Guild Wars 2

tolkien.6317:

There are other ways around the problem though without artificially deleveling. In older systems like Rolemaster, the more of any mob you fight simultaneously, the more dangerous it is.

And in Rolemaster you can die on the very first set of dice rolled against you with no chance of avoiding it. No thanks.

If you want games without levels which are “skill based”, as mentioned above tabletop games have been doing it for ages. The question isn’t whether it can be done in an MMO, the question is whether that’s an experience which will keep more than a token number of players.

Before you go too far into “no level” game concepts, try this on for size: how many people play some form of D&D in comparison to other tabletop RPGs? Rolemaster, GURPS, World of Darkness . . . for as many games which don’t have “levels”, they’re not exactly king of the hill. That says a lot without exactly saying anything meaningful.

Now, one of the three RPGs I actually own the books to (or for the third plan to as soon as I possess money enough to purchase it) only one is D&D. The other two hold a higher place in my heart, but I can’t ever get anyone to play them . . . they’d rather play D&D. Why? Because most of the time everyone already has the books, of course.

Stepping back into video games, there are a lot of games which lack “levels” rigidly defined. Upthread I acknowledged Monster Hunter by Capcom. However there aren’t many RPGs I’ve played where level is irrelevant entirely. (Not “none” but “not many”.) At least one took the other route and said “the level counter has four digits, have fun”.

And full circle . . . sit down with a notebook sometime and try to figure out how to do an MMO with no levels but a clear progression system. It’s not as easy as it sounds, or there would be tons more on the market. I don’t just mean “running right now” I mean created at all.

tolkien.6317:

I agree, and I’m not sure what we’re discussing now… What you’ve done is point out the problem with levels in GW2, not the original function of levels in D&D. Part of the problem you’ve shown is with the high numbers in modern games (level 80 etc.) I mentioned that in my first reply – it’s another reason these high numbers are bad IMO.

Well to make the circle to DnD which basically invented levels… it was used because it’s too much work to change relevant attributes after every levels. Because of that, it was lumped together as “experience”, making the changing of sheets a once-a-day instead of once-a-battle thing. Since videogames aren’t based on pen and paper, the only really valid argument in favor of levels as a gating mechanism disappears.

Oceangrave.9657:

If you are dying to a level 9 mob as a level 20 character even if downgraded. You are doing something wrong.

Not really, not any more than at level 9, anyway. A level 20 character only has about 11 trait points, and what, one utility skill beyond what a level 9 does (correct me if I am wrong please)? He is still wearing 2-stat gear and probably just blues and maybe a green if lucky.

Whereas a level 80, say, character has 70 trait points (which makes a gigantic difference), all his skills including an elite, and most importantly, is probably armed with/wearing mostly tri-stat rares and/or exotics. His survivability and power will still be significantly higher even downscaled to 9. I mean, if I take my 80 Warrior to a level 1-15 zone, I 2-3 shot most of the mobs, maybe even one-shot some. Any of my 20-60 characters? They’re not going to be doing that.

So no, not doing anything more wrong than the level 9, really.

Still, I agree with the OP that levelling is archaic, but the fact is, a lot of people really enjoy the sense of progression and so on, and won’t play a game without it. Until games like GW2 get them used to levels mattering less, and games being fun even without this kind of linear progression, that demand is going to be there.

Essentially, GW2 is a transitional game. I’d be unsurprised to see GW3, in six+ years, be level-less, but with broad horizontal progression, but that’s a way out.

tolkien.6317:

There are other ways around the problem though without artificially deleveling. In older systems like Rolemaster, the more of any mob you fight simultaneously, the more dangerous it is. A single rat is trivial, but 30 of them could pose a serious risk. It’s not a flat level vs. level check (i.e. greying out a mob). It’s dependent upon whether you’re attacked from the front or behind or the side, or above, the size and number of the mob attacking, the type and speed of attack, the type of defense etc. etc. These things are tedious with dice, but simple with computers. If it’s realism you’re after there are much better ways to do it. Deleveling is an inelegant solution that creates as many problems as it solves (IMO).

That works great in pen and paper games. In a game like Guild Wars 2, it’s simply easy enough to look at your abilities relative to the area. It’s a mindset.

You’re not actually level 80, because in Tyria there are no such things as levels. I bet you know NPC ever comes up to you in game and says I’m level 80. It’s a thing for players that doesn’t exist in Tyria. With that thought process, you can see level as relative to area, instead of level as relative to you and the whole problem evaporates.

I don’t see myself as deleveling. I am the best I can be in a certain area, relative to the content in that area. Most of the time this means the content will be easier…often a lot easier.

I actually sat on a “next gen” MMO in the formative stages and tried to do exactly this – come up with a system that worked without levels. I already knew the problems from years with pen and paper systems, and playing all early CPRGs and many MMOs. I argued from the beginning that it wouldn’t work, and if it did it would be difficult to understand and pick up. After 3+ years of fruitless development, they hit crunch and changed everything to be level based (then they closed down a few years later due to enormous stupidity and mismanagement, but the point remains).

There are just so many reasons that levels make sense, raw coding prerogatives included. You need a way for players to be able to easily make power comparisons (I still favour EverQuest’s “con” solution), as well as a thousand other things that need a number to relate to. As has been said, level-less (and classless) systems have all been attempted many times already, with varying results, none of them too good from what I’ve seen. Levels + class are the way to go in RPGs IMO. And that’s after decades of experience with this stuff as a player. It is subjective, but not completely.

tolkien.6317:

I actually sat on a “next gen” MMO in the formative stages and tried to do exactly this – come up with a system that worked without levels. I already knew the problems from years with pen and paper systems, and playing all early CPRGs and many MMOs. I argued from the beginning that it wouldn’t work, and if it did it would be difficult to understand and pick up. After 3+ years of fruitless development, they hit crunch and changed everything to be level based (then they closed down a few years later due to enormous stupidity and mismanagement, but the point remains).

There are just so many reasons that levels make sense, raw coding prerogatives included. You need a way for players to be able to easily make power comparisons (I still favour EverQuest’s “con” solution), as well as a thousand other things that need a number to relate to. As has been said, level-less (and classless) systems have all been attempted many times already, with varying results, none of them too good from what I’ve seen. Levels + class are the way to go in RPGs IMO. And that’s after decades of experience with this stuff as a player. It’s subjective, but not completely.

Yet Runequest was a pen and paper game without levels that worked marvelously. It had a skill based system, where individual skills increased in power as you used them, without having a level for your character. So you could get better at various things you did, but it wasn’t dependent on an overall level.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Before you go too far into “no level” game concepts, try this on for size: how many people play some form of D&D in comparison to other tabletop RPGs? Rolemaster, GURPS, World of Darkness . . . for as many games which don’t have “levels”, they’re not exactly king of the hill. That says a lot without exactly saying anything meaningful.

Er, Tobias, during the mid-late 1990s, World of Darkness outsold AD&D 2E quite regularly, actually, despite having about 1/10th the marketing budget and a fraction of the production staff. Only with 3E did this solidly change back, and that was more down to the OGL and d20 initiative than anything else.

The main reason those games sell less has absolutely nothing to do with levels, and everything to do with marketing, and the “D&D explosion” in the very early 1980s, which created a huge core of established D&D players who had little knowledge of the greater RPG market. Had it been a level-less game like Traveller which had managed to get out of the hobby-shops and into the mainstream shops as, being sold as a boardgame, then the whole concept of levels might never have become popular (or a whole lot of other things, actually, but that’s a huge what-if).

Vayne.8563:

Yet Runequest was a pen and paper game without levels that worked marvelously. It had a skill based system, where individual skills increased in power as you used them, without having a level for your character. So you could get better at various things you did, but it wasn’t dependent on an overall level.

That’s ironic, because Runequest is my classic example of why it doesn’t work, and is why the system never took off. It was way too clunky and difficult to manage, and in a world where everyone cast spells with equal ability it was unwieldy in all ways. This underscores my point – it sounds good on paper, but just doesn’t work in practice.

tolkien.6317:

Vayne.8563:

Yet Runequest was a pen and paper game without levels that worked marvelously. It had a skill based system, where individual skills increased in power as you used them, without having a level for your character. So you could get better at various things you did, but it wasn’t dependent on an overall level.

That’s ironic, because Runequest is my classic example of why it doesn’t work, and is why the system never took off. It was way too clunky and difficult to manage, and in a world where everyone cast spells with equal ability it was unwieldy in all ways. This underscores my point – it sounds good on paper, but just doesn’t work in practice.

I devised my own system, based largely on Runequest, but I did make quite a few changes to both combat and magic. My friends and I played it for years. Just because the rest of the system didn’t work (they didn’t go far enough with the change) doesn’t mean it can’t work. The core skill system wasn’t clunky at all. In fact, it was very intuitive. What they did with the magic didn’t work but that’s easily remedied (as shown by the fact that I was able to remedy it myself lol).

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Stepping back into video games, there are a lot of games which lack “levels” rigidly defined. Upthread I acknowledged Monster Hunter by Capcom. However there aren’t many RPGs I’ve played where level is irrelevant entirely. (Not “none” but “not many”.) At least one took the other route and said “the level counter has four digits, have fun”.

Most single player games don’t have levels. Fable is a very good example where you still have progress but no real levels.

And full circle . . . sit down with a notebook sometime and try to figure out how to do an MMO with no levels but a clear progression system. It’s not as easy as it sounds, or there would be tons more on the market. I don’t just mean “running right now” I mean created at all.

Ye I’ve done after my first WoW burnout. I basically came to the conclusion that instead of level > gear grind I would basically make it all into shallow gear progression. In GW2 terms I would make the rare > exotic > ascended steps meaningful, as in taking about 2 hour day per item per step.

Secondly, I would lump most stats together in one item, which has the most clear way to improve, so people would get meaningful stats after improving that one item, this item should be relatively easy to get, in one 8 hour day. Other items would be incremental improvements instead of build defining.

This has the added benefit only one new item, with a relatively easy path, would be required to make a completely new build.

GW2 also has the skill challenges, which by itself would have been enough as a levelling mechanic, by making those skill challenges reward the 70 trait points.

This would also make true on the “our entire game is endgame” promise. Right off the bat in Queensdale, you’re building your main weapon, which could be a sword for a warrior, ring for an elementalist or circlet for necromancer. That one item defines your character. Seems far more heroic to me.

Levels are to pve what capture points are to spvp, a horribly broken mechanic that somehow comes back every time.

Elbegast.6970:

I liked the idea of zone by zone down-leveling until I actually began to play the game. It seemed like a great mechanic on paper.

Now that I’ve tried it, zone by zone down-leveling has caused me to lose all motivation to progress. There is no sense of accomplishment or pride in my character. It feels like the game has thrown away all my hours of hard work when I pass through a lower level zone, constantly running because I don’t feel like struggling with or being killed by mobs that are half my (true) level.

It doesn’t matter what down-leveling was meant to correct on the technical side, the feeling (a sense of character pride, power, accomplishment) is what matters. And right now, at least to me, it feels absolutely horrible. My character feels weak. I may as well just park him in The Grove and pretend to be a commoner or a merchant.

Sorry I just cant agree with your perception.

Sure you get down leveled but you have or should have better gear and stats that even when downgraded by the map/zone should still be superior to that which you had when you first ran the area. Add to that you have the use of higher level buffs, extra trait points extra skill point unlocks.. if your still struggling then I would suggest the problem lies elsewhere.
The whole point of level scaling is to eliminate just what you want.. 1 shot mechanics to enable you to farm without the risk.. no thanks.

If you think level scaling is making it difficult for you.. how did you get on walking through Metrica or Caledon or Wayfarers at level.. cos the mobs can be upto 7+ levels higher in some places.. going back as a down leveled toon you don’t get the same problem.

Don’t worry, you can’t one shot the low level mobs once you’re decently geared at 80, but they pose almost 0 threat to you and you should be able to pretty much 2 or 3 shot them. I definitely feel like I’m more powerful with a well geared 80 in a lower level zone than when I’m level appropriate for that zone.

The dynamic scalling that downgrades the levels depending on the area is a good way of disrupting the old MMO leveling style.

Why should a lv1 bear be easier than a lv80 cute bunny? A bear it’s still a bear and whatever the experience you may have you shouldn´t be able to 1 shot it! That’s just dumb!

Creating a level downgrade to suit the area, makes the confrontations more realistic making the maps live again and adding the possibility to make some mobs easier than others depending on what they are instead of what level they/you have!

The leveling is why I don’t develop my alt characters.
When you’ve done every zone on your main it just feels repetitive to go through them again, and you ask yourself why it’s necessary.
It certainly isn’t to teach the players the mechanics of the game.

There are only three enjoyable zones in the entire game and they happen to be 70+, making the whole aspect of leveling even worse as you have to gain those first 70 levels before you get to enjoy the PvE content.

Leveling through WvW is hardly even a possibility.
My experience rate in WvW is about a fifth of my PvE experience rate.
And when I’m in WvW I pretty much tag everything with my AoE abilities, constantly.

I agree.

Traditional MMO’s have leveling which make previous content obsolete. Players consume the content in a fraction of the time it took the developers to build it. In addition; once players consume it there is no reason o ever go back. All those assets are completed wasted.

Leveling systems are a complete waste of resources and probably one of the most inefficient design philosophies in existence.

Leveling as always been one ofmy favourite thing things to do in rpg’s, personally…you just after enjoy the journey and not rush around like a mad person…

Elbegast.6970:

1. Don’t downgrade my level and allow me to one-shot lower level mobs. In this way, I would actually feel more powerful as I leveled and would feel like my work is being rewarded.

And makes 90% of the map useless. Pass, thanks. I like it the way it is.

Besides, the current system really is horizontal, given level scaling. At least in a downward direction. You could almost get rid of levels, and it would make zero difference, in the downward direction. Your “level” in the game is sort of an illusion. All you really get is better gear, and more traits and skills.

It works the same in the upward direction in places where you get leveled upward, like WvW. A lowbie in WvW gets pretty much owned by someone who is properly kitted out and a full set of traits.

In other games Mobs become gray when you are like 10 levels higher, and you don’t get any loot or experience from killing them. I much prefer the system here where you can go playing where ever you want and still get loot and exp

I swear the majority of people playing GW2 actually don’t like the MMORPG genre at all, and are constantly coming up with ways to push GW2 out of the mmorpg genre and turn it into an Action Adventure Online Game.

First, the roles and dissolved and almost removed to the point where, 9 times out of 10 someone is playing a damage dealing role. “soft” classes that can do everything. Next we remove the need for grouping and social interaction to tackle content, next we remove levels and make this a Action World Simulator Online.

@ the guy who mentioned monster hunter, MH isn’t an rpg of any sort and also there kind of are levels (there are HR ranks) but they don’t effect your character in anyway they just allow you to face harder monsters.

Kakeru.2873:

I swear the majority of people playing GW2 actually don’t like the MMORPG genre at all, and are constantly coming up with ways to push GW2 out of the mmorpg genre and turn it into an Action Adventure Online Game.

First, the roles and dissolved and almost removed to the point where, 9 times out of 10 someone is playing a damage dealing role. “soft” classes that can do everything. Next we remove the need for grouping and social interaction to tackle content, next we remove levels and make this a Action World Simulator Online.

@ the guy who mentioned monster hunter, MH isn’t an rpg of any sort and also there kind of are levels (there are HR ranks) but they don’t effect your character in anyway they just allow you to face harder monsters.

I like how you assume that MMORPG requires leveling, stat increases, gear grinds, healers and tanks.

These design systems are primitive and obsolete. Just like the elevator man and soon paper mail.

Calae.1738:

Kakeru.2873:

I swear the majority of people playing GW2 actually don’t like the MMORPG genre at all, and are constantly coming up with ways to push GW2 out of the mmorpg genre and turn it into an Action Adventure Online Game.

First, the roles and dissolved and almost removed to the point where, 9 times out of 10 someone is playing a damage dealing role. “soft” classes that can do everything. Next we remove the need for grouping and social interaction to tackle content, next we remove levels and make this a Action World Simulator Online.

@ the guy who mentioned monster hunter, MH isn’t an rpg of any sort and also there kind of are levels (there are HR ranks) but they don’t effect your character in anyway they just allow you to face harder monsters.

I like how you assume that MMORPG requires leveling, stat increases, gear grinds, healers and tanks.

These design systems are primitive and obsolete. Just like the elevator man and soon paper mail.

Stats, gear, levels, roles however soft ARE the basis of RPGS. Take them away and the game isn’t an RPG it becomes an Action game.

Calae.1738:

Kakeru.2873:

I swear the majority of people playing GW2 actually don’t like the MMORPG genre at all, and are constantly coming up with ways to push GW2 out of the mmorpg genre and turn it into an Action Adventure Online Game.

First, the roles and dissolved and almost removed to the point where, 9 times out of 10 someone is playing a damage dealing role. “soft” classes that can do everything. Next we remove the need for grouping and social interaction to tackle content, next we remove levels and make this a Action World Simulator Online.

@ the guy who mentioned monster hunter, MH isn’t an rpg of any sort and also there kind of are levels (there are HR ranks) but they don’t effect your character in anyway they just allow you to face harder monsters.

I like how you assume that MMORPG requires leveling, stat increases, gear grinds, healers and tanks.

These design systems are primitive and obsolete. Just like the elevator man and soon paper mail.

MMoRPG’s don’t need any of those, but it does need progression! Progression however can be made though several ways! This game has the best leveling procedure of all MMo games i have ever played and with one of the fastest leveling curve.
- You can level through several ways (crafting, Grinding, WvW, DE’s, Dungeons) – take your pick! You can get you gear though the same ways too.
- It don’t need any specific support class (healer, tank) or DPS, but it needs to demand support and dps from every man in the whole group.

The question at hand, what is the leveling purpose?
- Is it to teach a player how to play with that class?
- Is it to create separation between high leveled players and the lower ones?
Taking these in consideration, how would you substitute the leveling from the game, without removing the “progression” that the leveling creates?

/Cheers

Kakeru.2873:

Calae.1738:

Kakeru.2873:

I swear the majority of people playing GW2 actually don’t like the MMORPG genre at all, and are constantly coming up with ways to push GW2 out of the mmorpg genre and turn it into an Action Adventure Online Game.

First, the roles and dissolved and almost removed to the point where, 9 times out of 10 someone is playing a damage dealing role. “soft” classes that can do everything. Next we remove the need for grouping and social interaction to tackle content, next we remove levels and make this a Action World Simulator Online.

@ the guy who mentioned monster hunter, MH isn’t an rpg of any sort and also there kind of are levels (there are HR ranks) but they don’t effect your character in anyway they just allow you to face harder monsters.

I like how you assume that MMORPG requires leveling, stat increases, gear grinds, healers and tanks.

These design systems are primitive and obsolete. Just like the elevator man and soon paper mail.

Stats, gear, levels, roles however soft ARE the basis of RPGS. Take them away and the game isn’t an RPG it becomes an Action game.

role playing is what makes the basis of a role playing game. Stats and gear go into games that are not role playing games (like Dungeon Defenders, Starcraft).

Well since the point of down leveling is to make sure lower level content is still relevant and provides a challenge, it’s kind of doing it’s job considering your example. I personally enjoy the down leveling mechanic since when I play a lower level character I don’t have to worry as much about griefers running around one-shotting every mob I need to kill for my dailies etc. I’ve run into that problem in other MMO’s.

Second when I go back to a lower level area, if I have level appropriate gear, I still feel more powerful – the difficulty between fighting in an area at level 10 and level 80 is pretty noticeable to me, it’s just not “lolroflstompeverything”.

It’s more “logical” to me that powering up works this way, and therefore makes the game more immersive. It would be frustrating to me to be able to pumb stomp the Flame Legion in Deissa Plateau, but have trouble in Fireheart Rise, for example. Why should the same mobs in two different places have a different difficulty? This gets rid of that weird inconsistency.

I have, though, from the beginning always thought that the number of levels was kind of ridiculous. It’s necessary to a point to introduce mechanics slowly and give newbies time to adjust to how the game plays… and given my opinion above, 80 levels was overkill. If they had stuck with a lower level cap, down leveling wouldn’t be so obvious nor such a problem for people who think they should feel “powerful” because they are 70 levels higher than the mob they are beating on.

Elbegast.6970:

I see my character gaining numbers (levels) but they don’t make me feel more powerful. The problem is that I am downgraded to the level of the area I am currently in.

Being level 20 and almost dying to two level 9 mobs is a terrible feeling. What is the point in leveling if all that work is negated by zone mechanics?

There are two options that would make the experience feel better.

1. Don’t downgrade my level and allow me to one-shot lower level mobs. In this way, I would actually feel more powerful as I leveled and would feel like my work is being rewarded.

or

2. Remove levels and leveling altogether. Don’t allow me to see that meaningless number that taunts me with every pull. I would rather not see any level number on my character at all than to see the green ‘down’ arrow next to an artificially deflated number.

Your equipment is down-levelled too, so make sure you have equipment appropriate for your level. i.e. if you are level 20 and are down-levelled to 10, and wearing level 15 gear – your gear will be down-levelled to ~7.5. That means a level 20 wearing 15 gear is worse off than a level 10 wearing 10 gear.

On topic of levelling as an archaic concept, I disagree. I think that levelling up is one of the most attractive parts of an RPG. I do not really have an argument for this, as it is entirely an opinion, but I just wanted to give my 2 cents.

GW1 option of having max level is 20 and you are 20 for most of the game was a good alternative. This only works with the skill progression that GW1 had, where you are constantly acquiring new skills. That wouldn’t work in this game where you can gain all of your skills so quickly / weapon dependent.

Eurhetemec.9052:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Before you go too far into “no level” game concepts, try this on for size: how many people play some form of D&D in comparison to other tabletop RPGs? Rolemaster, GURPS, World of Darkness . . . for as many games which don’t have “levels”, they’re not exactly king of the hill. That says a lot without exactly saying anything meaningful.

Er, Tobias, during the mid-late 1990s, World of Darkness outsold AD&D 2E quite regularly, actually, despite having about 1/10th the marketing budget and a fraction of the production staff. Only with 3E did this solidly change back, and that was more down to the OGL and d20 initiative than anything else.

The main reason those games sell less has absolutely nothing to do with levels, and everything to do with marketing, and the “D&D explosion” in the very early 1980s, which created a huge core of established D&D players who had little knowledge of the greater RPG market. Had it been a level-less game like Traveller which had managed to get out of the hobby-shops and into the mainstream shops as, being sold as a boardgame, then the whole concept of levels might never have become popular (or a whole lot of other things, actually, but that’s a huge what-if).

I did use a current term for a reason. “Having”, not “always had”, and “play” instead of “played at X time”. I’m aware of World of Darkness having outsold 2nd Edition. If I’m not correct, there wasn’t any new material and there were other concerns directly affecting 2nd Edition. Also, at that time, World of Darkness was “cool” and “edgy” . . . I did game through those years In fact I picked up my collection of 2nd Edition books for almost a song compared to the MSRP (Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price) due to a lot of that stuff going on.

I would stake that there are more people playing D&D and it’s derivative works (Pathfinder, Hackmaster, et al) than World of Darkness currently.

However, if you want to be charitable, another level-less game does outstrip D&D by quite a lot: Magic the Gathering. Another game I do not want lifted from carelessly.

People crave the feeling of improving themselves, even if it’s just an illusion. Leveling and gear are prime sources to create this feeling in players. That’s what we call “meaningful progression”. Not a progress that actually means something from an objective PoV, but what provides you the player with the feeling that you just became superior to your earlier self and/or other players on lower level/worse gear. It’s an essential selling point of PvE MMO games. Why take that away from people?

No matter what you do, you are way stronger at higher levels than at lower levels. I feel like a God walking amongst mere mortals when I run my L80’s through starter zones, 1- or 2- or 3-shotting anything that isn’t a veteran or higher, 8-hitting veterans, and soloing champions and group events like it’s my job.

All the while the zone is still enjoyable and I don’t ruin it for everyone else. Working as intended, in my opinion!

marnick.4305:

Most single player games don’t have levels. Fable is a very good example where you still have progress but no real levels.

Fable is a very bad example of everything else, though. I also said “very few” not “none”. I’m aware of Fable and some other RPGs which did not have levels. I did use “RPG” though since moving to “every game ever” gets us to comparing potatoes to apples and saying since they’re both food we can do that.

Ye I’ve done after my first WoW burnout. I basically came to the conclusion that instead of level > gear grind I would basically make it all into shallow gear progression.

In reading the rest of this, this becomes wildly into “not what I asked for” (not for a redesign of Guild Wars 2) but still an intriguing read. I’ve tried my hand at something different, which wound up potentially too difficult to get people more invested in.

Levels are to pve what capture points are to spvp, a horribly broken mechanic that somehow comes back every time.

I cannot entirely agree. Levels and capture points both serve specific design purposes, and are used for a reason. You can do without either or both of these, so long as something is in their place. The mechanic isn’t broken, though. The application of it may be.

Mirta.5029:

Kakeru.2873:

Calae.1738:

Kakeru.2873:

I swear the majority of people playing GW2 actually don’t like the MMORPG genre at all, and are constantly coming up with ways to push GW2 out of the mmorpg genre and turn it into an Action Adventure Online Game.

First, the roles and dissolved and almost removed to the point where, 9 times out of 10 someone is playing a damage dealing role. “soft” classes that can do everything. Next we remove the need for grouping and social interaction to tackle content, next we remove levels and make this a Action World Simulator Online.

@ the guy who mentioned monster hunter, MH isn’t an rpg of any sort and also there kind of are levels (there are HR ranks) but they don’t effect your character in anyway they just allow you to face harder monsters.

I like how you assume that MMORPG requires leveling, stat increases, gear grinds, healers and tanks.

These design systems are primitive and obsolete. Just like the elevator man and soon paper mail.

Stats, gear, levels, roles however soft ARE the basis of RPGS. Take them away and the game isn’t an RPG it becomes an Action game.

role playing is what makes the basis of a role playing game. Stats and gear go into games that are not role playing games (like Dungeon Defenders, Starcraft).

And pure roleplaying is, in some sense, impossible in a video game. You are assuming the identity of someone, or you are guiding them through the game rather than being someone of your own fabrication with total freedom to do whatever they would do normally.

Pure roleplaying, by the by, is also quite terrible as a “game”, if there are no stats, no rules, and no boundaries.

I don’t think you guys understand the very meaning of the words MMORPG.

Massive Multi-Player Online Role Playing Game.

This game should have hundreds of other players connected to a central server or multiple servers. These players should be visible, interact with the world and other players in various ways. Role Playing Game is where most people get confused. It has a very simple definition. It’s a game where the player assumes a role or multiple roles within a one or more narratives.

Character development through talents, abilities and traits is not necessary but; can immerse the player into the narrative very well if done correctly.

The stat progression part that you people keep talking about is not progression. It’s a treadmill. The numbers are getting higher but the ratios are always the same. What’s the difference if you deal 100 damage and your target has 1000 health versus you dealing 100,000 damage and your target has 1,000,000 health? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Getting a +1 of anything is idiotic and shows people’s complete lack of understanding in the most basic arithmetic.

Calae.1738:

I don’t think you guys understand the very meaning of the words MMORPG.

Massive Multi-Player Online Role Playing Game.

This game should have hundreds of other players connected to a central server or multiple servers. These players should be visible, interact with the world and other players in various ways. Role Playing Game is where most people get confused. It has a very simple definition. It’s a game where the player assumes a role or multiple roles within a one or more narratives.

Character development through talents, abilities and traits is not necessary but; can immerse the player into the narrative very well if done correctly.

The stat progression part that you people keep talking about is not progression. It’s a treadmill. The numbers are getting higher but the ratios are always the same. What’s the difference if you deal 100 damage and your target has 1000 health versus you dealing 100,000 damage and your target has 1,000,000 health? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Getting a +1 of anything is idiotic and shows people’s complete lack of understanding in the most basic arithmetic.

The ratio’s are not always the same. If it is, then feel free to go solo some Risen in Orr with your level 5 character.

Cheers

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mirta.5029:

Kakeru.2873:

Calae.1738:

Kakeru.2873:

I swear the majority of people playing GW2 actually don’t like the MMORPG genre at all, and are constantly coming up with ways to push GW2 out of the mmorpg genre and turn it into an Action Adventure Online Game.

First, the roles and dissolved and almost removed to the point where, 9 times out of 10 someone is playing a damage dealing role. “soft” classes that can do everything. Next we remove the need for grouping and social interaction to tackle content, next we remove levels and make this a Action World Simulator Online.

@ the guy who mentioned monster hunter, MH isn’t an rpg of any sort and also there kind of are levels (there are HR ranks) but they don’t effect your character in anyway they just allow you to face harder monsters.

I like how you assume that MMORPG requires leveling, stat increases, gear grinds, healers and tanks.

These design systems are primitive and obsolete. Just like the elevator man and soon paper mail.

Stats, gear, levels, roles however soft ARE the basis of RPGS. Take them away and the game isn’t an RPG it becomes an Action game.

role playing is what makes the basis of a role playing game. Stats and gear go into games that are not role playing games (like Dungeon Defenders, Starcraft).

And pure roleplaying is, in some sense, impossible in a video game. You are assuming the identity of someone, or you are guiding them through the game rather than being someone of your own fabrication with total freedom to do whatever they would do normally.

Pure roleplaying, by the by, is also quite terrible as a “game”, if there are no stats, no rules, and no boundaries.

To be honest stats are an outdated mechanic and an RPG can go without it easily. No rules or boundaries would make it a sandbox and there’s a market for that as well.

Mirta.5029:

To be honest stats are an outdated mechanic and an RPG can go without it easily. No rules or boundaries would make it a sandbox and there’s a market for that as well.

To be honest RPGs are an outdated genre and it’s all about retro indie games.

Actually, a game without stats is pretty much a group of people sitting around running improv theatre for each other/themselves. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s less a “game” as we’re talking about here and more a “thing to do to kill some time”.

(Yes, I’ve done this sort of thing, mind you. I lost my taste for it after a few years.)

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mirta.5029:

To be honest stats are an outdated mechanic and an RPG can go without it easily. No rules or boundaries would make it a sandbox and there’s a market for that as well.

To be honest RPGs are an outdated genre and it’s all about retro indie games.

Actually, a game without stats is pretty much a group of people sitting around running improv theatre for each other/themselves. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s less a “game” as we’re talking about here and more a “thing to do to kill some time”.

(Yes, I’ve done this sort of thing, mind you. I lost my taste for it after a few years.)

So chivalry is not a game? No actual game could take the mechanics of this fighting game and use it as its own combat system?
Shooters don’t have stats. They’re not worse as a game because of it.
Dark Messayah didn’t have stats. Just lots of spells.
Imagine an RPG with lots of different items having different uses and abilities, but no stats to speak about.

Mirta.5029:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mirta.5029:

To be honest stats are an outdated mechanic and an RPG can go without it easily. No rules or boundaries would make it a sandbox and there’s a market for that as well.

To be honest RPGs are an outdated genre and it’s all about retro indie games.

Actually, a game without stats is pretty much a group of people sitting around running improv theatre for each other/themselves. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s less a “game” as we’re talking about here and more a “thing to do to kill some time”.

(Yes, I’ve done this sort of thing, mind you. I lost my taste for it after a few years.)

So chivalry is not a game? No actual game could take the mechanics of this fighting game and use it as its own combat system?
Shooters don’t have stats. They’re not worse as a game because of it.
Dark Messayah didn’t have stats. Just lots of spells.
Imagine an RPG with lots of different items having different uses and abilities, but no stats to speak about.

In my opinion it sounds pretty boring.

Also, in my opinion, guild wars is too light on the stats.

Jemmi.6058:

Mirta.5029:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mirta.5029:

To be honest stats are an outdated mechanic and an RPG can go without it easily. No rules or boundaries would make it a sandbox and there’s a market for that as well.

To be honest RPGs are an outdated genre and it’s all about retro indie games.

Actually, a game without stats is pretty much a group of people sitting around running improv theatre for each other/themselves. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s less a “game” as we’re talking about here and more a “thing to do to kill some time”.

(Yes, I’ve done this sort of thing, mind you. I lost my taste for it after a few years.)

So chivalry is not a game? No actual game could take the mechanics of this fighting game and use it as its own combat system?
Shooters don’t have stats. They’re not worse as a game because of it.
Dark Messayah didn’t have stats. Just lots of spells.
Imagine an RPG with lots of different items having different uses and abilities, but no stats to speak about.

In my opinion it sounds pretty boring.

Also, in my opinion, guild wars is too light on the stats.

you might want to look into a game with a steeper vertical progression then. Like WoW. Because I prefer actual skill based games.

Go read my first post, on the first page of this thread. </thread> Its over.

It’s easy to understand what they did. It was very public this is the way it was going to be. I like it, you don’t, others will fall on either side. It is what it is.

I could make an argument the game should get harder the further you go along, so what it the point again about leveling should make things easier?

Mirta.5029:

So chivalry is not a game? No actual game could take the mechanics of this fighting game and use it as its own combat system?

Are you talking about the same “chivalry” that nobility ostensibly practiced for other nobility and not for common folk? Or is this something else? Because that was a game you could certainly opt out of playing properly or cheat at rampantly and still be all right in the bounds of . . . you know . . . the game terms?

Shooters don’t have stats. They’re not worse as a game because of it.

No, they’re generally bad for other reasons. By the by, I do like how you pounced on “a game” when I misspoke and assumed we’d be staying within the established conversation and not just pulling in anything you like to counter points. But I’ll play regardless.

Dark Messayah didn’t have stats. Just lots of spells.

This game is unfamiliar to me.

Imagine an RPG with lots of different items having different uses and abilities, but no stats to speak about.

I have. There’s always an issue which crops up which is solved by putting a statistic tracking things into play. And once you do that you’re abandoning “no stat” play. Though I suppose we could talk about card games if you want to go down that route. M:TG probably would suit you, or Mille Bornes.

And I have played an RPG which was diceless, classless, and only one rule: “If you want to succeed or fail at a task more complicated than operating simple machinery, you need to pull from the Jenga tower depending on how tough the action is.” It was great fun but I had about three drinks in me at the time. There are a host of other games which are completely statistic-less but they really function less-adroitly in massively multiplayer environments.

. . . especially if you consider writing. Take a look sometime at “Thieves’ World”.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mirta.5029:

So chivalry is not a game? No actual game could take the mechanics of this fighting game and use it as its own combat system?

Are you talking about the same “chivalry” that nobility ostensibly practiced for other nobility and not for common folk? Or is this something else? Because that was a game you could certainly opt out of playing properly or cheat at rampantly and still be all right in the bounds of . . . you know . . . the game terms?

Shooters don’t have stats. They’re not worse as a game because of it.

No, they’re generally bad for other reasons. By the by, I do like how you pounced on “a game” when I misspoke and assumed we’d be staying within the established conversation and not just pulling in anything you like to counter points. But I’ll play regardless.

Dark Messayah didn’t have stats. Just lots of spells.

This game is unfamiliar to me.

Imagine an RPG with lots of different items having different uses and abilities, but no stats to speak about.

I have. There’s always an issue which crops up which is solved by putting a statistic tracking things into play. And once you do that you’re abandoning “no stat” play. Though I suppose we could talk about card games if you want to go down that route. M:TG probably would suit you, or Mille Bornes.

And I have played an RPG which was diceless, classless, and only one rule: “If you want to succeed or fail at a task more complicated than operating simple machinery, you need to pull from the Jenga tower depending on how tough the action is.” It was great fun but I had about three drinks in me at the time. There are a host of other games which are completely statistic-less but they really function less-adroitly in massively multiplayer environments.

. . . especially if you consider writing. Take a look sometime at “Thieves’ World”.

you’re making excuses now.
Research dark Messiah
Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is a very nice combat game that as far as I’m aware of you can’t cheat in it
Why are you afraid of a game without stats without even trying one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry:_Medieval_Warfare

It has stats. Can also cheat in it, google Chivalry Medieval warfare exploits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Messiah_of_Might_and_Magic

it has stats

All shooters have stats on their guns

Games use numbers. Unless you play a pure non combat game, like Journey, or some TellTale game. And even those use stats, the stat being your mind.

killcannon.2576:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry:_Medieval_Warfare

It has stats. Can also cheat in it, google Chivalry Medieval warfare exploits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Messiah_of_Might_and_Magic

it has stats

All shooters have stats on their guns

Games use numbers. Unless you play a pure non combat game, like Journey, or some TellTale game. And even those use stats, the stat being your mind.

you’re understanding stats wrong. We’re talking about the ability to upgrade your item for a better number to hit a bigger number. A lot of games don’t function under that system anymore. I think that stats melted your brain or something, because a mind is not a stat in any way shape or form.

Mirta.5029:

you’re making excuses now.
Research dark Messiah
Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is a very nice combat game that as far as I’m aware of you can’t cheat in it
Why are you afraid of a game without stats without even trying one?

Be clearer about what the heck you’re talking about and I won’t be making excuses. If “I have never heard of that game so can’t comment on whether or not it suits” is an “excuse”, then I guess I will continue making excuses.

I don’t follow all the games ever when I stopped being able to afford upgrading my computer every three-to-nine months . . . or have time to actually play them. I have console games from two years ago I purchased and are still in the shrink wrap because I just haven’t had the time.

So, instead of “chivalry” you could have said the title of the game and who published it and not laid a trap of misunderstanding.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mirta.5029:

you’re making excuses now.
Research dark Messiah
Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is a very nice combat game that as far as I’m aware of you can’t cheat in it
Why are you afraid of a game without stats without even trying one?

Be clearer about what the heck you’re talking about and I won’t be making excuses. If “I have never heard of that game so can’t comment on whether or not it suits” is an “excuse”, then I guess I will continue making excuses.

I don’t follow all the games ever when I stopped being able to afford upgrading my computer every three-to-nine months . . . or have time to actually play them. I have console games from two years ago I purchased and are still in the shrink wrap because I just haven’t had the time.

So, instead of “chivalry” you could have said the title of the game and who published it and not laid a trap of misunderstanding.

or you could… I don’t know… Google?

Levelling is archaic, though it does serve a purpose.

I personally thing it should have stopped at level 30, the extra 50 add little to the experience other than a time sink, should have had the racial starting areas and teh next zone or two as the levelling content, and the rest as max level zones.

Mirta.5029:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mirta.5029:

you’re making excuses now.
Research dark Messiah
Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is a very nice combat game that as far as I’m aware of you can’t cheat in it
Why are you afraid of a game without stats without even trying one?

Be clearer about what the heck you’re talking about and I won’t be making excuses. If “I have never heard of that game so can’t comment on whether or not it suits” is an “excuse”, then I guess I will continue making excuses.

I don’t follow all the games ever when I stopped being able to afford upgrading my computer every three-to-nine months . . . or have time to actually play them. I have console games from two years ago I purchased and are still in the shrink wrap because I just haven’t had the time.

So, instead of “chivalry” you could have said the title of the game and who published it and not laid a trap of misunderstanding.

or you could… I don’t know… Google?

Yes. I could Google. If it wasn’t, oh, a term I was more familiar with due to attendance of Renaissance Faires than games. But hey, I’m only a lowly peon who doesn’t know to Google every word in a post to be sure it’s being used correctly.

On the other hand, you have yet to read my posts where I said I had played games with no stats, minimal rules, and no score to keep track of. But you can be forgiven for your lack of reading comprehension if I can be forgiven for my lack of Google. Deal?

killcannon.2576:

Mirta.5029:

killcannon.2576:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry:_Medieval_Warfare

It has stats. Can also cheat in it, google Chivalry Medieval warfare exploits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Messiah_of_Might_and_Magic

it has stats

All shooters have stats on their guns

Games use numbers. Unless you play a pure non combat game, like Journey, or some TellTale game. And even those use stats, the stat being your mind.

you’re understanding stats wrong. We’re talking about the ability to upgrade your item for a better number to hit a bigger number. A lot of games don’t function under that system anymore. I think that stats melted your brain or something, because a mind is not a stat in any way shape or form.

That’s upgrading, not stats. Stats are a part of upgrading that is affected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistic_

Mind=IQ (to an extent, but not wholly)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

Perhaps you should be more clear in what you are speaking of? Stats or upgrading?

we’re talking about stats, as in numbers in the game that go up, strength, agility, etc
You’re attempting to pull a strawman by playing dumb and speaking about stats in the wide sense. In that sense even kerbal space program has stats, because you hit a certain speed, a certain resistance force when landing, etc.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

On the other hand, you have yet to read my posts where I said I had played games with no stats, minimal rules, and no score to keep track of. But you can be forgiven for your lack of reading comprehension if I can be forgiven for my lack of Google. Deal?

the ones that you mentioned seemed to be games played in real life and not PC games. I probably should have specified it though, my bad. The point that I was trying to make – you can build game on physics and a completely different skill based combat that does not have numbers and still make it interesting.

Mirta.5029:

the ones that you mentioned seemed to be games played in real life and not PC games. I probably should have specified it though, my bad. The point that I was trying to make – you can build game on physics and a completely different skill based combat that does not have numbers and still make it interesting.

True . . . you can do that. However, try expanding on it into multiplayer . . . then into massively multiplayer online. You might reach some hurdles with interest versus development costs.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mirta.5029:

the ones that you mentioned seemed to be games played in real life and not PC games. I probably should have specified it though, my bad. The point that I was trying to make – you can build game on physics and a completely different skill based combat that does not have numbers and still make it interesting.

True . . . you can do that. However, try expanding on it into multiplayer . . . then into massively multiplayer online. You might reach some hurdles with interest versus development costs.

Well first of all not really, because it is the general direction games are heading towards now (Chivalry is a multiplayer, the next step is an MMO), however I was mostly thinking of implementing ideas of statless play into single player games (because you did mention the plain simple RPG in one of your posts and not an MMO RPG).
In my opinion also everything that can exist should exist. I’m happy that a lot of genres are actually budging somewhere and I wish that the would go even further. An example: Smite is a moba game that plays more like Guild Wars 2 than a regular moba game.
There has been a lot of first person – third person tower defense games with a hero character that you control in them. That genre didn’t see development for a while before it too.