Is leveling necessary

[Eyston]

I wanted to raise the question of -- is leveling a necessary part of a MMORPG (EQ specifically)? I have my own thoughts on this, but don't want to write some long post about it-- just interested in what others think.

It seems to me that in EQ, Gear is the distinction between players not Levels. Sure, for a lot of people EQ is 1-65, and leveling is the game, but I'm ignoring them. I'm wondering if any of you think a game could succeed without requiring experience. Instead of having 2 seperate games (1-65/AA vs. Raiding/Gearing) to only focus on the Raiding/Gearing aspect of the game and to expand on it. I think every RPG has had experience as the main defining factor of a character and EQ followed this at inception, but since then EQ has evolved in a way that makes experience almost uneeded. Would starting everyone at the same level and then just let play-time, guilds, raiding, etc sort them out work?

Thoughts~

-Eyston

[Uber Uberest ~Rathe]

This is a simple question with a simple answer. That answer is Yes.

[Hwed]

Experience and levels are the crutch RPGs use to replace "twitch" skill. Instead of depending on your own reflexes and abilities to control your character, you can press attack and watch as the computer does it for you.

In either case, it works the same way... the more time you spend playing, the better you get. The difference is that in exp and level based games, pretty much everyone gets better at the same rate, whereas in a "twitch" game, some people will suck no matter how much they play.

For example, any trained monkey can spend X hours to level a paladin to 65, and once there, kill a_froglok_krup_knight with relative ease.

However, not everyone can spend X hours playing Max Payne and be able to take out a room full of bad guys with the same degree of success.

Experience points (levels) are a substitute for skill.

Are levels necessary? No. Is a level-based system more appealing in terms of easier development and potential customer base? Clearly.

[Bazael]

Just consider leveling a "drop" of loot from a mob.

Instead of farming Mob XXX for 16 hours in hopes of a piece of equipment that will make you stronger, you can farm Mob XXX and 20 of his friends for 4 hours, and you will get stronger.

Having a game based 100% on loot and 0% on exp would be possible I think, but it would take a LOT of planning. The risk vs reward would have to be planned to a T.

For example, every guk level dungeon, would have to have mobs that all hit the same, and gave the same strength of loot. If this did not happen, you would have the same thing that happens in eq with the OT > DL > Velks > PON > POV progression of the softcore expers. Everyone would stick to the easiest dungeon for the best loot.

[Zignor]

It seems to me that in EQ, Gear is the distinction between players not Levels.

Gear is only an important distinction between players of simliar levels. If you had to kill AoW (to keep it simple) with either a raid of level 51's in the best gear equippable for them, versus a raid of level 65's in Kunark armor, which would you choose?

Player skill and other obvious related things aside, nothing in Everquest makes a character more powerful than levels.

As far as your question, sure it's possible, but it would take a lot of work to keep such a game interesting over time. Having only one path available to advance the power of your character would drive away a lot of people.

[Morb]

When it comes to MMOGs, I think some sort of character progression is necessary, whether it's "skills" like UO, or levels like... everything else. Sure, a game that requires a good deal of actual player skill sounds like a pretty cool concept to me, but it would require some character progression too... otherwise it would probably be really hard to keep people playing if they didn't have much to strive for.

[Janus]

A MMORPG is a RPG in essensce and RPG's historically have always had some sort of leveling up. Remember that leveling reflects character's experience in the world. Unlike in, for example, Warcraft 3, where every time you start the game up you get a brand new set of guys that are completely independent of your last set, in a game like EQ your controlling the same person throughout time. If any realism is maintained, some form of experience is neccesary. Example:
2 Knights are both fighting in a drawn out war at their first battle. Knight 1 immediately shows a love for fighting and fights unusally skillfully (Knight 1 has a skilled player). Knight 2 is average. At this point Knight 1 > Knight 2. But then lets say Knight 2 fights in a thousand battles and Knight 1 fights in ten. Knight two is going to be the far better warrior, even if he isnt as naturally good at combat.

Also in EQ, as Zignor said, gear seperates after levels. Levels, and AA set apart equals. The reason gear is so important is if you look at uber guilds, everyone is 65 and has the core AA abilities neccesary, so the only thing that CAN seperate them apart is loot. But compare an uber guild to a not so uber guild. AA, and maybe even levels, is as important as loot. Compare an uber guild to a relatively normal guild. AA and levels are absolutely the primary distinguishing component.

To your answer your question, could a MMORPG be designed without levels? Sure. But it would need some substitute, such as ability points (DaoC style...only not lame) or skills.

[Tancred]

The RPG model is based on developing and playing a character. Some use levels, others skill-trees, some a hybrid of the two.

RPGs have never used "twitch skills" - the poster above claiming it's some kind of crutch to broaden a game's appeal is talking bollocks, frankly. Right observations, wrong conclusions. In an RPG you play a character you have developed (another aspect of RPGs is they have very little immediate pick-up-and-play value - the hook is the payoff in the longterm) so twitch mechanics are inappropriate e.g. a 14-yr old player with a character who is a wizened 150yr old Wizard should not be prancing and leaping about like some CS lamer hopped up on caffiene. His combat abilites should represent the abilities of the character not the player.

Anyway RPGs are about watching your own little collection of stat numbers moving upwards. Whether you call them levels or skills and they raise by the minute or monthly makes little difference. It's all a matter of scale

[Eyston]

Originally posted by Zignor
Gear is only an important distinction between players of simliar levels. If you had to kill AoW (to keep it simple) with either a raid of level 51's in the best gear equippable for them, versus a raid of level 65's in Kunark armor, which would you choose?

Player skill and other obvious related things aside, nothing in Everquest makes a character more powerful than levels.

As far as your question, sure it's possible, but it would take a lot of work to keep such a game interesting over time. Having only one path available to advance the power of your character would drive away a lot of people.

I wasn't talking about a situation like that. I think level 65 is a give-in. It's the highest you can get and you only get it once. What I was saying is if someone tells you they are a 65 warrior, it is meaningless. If someone sends you their magelo, you know more about them. Gear is what defines the player. Furor is the same level as most other raiding warriors out there, which is why I think level is meaningless.

Player skills are meaningless. You think you are the only person with a 250 1hs skill? Every single character of the same class/level will eventually have the same skills, so whats the point of having them at all?

Gear is the majority of what makes up a player, and the rest that defines them is how they got that gear (playstyle/playtime/raiding/etc).

-Eyston

[Zignor]

If everyone entered the game at level 65, then your post would make more sense. You're asking whether or not leveling is important to a MMORPG, and then assuming that for the purposes of this discussion everyone is level 65 so levels are irrelevant anyway. Huh? Just because there are a lot of level 65's out there doesn't suddenly make levels/leveling unimporant.

Look at nearly any "uber" guild's requirements for applying. Almost none have a minimum quality of gear as a prerequisite. ALL of them have a minumum level listed.

Sure, once you hit 65 you're done progressing your character through levels, but that's no reason to toss aside what came before. Levels are still a measure of power, and it's *the* most important one.

And I wasn't talking about player skills in the form of 1HS, etc, but rather the actual skill of the person behind the toon.

[Eyston]

Originally posted by Zignor
If everyone entered the game at level 65, then your post would make more sense.

Thats exactly what I'm asking. Is if a game where this happened would be able to work.

-Eyston

[Lizarde]

Originally posted by Eyston
Thats exactly what I'm asking. Is if a game where this happened would be able to work.

That game would be Quake III, essentially.

RPGs tend to have some sort of advancement, be it levels, skills, equipment, etc. Otherwise it is a single-session frag-fest. Would be interesting for a time, but probably wouldn't remain as popular for as long as EQ.

[larseny316]

For it to even have a chance in hell of working, ALL equipment would have to be nodrop. People wouldn't accept that a character can be twinked and be just as strong as them in the 3 seconds it clicks to take trade.

I also don't think you'd manage to get people attatched to their characters. You'd end up with people attatched to their gear whih changes constantly. They may be just as happy upgrading alt X as main Y. If you can't keep the people dedicated to their characters, then they may not be hooked enough to keep paying.

You'd probably have to only allow one character per server as well. Not enough clerics for a raid? /who GUILD druid, /gu All druids log off your worthless asses and make clerics (of course if this was for real they would have been forced to make the clerics from day one). Raid forces would have a core of equipped stronger people, then hordes of characters created just for that situation in so so dropable gear. Being able to have the PERFECT combination of tanks, wizards, clerics, rangers, rogues whatever would probably end up being more valuable than the gear differentual. The best equipped shadowknight won't be as valuable as a naked wizard.

Now it WOULD work in short term eq. I could see it being fun over the course of a month or so, but no longer.

[Blazar]

the entire concept of leveling and experience goes back to pen and paper role playing. Sure you can role play without leveling and experience... but you would end up substituting experience and levels for something else like items or other character enhancing rewards or quests.


Basically in an MMORPG

Time spent in some skill/goal directed activity leads to ----> reward

Rewards can vary widely:
1. items
2. trophy/pride/social status
3. character enhancements
4. skills learned by the player for further progression
5. money
6. Classic numerical experience / levels.

Every rpg will have some or all of these rewards. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter, since EVERY MMORPG will turn TIME spent in to reward in one way or another. If they don't kill your time leveling, they have to do it in some other way... like making players totally item based in which case the same 2 days it took you to level from 58 to 59 would instead go toward getting item X instead.

[Yaguex]

Hmmmm but imagine if in EQ we all had the same level, say 60. All the content of all the zones would be dessigned for your level. Playes would have a wider choice of gameplay at any given time. No more cool dungeons like Kaesora or Nurga totally empty. No more hordes of players packing up in PoV or Sebilis back in the time.

Of course, some other kind of rewarding should be given to the players for hunting if leveling is taken out of the equation.



Yag.