mmorpg chart

[Elrandhir]

I disagree on that people would keep playing for the fun only, sure it's a big parth, but to continue for a very long time you want you'r char to get stronger by doing so, I know I do, otherwise I wouldent play an RPG atall tbh.

[Xest]

I think the whole idea of progression through upskilling is wrong. Primarily because it means people stay in the game primarily to chase their next progression milestone. That could be a level, a new set of skill points to allocate or whatever - it's essentially the same dynamic at work.

No that's just it, you don't play to skill up in UO, you play to have fun and skill up as you play having fun that's the point. UO doesn't have points that are allocated as such, you have 700 points total and every skill ranges from 0 - 100, as you use skills in day to day play they gain, you get new abilities but the new abilities aren't vastly more amazing, for example magery has a low level heal spell at 20% magery or something that casts fast and heals for little and a higher level one at 70% or so that heals more but casts slower, the big one does more overall but the small one is very useful to fast cast between other spells to give a slight health boost and such.

UO does have an honour system and some very interesting virtue quests, the UO lore has 6 virtues or something like Compassion, Valor etc. and there are ways of gaining virtue points for each one, one of the virtues gains by helping newbies out and such, another from fighting tough mobs solo etc. etc. I'm not saying UO is some perfect MMOG, it's not, it has it's problems (mostly caused by EA ) hence why I don't play it anymore, but it's progression system was the most casual yet most fun and varied progression system of any because progression wasn't the focus of the game like in WoW, DAoC etc. playing the game is the focus and progression comes with that.

[lairiodd3]

That's only if you agree that skills should progress in such a way, which I don't. I can see why, for realism - if that's ever a reason to do something in MMORPGs, you might want to allow skills to improve a bit as they are used. But the sort of improvements MMORPGs give to skills is crazy both from a realism perspective and from the gameplay perspective (because it creates a treadmill).

I say get rid of incremental power increases. Replace it with something more sophisticated.

The leveling system is ultimately there to prevent people burning through content. There has to be a way to prevent newbies from entering the high level dungeons .

OTOH, leveling doesn't tell if the person has mastered the skill. What about a system where you (i.e. the player) achieve the ability to do certain things by leveling.

For example, take a skill like guard. You might get that at level 10. The mobs from level 1-15 won't attack healers/mages, but at level 15+, they will go for the healers very quickly. It would be virtually impossible to get to level 20 without know (and using) guard.

One thing about the leveling system is that it quickly tells you who you can group with. In a pure skill system, you need to ask "/as looking for a mage who can cast fireball 7 and who has AF of at least 30".

You could probably get away with it if there was an efficient /who system. Like "/who fireball 7+, AF 30+, damage cold, heat, energy"

[Lairiodd]

Bleh, wrong account (though was modeling the new donor colours ).

[Lairiodd]

I say get rid of incremental power increases. Replace it with something more sophisticated.

The big question though is how?

The only options I can see for systems which don't create a treadmill suffer from lack of incentive to play.

One of the reasons I like WoW over DAoC for the end-game is that there are different levels of treadmill you can get on. You get on the one that suits you. If you want to solo that's one treadmill. If you prefer to Raid 24/7, that's another. Each of the treadmills allows progress at differing rates, BUT there is still a treadmill of progress.

What about explicitally restricting content. You cannot enter dungeon XX, until you have completed dungeon XX-1.

Completing a dungeon might mean getting to the bottom or might require completing a suite of quests relating to the dungeon. The higher level dungeons would have harder mobs, but not massively so (say the highest dungeon has mobs which are 2-3 times stronger than the lowest level).

This could be score based. For example, each dungeon would have a score. If you complete the dungeon, you get the points for that dungeon. Each dungeon would also have a threshold for you to start it.

It could be quest based. You would be allowed to enter any dungeon, but the quests for a given dungeon would remain locked until you increase your "lore"/"reputation"/whatever status.

One you have enough status, you can start the quests relating to the dungeon. Also, it could be setup so that people can follow different routes. Completing dungeons has most effect on nearby/same faction dungeons. A dungeon might add 100 points to your local reputation, but add only 50 to your global reputation.

[Lairiodd]

[*]Allow character progression that has no game balance impact. Let people hold political posts that have real meaning, or become notorious enough to star in quests.

I wonder if a game could be based on politics.

I was thinking something like lots of different levels of grouping.

For example,

- clan

10 char cap
lead by a chieftain

- tribe

10 clan cap
40 person cap

lead by a lord

- kingdom

10 tribe cap
100 person cap

lead by a king

- empire

10 kingdom cap
300 person cap (maybe no cap)

lead by an emperor

--------------------

Each clan could found a village. A tribe could found a town. A kingdom could found a city and an empire could found a capital city. Also, if a 2nd one of these was captured, it would not grow very fast.

Control of these assets rests with the underlying organisations. Probably "power" based. For example, a king could be disposed if tribes representing 2/3 of the "power" of the kingdom go against him. Also, tribes could leave a kingdom. Likewise, a tribal lord could be disposed if he loses support of the clans.

The idea is to split the power throughout the entire organisation. Everyone couldn't be emperor, but most could reasonably expect to a village chieftain (if that is what they want).

Also, if a village/town/city is captured, it operates at lower (say 1/3) effectiveness until the npcs get used to their new lords and masters (say 1-2 months later). This is to provide an incentive to convince the clan which held the village to switch sides rather than just killing them all. Also, built up areas should be made valuable, so that they are to valuable to raze. The best emperor is one who don't change kings and tribal leaders much as that costs efficiency of the town/village that they are controlling.

[Xest]

Would like to see a game with more politics in it. Building on DAoC just as an example, imagine if people could vote for a nominated leader each week who had the power to set taxes on purchases or mob loot which could be spent on paying for more guards, better defences and so on

[Lairiodd]

[quote="Xest"]Would like to see a game with more politics in it. Building on DAoC just as an example, imagine if people could vote for a nominated leader each week who had the power to set taxes on purchases or mob loot which could be spent on paying for more guards, better defences and so on ]

Democracy is not always the best thing. My idea included a kinda PR system, however, it also allowed people to opt out. Power was distributed rather than have 1 single leader.

What about a council is elected using STV-PR. Maybe 3 people are elected.

Also, I think that they should allow alliances to form super-alliances for chat purposes. This gives the benefit of realm chat without actually having to give it to spammers.

[Cryn]

The leveling system is ultimately there to prevent people burning through content.

Burning through content would be better prevented with dynamic content. If there are no levels and no advantage to be gained from quest rewards (other than satisfaction and kudos), and if quests are replaced over time with new ones, then burning through content is not an issue.

Compare this to the leveling system. I don't know if it's aims include stopping people burning through content, as you say, but it actually has the opposite effect. People spend all their time online rushing through/past content just to get the reward that dings them or gets them a powerful piece of loot.

OTOH, leveling doesn't tell if the person has mastered the skill. What about a system where you (i.e. the player) achieve the ability to do certain things by leveling.

Well, it's an idea but it's not one that would fit very well with my idea of zero character progression. I don't actually see the need for ANY indicator of whether someone has mastered a skill or not. You get to know players - some you like and play with again, some you don't.

I wonder if a game could be based on politics.

I was thinking something like lots of different levels of grouping.

The way I see it, politics will emerge whenever there is something can be won by negotiation. This could take many forms in MMORPGs, as in your examples and others, such as:

• Democratic positions. If you allow the general populace to vote for who gets control of (for example) guard placement around a town.
• Meaningful guild vs guild warfare with attractive rewards (castle ownership as in lineage or maybe control of a transport system node) would foster alliance brokering amongst guilds
• Provide some slack in the game rules and allow players to vote for which way it will be biased for a given period.
• Allow the supplies of some key resources to be player controlled.

What about explicitally restricting content. You cannot enter dungeon XX, until you have completed dungeon XX-1.

Completing a dungeon might mean getting to the bottom or might require completing a suite of quests relating to the dungeon. The higher level dungeons would have harder mobs, but not massively so (say the highest dungeon has mobs which are 2-3 times stronger than the lowest level).

This could be score based. For example, each dungeon would have a score. If you complete the dungeon, you get the points for that dungeon. Each dungeon would also have a threshold for you to start it.

It could be quest based. You would be allowed to enter any dungeon, but the quests for a given dungeon would remain locked until you increase your "lore"/"reputation"/whatever status.

One you have enough status, you can start the quests relating to the dungeon. Also, it could be setup so that people can follow different routes. Completing dungeons has most effect on nearby/same faction dungeons. A dungeon might add 100 points to your local reputation, but add only 50 to your global reputation.

I find this type of idea very exciting. I've had similar ideas in the past (probably a lot of us have). This is the kind of thing that could happily fit into a system without the need for character progression. Some games have already experimented with this type of thing, I think.

The only thing I really disagree with is the bit about "harder mobs". I honestly don't see the need to make mobs harder. You can make fights harder by changing other situational factors but even that should be a tactic not to be over-used. ALL stages of a quest should be challenging - not too easy and not too hard.

The interest in the further dungeons should be that the player is engaged on the adventure and is excited by getting further, and - dare I say it - wants to see the next instalment of the quest-story unfold. And if the gameplay is challenging all the way through there should be no reason to make mobs harder. I suspect there are inflationary pressures at work in such systems (players get more powers>>>mobs need to be harder>>>players need better reward).

Eve-online has an alternative levelling system that avoids people spending too much time online (to level anyway...), in that you train skills over time. Whether you are playing or not you are still learning a skill. In terms of character ability Casual and Hardcore have exactly the same training time.

I played Eve. It was a huge disappointment to me for various reasons, though none of them were about skill progression. However, Eve definitely IS all about character progression. Your skills are a function of account age - not a good system in my opinion, and along with them your money grows as you go and gives access to better equipment, better facilities, etc.

Xest, I played UO and have to say I didn't much like it. It's the original "bunny bashing newbie" game, and skill progression in it IS (in my opinion) every bit as bad as other progression-based games. I may not have given it a decent chance, but, honestly, chopping down a zillion trees to raise your skill points is not what I mean when I say engaging

It's funny really, I think I am getting more fun out of this thread talking about MMORPG possibilities than I do playing the actual ones. Maybe we should all get together and make one! Banana could do our quests

[Lairiodd]

It's funny really, I think I am getting more fun out of this thread talking about MMORPG possibilities than I do playing the actual ones. Maybe we should all get together and make one! Banana could do our quests

There is a company making a "do it yourself" MMORPG engine here. No idea what it is like though. I think the real problem with something like that would actually be the fact that not everyone would be in charge (that and designing a game is alot harder than people think).