[MUD-Dev] Level Grind - alternative

[Brendan O'Brien]

darksuit wrote:
> Brendan O'Brien wrote:

>>   1) Characters are developed in a family-based system.  You
>>   select the general traits you want for the starting parents,
>>   and the game will randomly create children based on these
>>   stats.  Stats are not equal for all characters (some will be
>>   naturally stronger or faster than others), but the player will
>>   be far more important than the stats.

> I think that the randomness of having different stats is one of
> the things that makes the tabletop character creation system a
> little more unique.  Knowing that all the characters in your party
> will have different advantages and disadvantages. One of the
> things I really liked about SJ's GURPS was that if you really
> wanted those higher stats you had to take the disadvantages and
> flaws. This is also one of the things that I liked about Fallout,
> and Fallout2. That even you advantages could be disadvatanges.

> The biggest flaw that I can thinkof to a system where you choose
> certian things to gain a particular advatage or disadvantage is
> that the Munchkins will figure out which stats are the better ones
> for each class/race/character type. Those who will sit there and
> reroll and reroll till they get the best stats that they can. SWG
> made a good attempt to get around this by allowing the characters
> to adjust their stats as often as they wanted, this helped with
> moving between all the different types of professions.

In the system I am describing, you would not have nearly as much
control over the precise stats, nor even know a character's true
potential at an early age.  I'm all for letting them mix and match
potential parents to try to get the best possible stats for the
children, as I think that would be a game in and of itself for many
of the players.  However, I'm trying to get away from two ideas
common in current games:

One is that all characters need to be the same.  In almost every
game I've played recently, just about every character of a given
race has the same stats.  There's no variety and very little to
differentiate bewtween characters.  In a game where your character
is permanent, it's hardly fair to have some be stronger than others,
which is why this has become a necessary evil.  However, with
characters set up in a family system such as this one, the options
are far more open.  A player may have a below average (stat-wise)
character now, but that would only encourage him to improve the
family genes so that the future off-spring could be among the best.

The other idea I'm trying to get away from is that the character
attributes tend to be more improtant than player skill.  By making
strategies weigh much more heavily on the outcome of a conflict, a
good player can still enjoy success, even with an inferior
character.

>>   3) Advancement: The initial advancement occurs during the
>>   childhood of new characters.  While they would be too small to
>>   actually adventure and hunt effectively, players could send
>>   their children to various schools to help them develop.
>>   Different schools would be focussed on different aspects of
>>   their development, with some for mental research, some for more
>>   physical activity, and some with a more broad spectrum.  The
>>   idea is that much of the development of a character will occur
>>   during the years of their life while you are not actively using
>>   them.  In other words, the player could be out hunting orcs
>>   with the father, while the son is studying to be a mage back in
>>   town.  They will continue to improve on their own until old age
>>   begins to take its toll.  A character can be sent back to
>>   training facilities to stay sharp or improve a bit more
>>   quickly, but he would never need the training to get in the way
>>   of the actual adventure.

> One of the things that I really liked about COH is that when you
> end the Training section you are already level 2. Numbers can play
> a good role in manipluating the psyche of the gamer, the simple
> preception of moving up levels quickly will go a long way to
> player retention. Had your wife gone quickly up levels, even those
> first few, do you think she would have stayed or been more
> excited. I think at the core we all like the constant change of
> Character devlopment. One of the old gripes in going from Table
> top to Computer is that in the Table Top you could do just about
> anything. Granted this is nigh impossible to simulate with a MMO,
> so we work at limiting the actions of the players to make some
> things predicable. This predicablity is really what we are
> complaining about. The knowing of the fact that you are going to
> do the same thing over and over again only to move on to the next
> thing that is also the same thing with a new disguise. Same
> monster different action.

Well, looking at it from a different perspective, level advancement
is really just a disguised timesink - one that I feel more and more
players are starting to see through.  Sure, your character may seem
a lot stronger as you go from level 5-20, but what has really
changed?  In most games, you are still doing the same attacks in
combat, with very little variety throughout the life of your
character.  You can start off hitting baby bunnies for 5 points a
swing with your training sword and end up hitting giant rabid
bunnies for 65 points with your shining greatsword of doom!!
However, usually the monsters you fight gain in power more quickly
than the player, making you actually less effective than you were
before.  Compared to other players who are at a lower level, you
would certainly be stronger, but that's about it.  In the grand
scheme of things, most players eventually come to realize that the
next orc chieftan over the ridge isn't really any different than the
one dead at their feet.

Most current games are designed with the primary goal of the game to
be advancing in levels and collecting equipment.  Been there, done
that...  I'd much rather play a game where more time was spent on
making combat and adventure actually fun, than creating a variety
(term used very loosely) of hunting spots to accomidate a wide range
of levels.  If the game is actually *fun* to play, I doubt players
would mind not getting their "dings" after they kill the 4,000th
squirrel.  ;)

I won't argue that going up levels can make players feel as though
they are accomplishing something in the game.  It does, and it can
be very effective, especially to those who are not yet worn out by
the treadmills.  However, I really think developers are missing the
boat when it comes to expanding the market for these games.  No
matter how quickly she advanced, my wife was never going to get into
Camelot.  I actually managed to get her up to level 3, but hitting
"hotkey 1" over and over to kill rats at level 1, just wasn't much
better than hitting the same hotkey to kill wolves at level 3.  All
the way up the levels, nothing really changes about combat.  Maybe
you get a new toy here or there, but the fundamentals are still the
same, especially in melee combat.  You could just as easily give an
axe to a lumberjack and let him go up levels by chopping down trees.
He could advance from a tiny sapling at level one to being able to
take out a giant redwood at 50, but what has really changed?  Just
some numbers and a larger graphics model on the tree?

Personally, I think the level treadmill is being used far too often
as a crutch to disguise the lack of enjoyable combat.  If what the
players are doing is inherently boring, at least we can make them
think they are making progress, right?  Why not try to change the
fundamentals of the system, and make actually playing the game
something the players truly enjoy...

>>   4) Advancement part 2: While characters become combat-ready
>>   very early, there are other types of advancement besides skills
>>   and hit points.  Reputation and valor are significant goals in
>>   this game design, as achievments by a given character are meant
>>   to be very important.  Since all characters will die at some
>>   point, what they do during their lives becomes more important.
>>   Are you Torrin the slayer of multiple dragons?  Perhaps Lourid,
>>   the simple farmer?  How about Vayn, father of 3 who gave his
>>   life protecting the town from an undead invasion.  Plaques,
>>   statues, and family heirlooms are a small sample of ways you
>>   can enable the legacy of the warriors to live on.  Instead of
>>   relying on a boring treadmill to be the focus of the game, the
>>   purpose instead is to have fun on dangerous adventures.

> I think that this is a good point that what a character does in
> his/her life is very important. It is what makes the character who
> they are. If they are a PKer should they get a negative reaction
> from the people in towns of the same race yet a good reaction from
> the town of the opposing fractions. PK human gets a good reaction
> from the Orcs and vice versa. This reaction is in the form of
> prices of things need to be bought two or three times what they
> should be. Or not being allowed to sleep at a particular inn or
> hotel. On the other end do you give better prices rates and buy
> back prices from those characters who go out of their way to help
> newbies, do the quests that help a town. Do you have quests that
> are alignment specific that if you do them they open up other
> alignment orinernted quests, and having more than one outcome for
> those quests that will branch. So that you can watch the quests
> that a character is doing become more and more dark as they fall
> from grace, or strive to reach closer to the light.

Agreed, and I realize this has been done in similar ways in many
different games on the market.  Of course, I would want it to be
more than an empty title which just about everyone has, which is why
I tend to think it could work more effectively in a game where
characters actually die.  What you achieve during a finite life-time
is far more impressive if it is not merely a matter of putting in a
certain number of swings on mob X to improve faction with group Y.

>>   5) Power gamer vs. casual gamer: The common complaint is
>>   today's games is how to balance the level grind between players
>>   who spend 8-10 hours a day playing the game, and the casual
>>   gamer who has nowhere near as much time on his hands.  In this
>>   design, there is very little difference in combat effectiveness
>>   between the characters of either player.  Without the
>>   treadmill, both would be ready to go at a very young age,
>>   allowing the casual gamer the opportunity to compete on a more
>>   even playing field.  Also, since characters age based on the
>>   time spent in-game, the casual gamer would be able to enjoy his
>>   character for just as much play time as a full time
>>   power-gamer.

> I would like to believe that this is where the idea of instancing
> has made a good deal of impact. As a causal gamer I can go into
> COH and play a small instance and not have to worry about someone
> else jumping in and getting in the way or training an evildoer
> into me while I am not looking or AFK.

CoH certainly seems to be to poster child these days for making the
game more friendly and enjoyable to the casual gamer.  I really do
need to give it a shot.  ;p

My only problem with instancing is the concern with the effect it
has on the virtual world as a whole.  There's a whole other topic
going on for that right now though, so I won't branch off into it
here.  :)

>>   6) Power gamer part 2: Your typical power-gamer is generally
>>   very competitive by nature.  In current games, they are far
>>   more willing to spend the time on the treadmill because it is
>>   the only way they can really differentiate themselves from the
>>   rest of the pack.  With this design concept, the question must
>>   arise as to how to keep them entertained enough in order to
>>   satisfy their competitive urges.  While striving for valor and
>>   enhanced reputation will help a bit, most gamers of this type
>>   need to know there is some way they can be better at fighting
>>   than your average player.  In current games, you see this come
>>   out with character templates for both skills and equipment,
>>   along with discussions on fighting techniques in games that
>>   actually involve more player skill (such as Puzzle Pirates).
>>   As my intention would be to put less emphasis on skills and
>>   equipment, with more importance placed on player skill, I would
>>   certainly want the latter to be the hook to keep the
>>   competitive gamers going strong.  However, by player skill, I
>>   do not mean twitch-based fighting, as I have never really felt
>>   that was appropriate for most rpg's.  The skill I'm looking for
>>   is more mental, with a wide variety of combat strategies
>>   available for the players.  The days of pressing the attack
>>   button and watching the fight go by need to end, and there are
>>   a significant number of ways in which to do so.  I won't go
>>   into more detail on this particular item, other than to say it
>>   would be extremely important to test thoroughly to ensure
>>   combat remains both fun and exciting.  Since you don't need to
>>   kill hordes of critters to level up quickly, you should be able
>>   to allow more time to be spent in actual combat without
>>   frustrating the players.  Most fights I have been in which took
>>   longer than normal were much more fun in the end..  as long as
>>   we weren't wasting prescious time from our level grinding
>>   techniques. > Yes Power gamers, Min/Maxers, and Munchkins are
>>   all a part of the seven second attention span. How do you keep
>>   them entertianed to reatain them with out alienating the
>>   casual. The Avid gamer is going to spend lots of time doing the
>>   stupid things over and over. I went back and looked at some of
>>   the things that I used to do as a DM in the early days of
>>   playing Table Top games about how I used to deal with these
>>   same people in my own games. You can't always just say no i am
>>   sorry you can't play. While it would be nice, its not saying a
>>   lot about the skill of my own DMing skills. It was better to
>>   set up the scenerios and let them off themselves being over
>>   zealous. Here is where I do like the COH aspect of Debt. If you
>>   are going to do stupid things then by all means do them but its
>>   going to take you longer to advance then the person who is
>>   going to think more about what they are doing.

> One of the other things was that when you start playing a game at
> a low level in a table top game you dont say to your self well I
> am level one lets go kill some (insert monster type here) you did
> it by taking on the adventure and going on the mission, whether it
> was go investigate the locate dark tower and what might be lurking
> in it, or spying on the local mob bosses. One thing that the newer
> D20 system has done is to go back and show that you call the
> monster anyhting you want, the level and what it can do in
> comparision is what matters.

I think the main difference between these games and table-top games
is the people you play with.  In a small group of friends, you can
go out on that level 1 adventure and have a blast.  The adventure is
the point, more so than trying to gain levels as quickly as
possible.

With MMO's, there is a natural tendancy to compare yourself to those
around you.  It sucks to be level 5 trying to explore the beginning
caverns when everyone else is level 25, exploring parts of the world
you wouldn't survive 10 seconds in.  Once you add the element of
thousands of other players, I really think the focus of the game
shifts.  Instead of having a group of friends as level 1 players
having a good time exploring the beginning dungeon, you end up with
people trying to do whatever it takes to level as quickly as
possible to keep up with the Jones's.  This is the problem I would
like to get away from.  I really want the focus to shift from
gaining levels to having fun adventuring again.  Even in a large
scale game, I believe it can be done.

> As I am typing this out the one thing that NO ONE does at the
> moment that might render all of the power gamers a moot point is
> going back to a concept that we used to do in the old table top
> games. Start at a Higher level.  The way this might work for a MMO
> is that a gamer would be able to create a new character from
> scratch at a particular level based on the number of months that
> they had been a member of the service. This would allow a gamer
> who only played ont he weekends and never really made it to a
> paricualr level to create a character that started at a level
> equal to 1/4 of the total number of levels attainable in a game or
> less. So after 3 months John has been playing and has not really
> gotten more than 15 levels on this Warrior, and would like to try
> a rouge but does not want to spend another 3 months getting to 15
> only to find out he doesn't like playing a rouge. So John has the
> ability to create a new character starting at 15 right out of the
> gate. Because he has been a member of the system for 3
> months. After 6 months he might be bale to create a character at
> 30, then at 9 months he can create charactes that start at 60, and
> after a year of being a part of the service he can create
> characters at 99 . At the end of the Year he would be able to
> start from any level he wanted. Some people do like starting from
> nothing but others might like a small head start. It would also
> give that guy or gal a way to experience the higher level missions
> without spending lots of time, but the same amount of money.

> Really when it all comes down to it, this is about player
> retention. If you create a way or reason for the Casual player to
> come back time after time then they will spend the money and
> stay. A level reward for being a loyal customer might be a good
> way to keep them coming back.

Camelot has done something similar in allowing those with level 50
characters to start new characters at level 20 or 30, depending on
the state of the realm.  The main problem with what you are
suggesting, is where does that leave new players coming to your
game?  You run the risk of having little to no low level characters
to group with or learn the game from, possibly scaring off future
customers.  You are also left with a large amount of wasted content,
created simply for the newbies to level off of.  I have to think it
would be more efficient to allow virtually all content to remain
usuable by the players, no matter how long they continue to play the
game.  You can always add more in an expansion.  ;)

>>   7) Death: As you probably noticed if you bothered reading this
>>   far, death is permanent.  While I would never even consider
>>   such a course in a treadmill-based game, it seems much more
>>   natural in a game where characters will die from old age
>>   anyway, leaving their children to carry on the family name.
>>   The pain of losing a favorite character would be offset by the
>>   opportunity to continue on with his offspring (and not losing
>>   much if anything in the way of combat effectiveness).
>>   Furthermore, while death from combat is possible, I would not
>>   want it to be very likely.  Most normal creatures would be
>>   satisfied to incapacitate a player, without bothering to go
>>   through with the killing blow.  However, the most deadly and
>>   dangerous creatures could be known for their ability to deal
>>   the death blow quickly and effectively, making those who
>>   succeed in killing them truly worthy of their valor.  In
>>   general, I would want the death blow to take several seconds to
>>   land, with any hit allowing for an interrupt to the process.
>>   Therefore, if Joey falls while fighting a group of orcs, the
>>   rest of his group can try to fend them off while the healer
>>   drags his unconscious form off to safety.  However, if they are
>>   unable to get to him in time, the orc king may succeed in
>>   killing his long time enemy (likelihood to be killed by a
>>   certain type of creature could be directly tied in to your
>>   reputation for killing them).

> Death really is a funny thing. One of the table top systems that I
> can think of "Role Master" had a nice complex and realistic system
> so that you could die of a hang nail. This is one of the things
> that turned me off from the system itself. While in most systems
> people like the idea of being super heroic and that the idea that
> they dont have to worry about starting from scratch, allowing them
> to take that little risk to do that stunt that they would normally
> not do. Now in a table top game system, you only get the one life,
> however you are also playing with a tight knit group of friends
> who also understand that each person is a part of that
> team. Forcing people into a gorup will not foster that same
> relationship regardless of how hard you try. You would almost need
> a sort of Match.com for game groups. Though there are also going
> to be those who like to do the adventure alone. Pets and Hirlings
> are good ways to help offset the power levels of those who dont
> want to group but still want to do those missions.

Well, my intention was not that dying while hunting would be very
common, only that it is always possible.  The odds are that if you
are out adventuring solo, most monsters you face would not be likely
to do more than incapacitate you.  The more dangerous creatures
would be likely to have many smaller minions nearby, making it less
likely for a solo player to get to them.  Even so, with half-decent
pickup groups, I would expect the majority of characters to die of
old age.  However, as I stated earlier, I would not want the valor
associated with difficult achievments to be so commonplace as to
lose their meaning.  When the town fathers get together to try to
rid their villiage of a dangerous dragon, it makes sense that they
know some of them might never return.

To me, these types of events will help foster a community and bring
them all closer together.  Perhaps your character is not one to join
the fight as well, but even the farmers and blacksmiths can feel a
part of the event if everything is tied together effectively.
Providing supplies for the warriors while the town gathers to see
them off can bring a whole new level to this experience.  In a game
where the characters are permanent, who really cares if these guys
are risking their lives in defense of the town?  Win or lose, you
already know you will see them tomorrow.  However, the threat of
death allows for much more meaningful situations.  As long as the
penalty for losing that character is not extreme, you can keep a
high fun-factor, while still maintaining the significance of their
actions.

-  Brendan
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev