, all I want is a single, persistent game that offers several fun things to do, ranging from mindlessly slaughtering animals to managing a business/city/Guild.

The thing that amazes me is that it *seems* like no one believes the two camps can co-exist inside one game. Why does it HAVE to be one or the other?

I HATED[/i] pre-CURB SWG (and I have yet to ever play it post CURB or NGE, not worthy of my time).  The game sucked.  Moisture farming, while accurate, is not fun.  The combat system was retarded, unbalanced, and silly.  Having 3 "damage bars" that each could kill you, but only having healers for 2 damage bars is the most retarded thing I've ever seen.  How the fuck did Raph think that THAT wasn't going to be unbalanced?

[Akkori]

Okay, so I probably missed it, but did anyone talk about why we need levels? I've been reading all these thesis and essays and I got confused, hehehe. Maybe its better served in a different thread, but why bother with levels? Just drop people in a game, and then let their actions in game determine their character progression. Want more hit points? Go see so-and-so who has a lead on potions/scrolls/implants/whatever that will allow you to boost your hit points. Want more spells? Go see so-and-so who will point you in the direction of a Guild/City/Dungeon/Master that will open the opportunity to learn a new spell or three. Wnat better equipment? Go see so and so who knows some legendary Crafters... but they need components to craft it, which you have to go get, and which leads to a whole 'nother series of content.

Levels are good pretty much for 2 reasons, IMHO. 1) To provide a concrete sense of accomplishment and status. 2) To assist min/maxer's in their quest to be uber.

The first reason can be fufilled by many means, and the second, well, wouldnt it be cool to be best because you WERE best, and not just becasue you had the current flavor-of-the-month template and used IGE-bought money to buy the best of everything?

Let us adjust our skills, let us grow in knowledge, let us be a little different that others, and let us do it without rolling new toon's.

[Akkori]

...You don't chase strictly your character progress. You chase a story and discover a world....

I love this. Man, wouldnt it be nice?!

[Akkori]

Well, I still fondly remmeber the virtual world that existed in SWG till the first CURB. Yes, it wasnt a fully virtual world, but one of the things about a "world" is the variety of things available to do. Call it virtual or not, all I want is a single, persistent game that offers several fun things to do, ranging from mindlessly slaughtering animals to managing a business/city/Guild.

The thing that amazes me is that it *seems* like no one believes the two camps can co-exist inside one game. Why does it HAVE to be one or the other?

I HATED[/i] pre-CURB SWG (and I have yet to ever play it post CURB or NGE, not worthy of my time).  The game sucked. Moisture farming, while accurate, is not fun.  The combat system was retarded, unbalanced, and silly.  Having 3 "damage bars" that each could kill you, but only having healers for 2 damage bars is the most retarded thing I've ever seen.  How the fuck did Raph think that THAT wasn't going to be unbalanced?

It wasnt fun for YOU. But there is a small percentage that likes it. These people even choose games based on if this type of gameplay exists. I think its been firmly established its a niche playstyle. But thats not a bad thing. Along with that niche comes dedication. That niche plays for a lot longer than a typical hack & slasher due to their investment in the game and the relationships that invariably evolve.

Again, why cant we have a game with moisture farming AND a great combat system, and maybe even a Sims Online facet too? Is it possible for one game to satisfy a few different niche playstyles, as well as the dominant murderer playstyle?

[Hoax]

Okay, so I probably missed it, but did anyone talk about why we need levels? I've been reading all these thesis and essays and I got confused, hehehe. Maybe its better served in a different thread, but why bother with levels? Just drop people in a game, and then let their actions in game determine their character progression. Want more hit points? Go see so-and-so who has a lead on potions/scrolls/implants/whatever that will allow you to boost your hit points. Want more spells? Go see so-and-so who will point you in the direction of a Guild/City/Dungeon/Master that will open the opportunity to learn a new spell or three. Wnat better equipment? Go see so and so who knows some legendary Crafters... but they need components to craft it, which you have to go get, and which leads to a whole 'nother series of content.

Levels are good pretty much for 2 reasons, IMHO. 1) To provide a concrete sense of accomplishment and status. 2) To assist min/maxer's in their quest to be uber.

The first reason can be fufilled by many means, and the second, well, wouldnt it be cool to be best because you WERE best, and not just becasue you had the current flavor-of-the-month template and used IGE-bought money to buy the best of everything?

Let us adjust our skills, let us grow in knowledge, let us be a little different that others, and let us do it without rolling new toon's.

Problems:
-how would a character in this system be able to determine their chances against various AI opponents?  Not to mention players?  Taking the rails of is good but can you actually remove them?  So you want a new sword, you go to see the old monk in the temple on the hill.  You die three times getting there from the stone monkey demons then finally reach the old monk and he says something like:  "you are too young to quest for the sword of the kingslayer" oops would have been nice to know that in advance.  Or does he give you a quest you have absolutely no hope of completing?

-you would need a very elegant system to balance the maximum amount of power increase a character is capable of.

-do you somehow prevent a player from creating a character then being run through every quest/location they need to max the build they want?  Or do you accept that once you have an established player base you'll be seeing twinking on a scale that means you better not have designed any content to be completed by groups at certain power levels.

I like the idea, but managing the possibilities would be a tremendous task for the devs I'd imagine.

[Nyght]

Again, why cant we have a game with moisture farming AND a great combat system, and maybe even a Sims Online facet too? Is it possible for one game to satisfy a few different niche playstyles, as well as the dominant murderer playstyle?

Why? Because change is hard. And I am not talking about the players here. The developers are human too ( inspite of various rumors to the contrary).

The business models are changing and as the genre matures and competition comes in, the ROIs are shrinking. Some cling to their old money hats, which are becoming tatered with age.

[Yegolev]

Okay, so I probably missed it, but did anyone talk about why we need levels?

Without levels, how would you know when to /say gratz?

[heck]

Well, I still fondly remmeber the virtual world that existed in SWG till the first CURB. Yes, it wasnt a fully virtual world, but one of the things about a "world" is the variety of things available to do. Call it virtual or not, all I want is a single, persistent game that offers several fun things to do, ranging from mindlessly slaughtering animals to managing a business/city/Guild.

The thing that amazes me is that it *seems* like no one believes the two camps can co-exist inside one game. Why does it HAVE to be one or the other?

I HATED[/i] pre-CURB SWG (and I have yet to ever play it post CURB or NGE, not worthy of my time).  The game sucked.  Moisture farming, while accurate, is not fun.  The combat system was retarded, unbalanced, and silly.  Having 3 "damage bars" that each could kill you, but only having healers for 2 damage bars is the most retarded thing I've ever seen.  How the fuck did Raph think that THAT wasn't going to be unbalanced?

It was pretty dumb, but we made it work.  Crafters were able to make helmets that protected the blue bar so well, even against mega swordsman and riflemen, that if you could get your hands on one then it wasn't worth their time to attack the blue bar anymore, especially if you ate mind food.  See, it was a huge weakness, but it created a demand for good crafters...interdependence ahoy!!!  People are always going to find workarounds for stuff like that.

But what you said about interfaces is the interesting part.  The keyboard/mouse thing is getting kind of old.  I haven't even bound keys yet for WoW 

[Akkori]

I'm basically unschooled in all things Programming, but it seems to me that with the power of computers today, that it should be possible to set up a system by which all these things would be possible.

how would a character in this system be able to determine their chances against various AI opponents?  Not to mention players?

Again, with no real idea of what I'm saying, what if there were modifiers for every facet (my new word for the day) of the character? Using "X" sword grants a + modifier for accuracy, but a -mod for damage, then your personal Dex grants a slight increase in speed, then your skill in Short Swords (level 16 skill) grants some +when using this short sword. All together, it adds up to a cumulative set of modifiers for this encounter. Then apply terrain and environmental mods, plus movement mods, etc....

It seems to me that some of the games out right now already do these things. As I wrote it, it seems to bear resemblance to the EVE model plus the old SWG.

do you somehow prevent a player from creating a character then being run through every quest/location they need to max the build they want?

I'm always been a fan of diminishing returns. EVE, once again, has it right I think. The higher the skill level, the longer it takes to learn, and you can only learn one skill at a time. Low level skills are pretty fast, but with an exponential increase in the time needed to level that skill up. I would modify that so you actually have some kind of "counter" to fill up before increasing the skill instead of loggin out and "learning" anyway. Face it, to become a better Airplane Pilot, you need time in the air. So you accumulate this experience, and it gets you to the next level eventually. If there was no real limit on skill level, but a constant increase on the XP needed to get to the next level, people would find themselves dedicating themselves to what they LIKE, not necessarily to what makes them uber. In EVE, it takes around 2 weeks "training" to get to level 5 on some skills. Some are even longer. Well, what about if there was a level 6? 6 months? Why not!? If I want to be a Short Sword Specialist, I dont mind, and the result is that I will be one of very few at that skill level.

Managing such a system would be easy enough IF the system is solid and flexible. Designing it would be, um, fun, but managing should be easy enough. But I am obviously crazy, because I think the original skill system in SWG was great. I also liked the variety in combat, and the ability to be a little different that others.

Basically, it still seems like just hiding levels from the players should help. Keep them blind to some of the modifiers and such. I would gladly accept min/maxers whining on secret modifiers if it meant they spent their time playing the game for fun instead of trying to dominate. But dont mistake that for thinking I like the current Level system like the NGE brought in. I think thats total crap, and an insult to anyone with even only half a brain. I dont play games, with level or not, that are designed for idots on a console game.

[Kail]

The problem, and I think this has been pointed out above, is that the interface to our games is severely lacking.  SEVERELY.

I think that's A problem, but not one specifically related to levels.  Look at World of Warcraft, for example.  I tell my rogue to deliver a kidney shot, and he does.  I don't have to aim for the kidneys or anything like that, I just click the little square with the icon on it and he does it automatically.  That's the way the game controls; that's it's interface.  But that's not in any way related to a level system.  It'd be easy to come up with a game that controls identically to World of Warcraft save that it doesn't have levels.  There are FPSes out there that are level based, and FPSes which are not.  There are RTSes which are level based, and some which aren't.  If you want a game where your agile rogue can stab some plate wearing knight in a vulnerable spot, you can do that with levels or you can do that without levels.  Levels are something that gets thrown on over the control interface, and there are both advantages and drawbacks to doing so.  Levels are a way for the developer to control access to content; interface issues are a separate matter from that, I'd argue.

[cevik]

The problem, and I think this has been pointed out above, is that the interface to our games is severely lacking.  SEVERELY.

I think that's A problem, but not one specifically related to levels.  Look at World of Warcraft, for example.  I tell my rogue to deliver a kidney shot, and he does.

I was specifically responding to Nija's posts.  But I'd say that games are nothing if not interfaces, fun interfaces make fun games.  This is true for every game in history.  Balls and Nets, Pieces on a Board, Sticks and Balls, Cards.  The game itself is the interface, every fun game is developed around manipulating something in an intuitive and fun way.  Without a good interface, without that "fun" way of manipulating our environment, there is nothing.  If we are constrained by the interface, the only real way to develop a game is to find a fun way to manipulate that interface (i.e. if we designed a game around manipulating a ball with our minds, it would be boring, because the interface to the game is unusable, if instead we design a game around manipulating a ball with a stick, it will become our national passtime).

Or I could be high.

[cevik]

It was pretty dumb, but we made it work.  Crafters were able to make helmets that protected the blue bar so well, even against mega swordsman and riflemen, that if you could get your hands on one then it wasn't worth their time to attack the blue bar anymore, especially if you ate mind food.  See, it was a huge weakness, but it created a demand for good crafters...interdependence ahoy!!!  People are always going to find workarounds for stuff like that.

But what you said about interfaces is the interesting part.  The keyboard/mouse thing is getting kind of old.  I haven't even bound keys yet for WoW 

It was made to work after I left, several months into the game.  In other words, the work around took a long time coming. 

If you haven't bound keys yet for WoW, will you please come and play Alliance side BGs on Llane?  I need more people like you to kill.. :)

[Alkiera]

Okay, so I probably missed it, but did anyone talk about why we need levels? I've been reading all these thesis and essays and I got confused, hehehe. Maybe its better served in a different thread, but why bother with levels? Just drop people in a game, and then let their actions in game determine their character progression. Want more hit points? Go see so-and-so who has a lead on potions/scrolls/implants/whatever that will allow you to boost your hit points. Want more spells? Go see so-and-so who will point you in the direction of a Guild/City/Dungeon/Master that will open the opportunity to learn a new spell or three. Wnat better equipment? Go see so and so who knows some legendary Crafters... but they need components to craft it, which you have to go get, and which leads to a whole 'nother series of content.

Levels are good pretty much for 2 reasons, IMHO. 1) To provide a concrete sense of accomplishment and status. 2) To assist min/maxer's in their quest to be uber.

The first reason can be fufilled by many means, and the second, well, wouldnt it be cool to be best because you WERE best, and not just becasue you had the current flavor-of-the-month template and used IGE-bought money to buy the best of everything?

Let us adjust our skills, let us grow in knowledge, let us be a little different that others, and let us do it without rolling new toon's.

Problems:
-how would a character in this system be able to determine their chances against various AI opponents?  Not to mention players?  Taking the rails of is good but can you actually remove them?  So you want a new sword, you go to see the old monk in the temple on the hill.  You die three times getting there from the stone monkey demons then finally reach the old monk and he says something like:  "you are too young to quest for the sword of the kingslayer" oops would have been nice to know that in advance.  Or does he give you a quest you have absolutely no hope of completing?

-you would need a very elegant system to balance the maximum amount of power increase a character is capable of.

-do you somehow prevent a player from creating a character then being run through every quest/location they need to max the build they want?  Or do you accept that once you have an established player base you'll be seeing twinking on a scale that means you better not have designed any content to be completed by groups at certain power levels.

I like the idea, but managing the possibilities would be a tremendous task for the devs I'd imagine.

That first problem is usually the biggest hurdle for change, due to the fact that to get 'teh grate big numbers' demanded by the investors, developers go for the LCD, which means anything more difficult than 'is this number bigger than my number' is too hard, and it'd be nice if we had the game do it for you and assign a nice color indicating the outcome of a fight beforehand. 

There are several systems for RPGs that don't use levels, that base advancement off a point system.  Adapt GURPs, or Hero/Champion, or Storyteller, or any of the other various systems that don't base power progression on levels.  Your stats are X at start, those cost 200 points.  Place a cap at, say, 800 total points.  Allow people to work their stats up, skills up, gain spells and powers, etc, up the the limits allowed by that cap.  Then you can assign your color gradient based on the difference in the point value of the player's character vs. the point value of the enemy.  Of course, this won't always be foolproof.  It will be possible to gimp yourself, depending on what is made available and how it is accessed.  However it is, as your character's stats increase, you pay for it with exp, until you no longer have enough exp left to get more powerful.  You could even have certain kinds of things go up similar to EVE, I.e. I want to raise strength, so I buy a gym membership, and my character spends time there when I'm not logged in.  After X hours of time passes, I've spent the xp, and my str goes up.  Can buy another term of membership, and make it go up more.

Systems like Champion/Hero System have been around since before MMOs.  Why is it, then, that (almost) all MMOs look just like D&D as far as advancement?

Alkiera

[Fargull]

Hmm.  Liked the articles Raph.  My biggest pain with the DIKU level system was surmised in your articles, the fact that as your gain levels, your world shrinks.  One of the biggest reasons I stopped playing DAOC was the fact that ever level I lost x amount of the game content and the time I had to spend in the alloted narrow band grew in proportion.  I can only imagine the nightmare of the HP factor currently.

WOW has more staying power because even a level 60 can go breeze through level 1 content.  Hell, even grouped the lower level characters still get XP and certainly through questing.

I enjoy the direction your taking with trying to tie down the HP inflation.  The skill system of UO could have easily been metered out in a level setting.  One of the best things about UO (which has been pointed at several times in this thread) revolve around the narrow gage of the HP range.

[HRose]

...and it's still just as meaningless without an implementation plan that makes the moment to moment experience fun.  It's not the design, nor the advancement scheme, which determines the success or failure of this projects, it the embedded game systems.  If they arent fun the whole project is moot b/c it wont attract and keep players.  You need look no further than SWG for a glowing example of this (the failure of the original combat game system to the latest tempest over their replacement of it and it's effects on the project as a whole)

To sum, start with the mirco view of your embedded games, then build on them to the macro view of the worldspace, not the other way around.  /Insert analogy of chain's weakest link of buildings with shaky foundations here

Xilren
PS It's possible somewhere in your tons of prose on your site or elsewhere you have actually gotten to this level; sorry, I'm not going spelunking to find it.  Besides, reading too much of you make my head hurt in a "warrior needs alcohol" kind of way...

Well, it's not so important to know if I have done that (I have) as it is defining a fucking context.

All the discussions here seems to be about switching topics, like finding excuses to not discuss anything. We discuss the level up mechanics and someone say "Okay, but what about the character progression?". We discuss the character progression and someone says, "Okay, but what about the lack of direction?" We discuss about the lack of direction and someone says, "Okay, but what about the embedded game systems? Because it's all about that." We discuss about the embedded systems and someone says, "Okay, but you didn't know that it's all about the interface?"

Okay, what about chosing ONE argument and discuss it instead of keeping dodging the discussion to rinse and repeat the strategy of "Yes, but..." ?

I like to discuss *all* these topics where it comes to the ideas. The combat, the mechanics, character progression, the use of instancing, interfaces, PvE and PvP, economics, the controls and so on. BUT NOT ALL AT ONCE.

In this thread I touched many, many different arguments, myself. But it was consequent to a reasoning. We analyzed what's wrong in the level up mechanics: they bring the players apart instead of together, they make the production of content harder, they mudflate the game killing in it in the mid-long term and, in particular, they dumb down the game to a pointless power grind, killing the potential of saying something interesting and not redundant.

Then we analyzed the problems of the other model, the sandbox: lack of direction, clueless players, awful accessibility, rudimental, unfinished design.

And I proposed some of my ideas to solve most of those problems pointed. I suggested linear paths within the sandbox to give the players a direction and remove the barriers, I proposed a skill based system to bring the players together and not apart and that makes all the content accessible, preventing also the mudflation. I proposed new mechanics for the quests to detach their function from being just bland context for killing stuff and pack xp. Suggesting to rediscover the immersion from the old RPGs that is now completely gone and forgotten.

Along this I even suggested concrete ideas to already existing games, like Eve-Online. Even here trying to isolate the major problems of the game and searching possible AND CONCRETE solitions. And then I even proposed some sort of "roleplay piece" as seen from the eyes of the character to explain what type of *gameplay*, concrete gameplay, I was suggesting. I explained what happens *visually*, I explained the pulling mechanics, I explained the basic concepts of the combat, even pictured some group mechanics and examples of a play session.

So where's the "Yes, but.." ?

[HRose]

There are several systems for RPGs that don't use levels, that base advancement off a point system.  Adapt GURPs, or Hero/Champion, or Storyteller, or any of the other various systems that don't base power progression on levels.  Your stats are X at start, those cost 200 points.  Place a cap at, say, 800 total points.  Allow people to work their stats up, skills up, gain spells and powers, etc, up the the limits allowed by that cap.

There's no need to make the players bounce between a few caps. There's really no need to "give them some, but not too much". That would be a compromise, half good, half bad. What's the advantage?

Take the pen&paper Stormbringer/Elric. It's 10 years that I say it's the best model for a mmorpg and the basis on which I founded my ideas. It uses the same underlying mechanics of "Call of Cthulhu", if you know it better. This is a complete skill based system. At character creation your stats determine your hit points. They never change if not in very rare conditions. You have the same hitpoints on day 1 as you have after becoming the most powerful hero ever. You choose a few skills at start. Combat, non combat, magic, evocation skills and more. Percent based. During a playsession you put a mark beside the skills you used. At the end of the playsession you roll a 100 dice. If your roll is ABOVE the value of your skill, you have skilled up -> roll a 1d4 dice (for example) to see how much you can add to it.

The more you skill goes up the harder is to improve (since you have to roll above it to improve it), plus there's a possibility to go above 100. Really slow. Still, this offers diminished returns, so while you are improving, the gap between a new player and an old one isn't that huge. And since your skill are always percent based, having a value above 100 is only useful in certain situations, without messing up the actual balance.

Then, after this system is set, you can add different forms of character progression. Through items, acquiring more powers and spells, moving through the world, make alliances with demons and so on.

But without chasing after ProgressQuest for retarded kids.

[SnakeCharmer]

I HATED[/i] pre-CURB SWG (and I have yet to ever play it post CURB or NGE, not worthy of my time).  The game sucked.  Moisture farming, while accurate, is not fun.  The combat system was retarded, unbalanced, and silly.  Having 3 "damage bars" that each could kill you, but only having healers for 2 damage bars is the most retarded thing I've ever seen.  How the fuck did Raph think that THAT wasn't going to be unbalanced?

You could choose to be a moisture farmer if you wanted.  That was the beauty of it.  You didnt find it fun.  Others did.  Not everyone wants combat.  Others want a more sedate lifestyle. 

The combat system was unbalanced, and could have been balanced very easily.  And in fact is "was" with the ORIGINAL CU docs.  FWIW, there WERE stims that healed the mind in beta, and dropped in live.  However, they were never implemented as a schematic for *anyone* to craft (would have been an excellent money maker for entertainers).  The original CU docs included mind stims.  Combat was unbalanced *primarily* because of one thing:

The inability to heal the mind pool (by anyone not a Jedi or a Combat Medic) in combat without resting or not taking damage to that particular pool. 

Put in effective mind healing stims, and the game takes a radical turn towards being balanced.  And more strategic. 

Also, lack of foresight by the devs by not implementing cures to Combat Medic poisons and diseases fast enough (launch would have been a good time), as well as a way to cure being on fire (Commandos were the second profession to receive a solid hit with the nerf bat).  All put in WAY too late (1-1.5 years after launch, IIRC).   Another failure of the devs was the apparent lack of comprehension of their own crafting system and the heights and strengths to which it could produce armor, weapons, heals, etc.  I'm not entirely convinced they thought that the player base was smart enough to figure it out as quick as they did.

FWIW, the original CU docs had combat *on paper* very balanced.  There was a counter for everything. 

[HRose]

Straight from the rulebook:

- Suceeding at a poorly-known skill is hard, but you learn a lot when you succeed. An expert in a skill usually suceeds at it. Since he or she already knows most of what there is to know about it, the expert improves at a slower rate than a novice.

That's a very good model to keep the gap between the veterans and newbies narrow.

[Strazos]

This is what I call Skill Plateau. It ramps up fairly quickly, but once high, becomes Extremely difficult to improve, almost to the point of pointlessness.

It makes sense to me as a good system, but not to your leet kids, who must be the best at everything, and not maxing something, regardless of actual impact, is unacceptable.

[SnakeCharmer]

I've never understood why wanting to be the best at something (i.e. - leet) is a *bad* thing.

Why be mediocre?  Why settle for second best?

[HRose]

I've never understood why wanting to be the best at something (i.e. - leet) is a *bad* thing.

Why be mediocre?  Why settle for second best?

The point is that when you go fight with your character with a 90% in "sword" against someone with 91% that 1% is POINTLESS. And even if you had 40% (starting newbie) against one at 99% (veteran), you still would have your chance in the fight.

While it would require a lot of time to reach those values.

EDIT- Explaining: the power differential between a newbie who just joined the game and a veteran, would probably be close to the power differential that you have in WoW between a freshly dinged 60 and one with very good loot. Now the point is that in the first example, the WHOLE game is comprised in that threshold. Which would make all the content accessible and would bring the players together and not apart.

Plus, it would also be absolutely suitable for a PvP game. Newbie and veterans would always play together. You would ALWAYS be able to join your friends without the requirement to "catch up". You would be less skilled but you would still be effective and the margin would be negligible.

Now the point is: how you can carry over a meaningful character progression since the power curve wouldn't be enough to feel satisfactory? Which brings to the idea to move the progession AWAY from the exponential power gain and toward other aspects of the game, leaving out the "power differential" iself in order to not break the basic mechanics of the game.