|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sergeant_x
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 602
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: The 'M' word |
 |
|
We've been dancing around a certain issue in almost every other topic and I'd like to address it head on.
I just don't get this obsession with the leveling up paradigm. It was a mildly annoying feature in many table top games. But there, a GM could contain the "munchkins" (not my term) by fiat in any way he chose. In online games there's no GM and the munchkin mentality pretty much overwhelms everything else.
So, what's so hard about playing a role-playing game that's not a stat-hoarding exercise? Why is it so important that people with lots of spare time be given extra advantages over new players? If worthwhile competition is the issue, wouldn't it make more sense to give the new players the bonus, like the way golfers are handicapped? I don't really know of any other game or sport that deliberately gives experienced players an extra bonus purely because they've logged more hours playing. That would be like giving this years Super Bowl champs a five point advantage in all the games they play next year.
What if, instead, we played these games through the eyes of our characters? What if the goals of the player were the same as the goals of the character? What if players had goals besides the relentless lust for power? What if the passions and weakness of characters had real representation in the game?
What if there were no levels? No xp? No contrived score of any sort? How would you play differently? I know lots of you would just quit, but I'm not sure why. If the game is so dull you won't play without the powerquest stuff, then wasn't it a crummy game to begin with? If the game didn't have 'carots' built into the system, what kinds of things would you do with your character? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cobalt
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 137
Location: Kansas City
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: The 'M' word |
|
|
| sergeant_x wrote: | | What if there were no levels? No xp? No contrived score of any sort? How would you play differently? I know lots of you would just quit, but I'm not sure why. If the game is so dull you won't play without the powerquest stuff, then wasn't it a crummy game to begin with? If the game didn't have 'carots' built into the system, what kinds of things would you do with your character? |
I think EVE solves the first part of the problem well: By advancing skills at a uniform rate regardless of in game time. This eliminates the "powergrind" completely, and I like the idea a lot. But, this gives a heavy advantage to veteran players, which is another issue.
WoW is not really an Rpg, because it is filled with powergrinders, farmers, sellers, levelers, PvPers, and that type of thing, but almost 0 *roleplayers*. This is because the game completely caters to the "munchkin" mentality; the people who scramble to get loot and XP are most rewarded, and I do find this somewhat detrimental to the game experience.
| Quote: | | What if the goals of the player were the same as the goals of the character? What if players had goals besides the relentless lust for power? What if the passions and weakness of characters had real representation in the game? |
Yes. This should not be about grinding, it should be about living the universe. I think that the EVE system helps with this a lot, as I said before. To eliminate this with loot, crafters should make *EVERYTHING*. The only things you should find out in the wild are raw resources, natural resources, items made by NPCS (such as parts, tools, weapons on the NPC [but of course, most likely broken, or customized for the original user]) AND items made by other players that may be on the NPC or on the ground.
In the end, I think it's getting away from the norm that will make Firefly online stand out even more than SWG did at launch.
_________________
Asno |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vadarios
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 61
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: The 'M' word |
|
|
| sergeant_x wrote: | | I just don't get this obsession with the leveling up paradigm. It was a mildly annoying feature in many table top games. But there, a GM could contain the "munchkins" (not my term) by fiat in any way he chose. In online games there's no GM and the munchkin mentality pretty much overwhelms everything else. |
Actually it's the realization that there must be an incentive to continue paying to play. If there is not then the whole idea of the MMO is pointless. What good is having money if there isn't anything worthwhile to purchase. In SWG I was a shipwright. I made the server's fastest engines. Pure numbers game. I worked with finding the right materials best resources, tweaked and adjusted my character to be the best shipwright to make it so that people would come to me for their engines. Why bother learning how to do it if someone can just come along and click and be just as good as me.
| Quote: | | So, what's so hard about playing a role-playing game that's not a stat-hoarding exercise? Why is it so important that people with lots of spare time be given extra advantages over new players? If worthwhile competition is the issue, wouldn't it make more sense to give the new players the bonus, like the way golfers are handicapped? I don't really know of any other game or sport that deliberately gives experienced players an extra bonus purely because they've logged more hours playing. That would be like giving this years Super Bowl champs a five point advantage in all the games they play next year. |
In martial arts some tournaments allow you to automatically be allowed into the next year's tournament if you are the champion. NASCAR allows the top 35 drivers in points to automatically be in the race, while those outside the top 35 have to qualify to get in. A pitcher that is in the minor leagues works hard to make a name for himself so that eventually he can be in the major leagues. Major leaguers have a much easier time staying in the majors.
| Quote: | | What if, instead, we played these games through the eyes of our characters? What if the goals of the player were the same as the goals of the character? What if players had goals besides the relentless lust for power? What if the passions and weakness of characters had real representation in the game? |
How is this ONLY possible through not having levels/skills based game? How is this any different than an SP game. What incentive do I have to PAY to play.
| Quote: | | What if there were no levels? No xp? No contrived score of any sort? How would you play differently? I know lots of you would just quit, but I'm not sure why. If the game is so dull you won't play without the powerquest stuff, then wasn't it a crummy game to begin with? If the game didn't have 'carots' built into the system, what kinds of things would you do with your character? |
I'm not sure what you are getting at. If it were like that, I would probably play for a good story line. I mean to say that the story would have to be more in depth than the Halo/Half-life/other FPS games I have played. I loved the story in Half-Life. It was exciting and really fun to play. But I finished HL1 and HL2. I played them because they were fun and the story was engaging. I also played SWG. In a persistent world, you can't be the Big Damn Hero like you were in Half Life. Technically Half life IS a role playing game. You play the role of Gordon Freeman. Would I pay a monthly fee to play it? Nope.
Perhaps we should look at it from another perspective. Is there any FPS out there that you would pay a monthly fee to play? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben_Wayde
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well the idea with MMORPG's is to create yourself, live and adventure in a persistant, growing online world. FPS's are short term, single servings of gaming in a way... the only way you really interact is.. well, killing each other. Or working together to kill each other.
MMORPG's are more leisurely and overall just another place to call 'home' in some ways. Some go to pubs, some go online and adventure together, some do both 
I guess what I'm saying is, you pay for MMORPG's because of the persistant and growing online world you choose to inhabit in your spare time where there are many things to do, people to interact with and so on. FPS? Shoot others.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergeant_x
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 602
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: Re: The 'M' word |
|
|
| Vadarios wrote: | | sergeant_x wrote: | | I just don't get this obsession with the leveling up paradigm.... |
Actually it's the realization that there must be an incentive to continue paying to play. If there is not then the whole idea of the MMO is pointless. |
This concept seems nearly impossible to communicate to some of you, but I'll try again. There's still plenty of incentive to play. There's still plenty to be gained. There's still persistence. There's still money, equipment, property, all kinds of 'rewards' for successful play. There's just no formal score, and no ever-ascending hierarchy of skills and powers.
| Quote: | | Why bother learning how to do it if someone can just come along and click and be just as good as me. |
Ok, this is the point everyone keeps missing, but I'll go over it again. The first thing that becomes apparent when you drop artificial skills from the equation, is that the gameplay in most of these MMOs is painfully dull and simplistic. If we just removed leveling and left everything else the same, these games would still suck. That's why we're looking at using real gameplay to resolve actions. It might be FPS style, it might be puzzle solving, it might be turn-based strategy, it might be some arcade-style mix of genres, many, many ways we could go here. Different kinds of gameplay would be appropriate for different kinds of tasks. The point is, there would be real gameplay involved, not a simulation of gameplay.
When you have real gameplay, you have real skill going on. Some players will practice incessantly and become masters of a particular skill. Some will learn just enough to get by. But there's still plenty of incentive to keep playing, still plenty of challenge to get better and stay on top. In fact, I'd argue there's more because there are no maximum levels.
I don't know if I can help you with incentive to play above and beyond what I've described here. If you're saying you just won't play if you can't have a "66th Mal", I guess that's your prerogative. But honestly, that's just the kind of 'meta' motivation that makes current MMOs seem so silly. I want to play a game where players, and thus characters, are driven by goals that are internal to the game world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmc0607
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This concept seems nearly impossible to communicate to some of you, but I'll try again. |
No, it's communicated. It's just a bad concept, that's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergeant_x
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 602
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bmc0607 wrote: | | No, it's communicated. |
Clearly it's not, because you keep asking the same questions over and over, questions that miss the point entirely. You can't seem to get past the assumption that the gameplay will be bone-simple and easily mastered, that a 'newb' will be able to pick up a walk-through and be just as good as a vet. Further, you assume that any attempt at bringing FPS style mechanics into a roleplaying game will then mimic every aspect of current FPS games.
These are natural assumptions to make, I guess, and those of us suggesting changes to the status quo have the responsibility to explain ourselves clearly. But the fact that these same questions keep coming up, tells me I haven't answered them sufficiently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Owain
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The objection that I have to a no xp, no class/skills game, particularly in a game like Firefly is that it does go against ensemble group dynamic that is a big feature of the show. Wash is a expert pilot, but Zoe is the Warrior Woman, and when Wash tries to take her place in War Stories, both he and Mal nearly die because of it at the hands of Niska.
If there are no skills or no classes, no xp, what differentiates a Kaylee from a Jayne? Everybody can do everything. Nobody is special in their chosen field.
That is just not the game that Firefly Online should be. If you want to be the ships doctor, you should train up for that, and know that because of that choice, you cannot now become the ship's engineer. You have to develop your character to fit a Role in this Role Playing Game, or at least that is my opinion.
_________________
To the everlasting glory of the infantry... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergeant_x
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 602
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Owain wrote: | The objection that I have to a no xp, no class/skills game, particularly in a game like Firefly is that it does go against ensemble group dynamic that is a big feature of the show. Wash is a expert pilot, but Zoe is the Warrior Woman, and when Wash tries to take her place in War Stories, both he and Mal nearly die because of it at the hands of Niska.
If there are no skills or no classes, no xp, what differentiates a Kaylee from a Jayne? Everybody can do everything. Nobody is special in their chosen field. |
Ahh.. good point. This is another aspect where I haven't been clear. There could still be 'skills', in the sense that not everyone could do everything. Character creation could be much the same as it is now, with players picking classes (or a selection of skills) that their character will specialize in. The differentiation is the good part of the skills thing and we'd definitely want to keep it. But they wouldn't be skills that determined your competency. More like gateways that allow you to peform a certain task or not.
But I think we could also go without these limitations and I still think it would play reasonably well. Players will be better at some games and worse at others. Players particularly skilled at certain roles would be prized crew members and sought after by the better crews. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergeant_x
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 602
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| One other feature of this sort of 'player-skill' based system. We could keep statistics on players and use that as a kind of rank, an indication of how good they are at the various games. This would work as a resume of sorts when you are looking for work as a member of a crew. Having a really high ranking in a given mini-game would be a great calling card for players looking to get on with the better crews. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmc0607
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sergeant_x wrote: | | bmc0607 wrote: | | No, it's communicated. |
Clearly it's not, because you keep asking the same questions over and over, questions that miss the point entirely. |
Believe that I'm all over the point. I've run up and down the point. The point is covered in my footprints. You're just not listening, that's all that's going on here. And you got tired of trying, which is why you started a new thread to hit the "reset" button.
| Quote: | | You can't seem to get past the assumption that the gameplay will be bone-simple and easily mastered, that a 'newb' will be able to pick up a walk-through and be just as good as a vet. Further, you assume that any attempt at bringing FPS style mechanics into a roleplaying game will then mimic every aspect of current FPS games. |
Assume nothing. It will happen. If the game is "skill-based," meaning there is no IN-GAME measure of acquired skill, and it's measured by what the player brings, guess what? The PLAYER can bring all kinds of things on day one--including third-party aim assist programs, and the like. They can read hint manuals, download maps, practice in other FPS games, and all without paying a DIME into the game...
And then on Day One, they come in and are directly competitive with people who've been playing (and PAYING) for a year. Those people have no tangible advantage other than being "familiar" with the game. That's it. And a person can get just as familiar with ANY game in a VERY short amount of time. So that advantage vanishes in three months, tops.
So why pay to play it? There are PLENTY of games that work on similar ideas of "skill." They are also entirely free to play. Why in the name of holy hell would anyone pay, when the EXACT same experience is available for free in a thousand other places and in much better quality?
| Quote: | | But the fact that these same questions keep coming up, tells me I haven't answered them sufficiently. |
That's a vastly different statement from saying that you've answered them, but people are just impossible to communicate with.
What you're not getting is that ALL you are doing--ALL, the ENTIRETY of what you are doing--is removing a reward structure.
You're not replacing it with another. You're not adding new ones. You're just taking one away. This isn't adding ANYTHING to gameplay, it is ONLY taking away. You're not talking about changing the BALANCE between various reward structures in the game. You're not talking about DE-EMPHASIZING the importances of levels. You're talking about REMOVING them, and nothing else.
THAT is the problem. You remove it, believing you've removed some horrible problem. You haven't. The "problem" is rooted in the way certain PLAYERS choose to play THEIR GAME. IF (and that's a big if) the game exclusively caters to that style, that's one thing. But the problem there isn't that they have levels--it's that they ONLY have levels.
The "problem" is the playstyle, and the only way to remove it is to exclude players of that playstyle. Bad move. Because the reward structure that those players love isn't just for them--it is also a portion of what motivates the other players, as well. It just has a different place in the balance.
You're solving nothing by removing it. Nothing. Not a thing. No single thing is solved, nor has any evidence been presented that approaches a hint of a wisp of a suggestion of some problem being solved by the removal of a game mechanic like this. All you accomplish is that now, when the same problem comes up again, you have one less tool to use to balance it. Good job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergeant_x
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 602
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bmc0607 wrote: | | Believe that I'm all over the point. I've run up and down the point. The point is covered in my footprints. You're just not listening, that's all that's going on here. And you got tired of trying, which is why you started a new thread to hit the "reset" button. |
Cute. I moved it over here mostly to keep from bogging down the twitch thread with an yet another attempt to convince you that the sky won't fall if we dump the skill-building nonsense.
| From the Twitch thread wrote: | | Quote: | | The reward for the playing the game a lot is that you'll get better at the game and have an advantage over new players. Nothing will limit how good you can get. |
Again, crap. How "good" can you get at the game? The GAME limits how good you can get, I'm sorry to tell you. And in order for the game to be even remotely manageable, it's gonna be somewhat limited. You're just not engaging reality at any point in this stuff. |
Clearly we live in a different reality. I don't know where you get this notion that skills 'plateau'. The only place I've seen that dynamic is in these crummy systems they use for MMORPGs, the ones I want to change. With real skills, as a opposed to the simulated variety, there's always something more to learn, always some way to make your game a little better. And there's always someone better at the game to challenge you. That blatant fact seems to defy you entirely, and since you're main argument against player-skill based games is this hypothetical 'plateau', it's hard to take you seriously.
Ultimately, this whole debate centers around one central issue. It's the other reason I started a new thread.
| Quote: | | In a level-based system, even if you read all the hint guides and have all the cheats, you STILL have to put in time and work--you still have to contribute a reasonably similar amount of time and money--to be competitive with other players. |
WHY on earth do you consider this a good thing? This is what breaks my brain. I seriously don't get the devotion to this bizarre kind of 'work ethic'. I don't play games to "put in time and work". I play games to have fun. Why someone would want to play a game that deliberately requires an "investment" of drudgery before you can even play the game in earnest, is beyond me. Why should someone should be penalized merely because the haven't been standing in line as long as you (or 'putting in time and work' as you put it)?
This isn't a job. It isn't a school. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not a pain in the ass. I wouldn't play a grinding game if it was free and I sure as hell won't pay for the privilege.
Last edited by sergeant_x on Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Owain
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sergeant_x wrote: | | Owain wrote: | | If there are no skills or no classes, no xp, what differentiates a Kaylee from a Jayne? Everybody can do everything. Nobody is special in their chosen field. |
Ahh.. good point. This is another aspect where I haven't been clear. There could still be 'skills', in the sense that not everyone could do everything. Character creation could be much the same as it is now, with players picking classes (or a selection of skills) that their character will specialize in. The differentiation is the good part of the skills thing and we'd definitely want to keep it. But they wouldn't be skills that determined your competency. More like gateways that allow you to peform a certain task or not.
|
Is your skill set fixed at character selection, or can you change it at will?
I don't much care for a fixed skill set at creation or class style games because once you pick your skill set/class you are stuck with it. In a game like UO, I can build skills that I use over time, but if I elect to do something different, I build a different skill set. But that is a difficult and time consuming process not to be entered into lightly, as learning a new skill set takes time, and has to be at the expense of your existing skills (assuming I have reached my total allowable skill point allocation).
If you can change your skill set at will, I don't care for that either, because with no xp required for an individual skill, again you have no real differentiation between characters. This morning I am Kaylee, overhauling the engine. Once that's done, I switch skills painlessly, and now I'm Wash, piloting Serenity to our next destination.
This kills the role playing aspect of the game.
| Quote: |
But I think we could also go without these limitations and I still think it would play reasonably well. Players will be better at some games and worse at others. Players particularly skilled at certain roles would be prized crew members and sought after by the better crews. |
Again, if the different tasks are controlled by just the mini-game thing, for want of a better term, what's to prevent a player from being able to do the pilot activities AND the engineer activities AND the doctor's activities, etc? Again, no role differentiation, no RPG.
The game need to ENFORCE roles somehow. A skill system where skills are learned slowly over time and there is a limited number of skill points available to be allocated to many potential skills does just this. To be reasonably good at anything, you have allocate your available skill points to a limited number of related skills. This enforces character differentiation. By making the skills develop slowly over time, changing your skill set is not a trivial decision that can be done quickly. Again this forces character differentiation, but at the same time does not irrevocably lock a player into a particular role in the way a class game system does.
I understand your reluctance to commit to another xp grind, but if Firefly is going to be an RPG, I don't see how to avoid it.
_________________
To the everlasting glory of the infantry... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergeant_x
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 602
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Owain wrote: | | Is your skill set fixed at character selection, or can you change it at will? |
Hmmm... I guess I was thinking fixed. In retrospect, for the sake of argument at least, I want to stick with the position that any player could do any skill, assuming they had access to it in the game. (* Which is another important consideration - you can't pilot a ship if you don't own a ship or no one will hire you.)
I don't think there'll be the monotony you're suggesting. People will still specialize, as they do in real life, and if they don't... well, they don't, also like it real life. I've actually found these kinds of environments (where characters are defined with only few distinguishing stats) more friendly to roleplaying. Without the stats/levels/classes stuff to lean on it gets much more personal. Instead of identifying a character as a "third level fighter" you might say "it's that guy who runs guns through reaver territory - I heard he's a hell of a shot." Sure, you could have these same kind of associations in any RPG, but without the easy labels it starts to become a matter of identifying who a character is, rather than what they're stats say they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Owain
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In retrospect, for the sake of argument at least, I want to stick with the position that any player could do any skill, assuming they had access to it in the game. |
Well that would pretty much a deal breaker with me. If Firefly the series had YoSafBridge, Firefly the game would inevitaby have MalZoeKayJayneBookWash with everyone being able to do everything, and nothing to distinguish one player from another.
That, as has been mentioned elsewhere, is not a persistant Role Playing Game, but a persistant First Person Shooter, for want of a better term.
In fact, why even bother making it an online game? They may as well make it a single player game, because since everyone can do everything, there is little to encourage interaction among player, unless you just want a mass of bodies for zerging.
"This is not the game we are looking for. You can go about your business. Move along...Move along..."
_________________
To the everlasting glory of the infantry... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
