---

Originally posted by lordpj

I agree to rigghawk.

My question is this way do I have to kill 2000 lvl something to advans my skill or lvl as you said it gets boring after 20 ore so. Whay not make it more queste or epik deed kill 1 or 2 realy hard mobs that take the same time as killing lots of smaller mobs but requiers mor skill and strategy. This ofcorse demands that as Nathan said there is less of a diferens betvin vetts and noods. a smaller difrens whold allso leed to the bosebillity to form an adveture groupe whith say 5 vets and 10 noods and being efektiv.

Allso lett this epik mobs stay dead so you have to explore to find new ones. that whold ofcorse forse the GM:s to be more creativ an constantly develop new content eaven in old areas.

Way cant an army of pesents kill the dragon ass vell as the knight in shining armor.

---

Good questions and points. (Despite you spelling )

I'm for a skill based system because it tells me that the game is being built around freedoms, not restrictions, and around more realism as opposed to unrealistic restrictions.

Yet, there are some possitives from a class based game. The good things they offer can easily be implemented into a skill based game, and should be to make it better. But the foundation still needs to be skill based.

   Something that has been striking a chored with me lately, is the number of people that seem to think levels are not a problem. Back in the day, I would more than likely have agreed wholeheartedly, nowadays, I have come to see the inherent problems associated with them. One being zoning, in that characters are limited in their ability to explore and it hinders the adventurous atmosphere of a game. In addition, it also lessens the games replay-ability by making quests or missions recieved in the past unplayable due to them no longer being challenging and/or they yield minuscule rewards because of the level at which they were recieved. This coupled with the fact that a character system using levels is intrisically unbalanced, for in a typical level model a character advances at an expediential rate making it virtually impossible for lower level characters to truely put up a good fight against one of a higher level.

Again just my 2 nuyen.

-Betrachten Sie diesen zweiköpfigen Muskel und pectorals. Haben Sie überhaupt gesehen einem vollkommeneren Probestück, haben Sie kümmerlicher Mann?!!!

I am on lunch break so sorry if someone already posted this idea.

My main objection to all mmorpg games (which I still love and played just about everyone at sometime) is the removal of some basic rpg concepts. By this I mean ice spells hurt fire creatures, fire armor reduces attacks from ice spells, etc...

If a mmorpg really got down to the mechanics of older rpg games like Final Fantasy type games they could introduce multiply waves of class systems. Though complicated to program, it would be the ULTIMATE game.

For Example. A warrior that progresses can learn to use crude ice spells, while a newbie wizard that follows along the line of Ice spells would be stronger in the ice spell so the warrior at upper lvls still needs lower lvl spells on some bosses and has to be a tank for the wizard to survive.

If you can mix and match but still have stronger solid classes the whole community would have to band together to fight. It would be EXTREMELY hard to figure out the math and formula for everything that would be involved in this, but then again you still have a diversity that would break the lvl barriers but still have the hardcore gamers/grinders moving further ahead.

Nathan Knaack wrote:

Can we come up with a character creation/advancement system that gives new players several choices of where to focus their efforts, rewards them for intelligent and diligent playing, starts them with some "out of the gate" aptitudes to be immediately competitive, and sets up a world in which newbies aren’t just insects to be slaughtered or exploited, but valuable new commodities that veterans seek to recruit, protect, and improve?

First of all, I don't accept the assumption (and that's all it is so far) that players only like character advancement games. Maybe it is true, but how do we know? Where are the alternative games that would give us some evidence as to whether this assumption is correct or not?

In fact, I think there are reasons to believe that character advancement games have some innate flaws, and thus that alternatives could prove to be fun, too.

Designing a game to have character advancement automatically means that players spend the first part of their in-game lives levelling up just so they can get to the end game which, theoretically, is where the real fun of a game is. Instead of playing the fun part of the game, players spend weeks or months training to get to the fun. Instead of implementing the fun content, developers spend weeks and months implementing character advancement content that players feel they have to grind through.

Why do we accept this state of affairs as "what players really want?"

Here's a concept I've been working on. Let players choose from among a large number of skills when they create their character... and that's it. When you're done creating your character, you're ready to play the game. No levelling, no grinding, no "low-level" content -- it's all end game from the moment you exit character creation.

This does not imply that "everyone can do everything." Because there are skills, because different skills favor different gameplay styles and thus appeal to different kinds of players, and because not everyone will choose the same skills, some characters will be better than others at performing certain tasks. A character with a lot of combat skills won't be as good at building houses as a character with crafting skills; a crafter won't be as good at making money as a character who learned financial skills; and so on.

Furthermore, content doesn't have to be graded by level. It can also vary according to how hard it is to reach through travel, or by how many players (and how many unique skills) are typically needed to complete that content. Again, a game without character advancement does not imply that every character can take on all content. It just means you don't have to spend time trying to open up the content that's already been designed for you.

Not having skill-based character advancement also doesn't mean it's impossible to improve a character over time. For combat players, there are all kinds of rewards that don't vastly increase the power of veteran players over new players: perks like rank, badges, leader boards. For the other type of competitive player -- economic players -- there's the other big form of improvement: money. Even if there aren't crazy things to buy, players will still collect money as a form of keeping score.

Finally, it's possible to have skill advancement even in a non-advancement game... but the only way to make this work is if each improvement comes with additional responsibility for helping other players have fun. When the rewards for collecting XP are nothing but more power (as in current character advancement games), everybody goes for advancement. When a reward is all benefit and no cost, everyone will try to take that benefit. Why not? Except that this leads to a game full of cookie-cutter characters.

Instead, I believe every reward should come with strings attached. In particular, advancing in some level such as rank should impose new and larger responsibilities. This means treating tactical gameplay as distinct from operational gameplay, and operational gameplay as different from strategic gameplay. Each higher level should require more abstract thinking and more time spent coordinating the gameplay of other players instead of just being concerned with one's own immediate gratification.

This requires one additional feature: players must be free to choose not to advance. If you like pedal-to-the-metal, full-tilt-boogie combat action, there's no reason why a game should force you to stop playing at that tactical level game just because you "have to" advance in level. If you're willing to take on the logistical and long-range planning headaches that go with strategic-level gameplay, then you're free to advance to seek those challenges, but if you like being a sergeant, you ought to be able to stay a sergeant.

In summary, yes, character advancement is a familiar model, and players do like to feel that their characters are becoming more powerful. But character advancement also imposes some effects that aren't much fun, like having to spend weeks grinding to level up before you can start enjoying the deepest content. On balance, I believe a game that lets you create a complete character has at least an equal chance of success as character advancement games, and I look forward to some enterprising developer giving this idea a shot.

--Flatfingers

A classless skillbased MMORPG is the route that I would like to see.

Attributes and skills would be payed for with experience. Experience would be earned by performing activities. You should only be able to spend experience on skills and attributes you use.

By allowing this kind of freeform character creation the player's feel they have more control over their characters. This also allows for a more unique and personal play experience because players truly have more choice in how they play thier characters. Classes limit oppurtunity and ultimate lead to cookie cutter builds.

As far as everything leading to or supporting combat that is true. Other activities need to be put into games in a method that has nothing to do with combat. Most crafters have to do some sort of combat at low levels just to be able to acquire minimum supplies for initial crafting. A fix to this might be some sort of investment/tax where players could work for an NPC/Veteran player that supplies them with materials and inturn recieves a share of the profits from the players sales. This would have to be done in an ingame system to keep everyone honest.

Hmmm... Actually the graph he uses is only half completed.

You cannot just compare "Flat" versus "out the gate" Because this will not give  a newbie a competitive edge. All you are doing as it looks on the chart and in your explanation is  slowing down the growth of the character, but there is no advantage that a newbie will  have  to even out the playing field. 

The only way to have a competitive field balanced out between newcomers and veterans. Is a simple problem with a simple solution. It stems from the most basic and natural example of that is . Youth's physical prowess must be pitted against a veterans experience. 

Your avatar should be able to rapidly be able to increase their stats and skillbase (be able to learn alot of skills) with a general progression that peaks off at a certain level of experience.

Here is where it gets interesting.  As you start to notice that your stats and skills experience are not growing as quickly as it did a couple of days ago you can start to tweak your character by focusing on only as set amount of skills. You maybe can be given the option to go to a training school that will show you how " to apply those knitting skills you learned initially to make some clothes for yourself into kicking" ending in reducing the amount of experience that was originally put into knitting and transfering them into kicking. Same with stats. Even to the point of being able to drop skills complete if you wish So you can train on something else that compliments your kick.

In the end what you end up is with a pool of players who are fairly new but with a plethora of high stats and a plethora of low skills experience, A middle ground where you still some of those healthy stats but you also start to hone in on key skills and dropping those you wont need, and at the end game veteran players who have mastered key combinations of skills that make them deadly in the battlefield (or the knitting hall which ever is your preference) they may not have the huge stats they did originally. But where strength has dwindle experience makes up for it very nicely.

In a game situation this would go as so:

You have a 1 month player and a six month player dueling

stats: 1 month  vs  6 months

strength: 80                  70

skill kick: 25%              50%

The 1 month  player can do 10% more damage then the 6 month player if their kick lands

but the 6 month player can land their kick 25% more times then the 1 month. In the end the veteran still has an extremely strong advantage over the newcomer being able to land more blows then the new comer with just a 10% difference in damage. The newcomer will need a lot of very serious luck to pull a win out of this. But if 2 newcomers take on this veteran it becomes quite an interesting challenge for the veteran and ends up being now a more even match of brute vs skill.

This is how you balance end game players with your new comers.

In comparison  a 3 month player stat would be as follow:

strength:  75

kick: 37%

I like the idea of a system where there are no levels, no classes, and no character progression. (Well, you asked us to think out of the box...)

Instead, I think EVERYTHING should come from items (possessions / implants / magic objects etc. etc.). I mean weapons, magic, armour, the works. The items that you possess shouldn't have any requirements - except perhaps the possession of other items. For example - only cast magic spells if holding a staff of good enough quality and not wielding armour.

This way you could change your class just by wielding different items. Maybe you could store different setups and switch between them (maybe limited to one switch between main archetypes per day?).

The upshot of this is that a n00b can become l33t in no time at all... if he gets the right items. And I should think the "high level" items would be few and far between, and cost a lot of money. Although if you get in a good org you might be lent stuff like that.

"Progression" would mean something different - the aquisition of items. You could concentrate on one type of item, but you don't have to. And you can change your mind later. To start with, you'd only be powerful enough (owing to the items you'd have) to do simple quests for "next-level-up" items. Later, though, you'd be able to work on the really "high level" stuff.

PvP might work based on giving items a point value. You might only be able to go up against someone whose total point value (as determined by their current inventory / equipped items) was within a certain range of their own. This would mean that players would (sort of) have a level, but only because of what they were carrying - so you could "impersonate" a much lower level toon at any time - rather than having to re-roll and reach a level for, say, a level-limited tournament. You'd have to include entire inventories in such point calculations to ensure that people didn't "hot-swap" in a much better weapon etc.

Perhaps, also, the points value of items could be something variable. When people discover ultra-powerful undervalued items they might vote to increase its point value (what I'd like to call "community-based nefing"). This could happen completely independantly of the game developers, and work in both directions. So, no more angry bulletin boards asking the developers to remove / add cost to things - that would be maintained by the players.

Anyway, this idea could be developed much further, but I've run out of steam for now. So, what do people think?

Outside the box? I don't know if I can do that.

I don't want a player controlled world. I do want players to be able to influence it. The idea of players having the ability to give tasks would be cool. Not quests but tasks. Leave the quests to the developers but give tools to people to give tasks. If I am a Merchant that is needing to transport my goods over then I could put up a task that could be found in on a Tavern message board "Bodyguards wanted for trip" where I could also find on the board "Caravan master organizing Caravan to X" that I could join because is same place. Allow for Inquiry to such messages and that would take to a Negotiating window. There the people could decide on the Elements of the Task and then both sides would have to agree. I can see so many possiblities to this type of system. I would also prefer no player houses but rather player instances that someone just goes to a listing that can be broken down and even has a Favorites you can put your most common Player places on.

I do want levels in a game. I don't care if they mean much. I would like to see a skill game that had a class system like FFXI but the class/level just said how well skills could be used and also opened some skills from the masters teaching to the few that go all the way with their learning. I also like the idea of skills and not items are the power options. I prefer weapons and armor to be sort of like Guild Wars but with rare Exceptional and Legendary weapons that are not sought but happen sometimes. Such as a spawn has a 1 in 102,777,498 chance of dropping one but the same applies to something crafted or someone happen to be using something for a while that allows it to have the same chance. Have what everone wants be trophies at most but mainly just have combat for making money and becoming better adventurer of players choice. I have played more than one game where I did not have magic armor or weapon because I did not see any reason to pay for it. I like the idea of getting trophies to put up in my dwelling or sell. I also like the idea of hunting creatures for parts that people are buying for all sorts of things like spells, superstitions and such.

I really do want something that makes it hard to stay ahead in money though. I know most I have chatted with hate it when money is hard to come by but I like the idea that getting money is my main drive. I might not get much excitement but if I have to be a caravan guard for 4 long trips to have enough to fund my food, armor, and adventuring kit for a couple of adventures then I don't feel like I am in a grind but have a character I actually have to try and manage and not just run off and get killed and everything is fine and dandy. I guess I want a little too much realism for most but is what makes it seem more fun to me.

Those are the closest I can think of at the moment for out of the box. Not sure how much sense they make but is what I could think of what I want. I do know that most would not want that I have known because they have told me that it requires too much thinking and work.

---

Originally posted by Flatfingers
First of all, I don't accept the assumption (and that's all it is so far) that players only like character advancement games. Maybe it is true, but how do we know? Where are the alternative games that would give us some evidence as to whether this assumption is correct or not?
In fact, I think there are reasons to believe that character advancement games have some innate flaws, and thus that alternatives could prove to be fun, too.
Designing a game to have character advancement automatically means that players spend the first part of their in-game lives levelling up just so they can get to the end game which, theoretically, is where the real fun of a game is. Instead of playing the fun part of the game, players spend weeks or months training to get to the fun. Instead of implementing the fun content, developers spend weeks and months implementing character advancement content that players feel they have to grind through.
Why do we accept this state of affairs as "what players really want?"

---

It's something that I at least enjoy. People obviously play games for different reasons. Why is the "end game" theoretically the fun part? I enjoy the exploration of the early game and the advancement of the middle game. I think I'd be kind of disappointed to reach a cap. Most of the end games I've seen consist of large raids or RvR combat, neither of which really appeals to me all that much.

franksalbe offers an interesting system. It goes along with the suggestion in the article of giving newbie players more starting power and having slower growth. The extra dynamic of growing in skills fast enough to offset losses to stats could be interesting.

I don't like the idea of items defining the power of a character. In my mind, it reduces the advancement of the character because the character is just the items. I find many traditional item acquisition tasks tedious. Boss mobs usually require organizing extremely large groups. I like them even less when games force players to wait for spawns to fight to just get the right to fight.

Hawkwinde brought up some interesting alternative models. The UNDERLIGHT advancement system is especially intrigueing.

I don't care for the "end game" idea either. I like the middle game and would be just as happy if there wasn't any end game play. Sure, a character will reach something that appears to be, for all practical purposes, and end game status. But that doesn't mean the game play has to change to something different.

Defining the middle game is important here. Just levelling isn't what I want for this play arena. I would want something more exciting, full of adventure and surprises. To "live" in the game world, but to live with discovery and intrigue.

Speaking of Underlight, which I never even heard of , I wouldn't care for that kind of advancement system. Not as a rule of thumb. However, it could be very interesting if used in specific cases, such as a "class" like druids, where in the old D+D games there was a limited hierarchy at the top. Making special "guilds" in game, where special and secret knowledges are withheld from all but those who pass the "tests". Ninja's are a classic example.

---

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by lordpj

I agree to rigghawk.

My question is

---

 this way do I have to kill 2000 lvl something to advans my skill or lvl as you said it gets boring after 20 ore so. Whay not make it more queste or epik deed kill 1 or 2 realy hard mobs that take the same time as killing lots of smaller mobs but requiers mor skill and strategy. This ofcorse demands that as Nathan said there is less of a diferens betvin vetts and noods. a smaller difrens whold allso leed to the bosebillity to form an adveture groupe whith say 5 vets and 10 noods and being efektiv.

Allso lett this epik mobs stay dead so you have to explore to find new ones. that whold ofcorse forse the GM:s to be more creativ an constantly develop new content eaven in old areas.

Way cant an army of pesents kill the dragon ass vell as the knight in shining armor.

---

Good questions and points. (Despite you spelling )

I'm for a skill based system because it tells me that the game is being built around freedoms, not restrictions, and around more realism as opposed to unrealistic restrictions.

Yet, there are some possitives from a class based game. The good things they offer can easily be implemented into a skill based game, and should be to make it better. But the foundation still needs to be skill based.

---

Dyslexia fore the win  

I like skillbased as well. I think Guild Wars is a good exampel of a good skillbased sysstem.

---

Originally posted by karliw

I like the idea of a system where there are no levels, no classes, and no character progression. (Well, you asked us to think out of the box...)

Instead, I think EVERYTHING should come from items (possessions / implants / magic objects etc. etc.). I mean weapons, magic, armour, the works. The items that you possess shouldn't have any requirements - except perhaps the possession of other items. For example - only cast magic spells if holding a staff of good enough quality and not wielding armour.

This way you could change your class just by wielding different items. Maybe you could store different setups and switch between them (maybe limited to one switch between main archetypes per day?).

The upshot of this is that a n00b can become l33t in no time at all... if he gets the right items. And I should think the "high level" items would be few and far between, and cost a lot of money. Although if you get in a good org you might be lent stuff like that.

"Progression" would mean something different - the aquisition of items. You could concentrate on one type of item, but you don't have to. And you can change your mind later. To start with, you'd only be powerful enough (owing to the items you'd have) to do simple quests for "next-level-up" items. Later, though, you'd be able to work on the really "high level" stuff.

PvP might work based on giving items a point value. You might only be able to go up against someone whose total point value (as determined by their current inventory / equipped items) was within a certain range of their own. This would mean that players would (sort of) have a level, but only because of what they were carrying - so you could "impersonate" a much lower level toon at any time - rather than having to re-roll and reach a level for, say, a level-limited tournament. You'd have to include entire inventories in such point calculations to ensure that people didn't "hot-swap" in a much better weapon etc.

Perhaps, also, the points value of items could be something variable. When people discover ultra-powerful undervalued items they might vote to increase its point value (what I'd like to call "community-based nefing"). This could happen completely independantly of the game developers, and work in both directions. So, no more angry bulletin boards asking the developers to remove / add cost to things - that would be maintained by the players.

Anyway, this idea could be developed much further, but I've run out of steam for now. So, what do people think?

---

i think the game creativity and diversity will come with time.

back when pong first came out, games were so limited that you couldnt have a story, a character, even color =D

i think that people are looking for a game that will feel real, but give them real opportunities to affect the world, unlike real life.

one day, when game graphics are perfect, physics systems let you dig holes, pile dirt, make towns...

then games will become open ended.

we just havent reached the point where players can do everything themselves.

one day, games will start with nothing, but players themselves will make them into something.

make a group, chop down some trees, make a fort =D

i think we just have to wait for technology to get there.

Very good article.

Personnally I can't think of playing a MMORPG with no levels.  It don't need to be levels per say and they may be invisible to most players beside yourself, but I need them badly.  I have no troubles to earn 200 AAs prior PoP and max at 545 AAs in march 2003 in old EQ

I don't need a flat rate myself, but I think you will lose many players when the curve become slower.  Anyway, me as long as I am soloing/grouping, I don't consider I am grinding, 10 hours a day for 45 days at UK, sure thing, I will be there (well if work allow that is), this is our camp! 

Peoples like to do more of what they enjoy...always more...always more.  Level caps are necessary, but they should not be applied on the whole game, but rather on specific zones, where everyone above says level is just that level instead.

I see no problem in grouping/soloing for the next 5 years for 10 hours a day every day I can.  Request me to raid once, and I quit right away.  Everything is about doing actions we enjoy and entertain us or at the very least actions that we can bear (like travelling if must be done).  Put 1 loot inside a raid or a PvP zone and I will turn away from that game if I feel I miss anything for my character as far as solo/grouping is concerned.

But me, I am an achiever.  I did the gamer test and it is not even remotedly balanced...it give 100% achiever and 33% for all the other aspects (socialising, killing and exploring).

Creativity and diversity are always fun and welcome, they add nicely, but I would prolly not quit about that, as long as I can hoard more stats on my character.  Always more stats...and that I see that I have the best path to reach the TOP (compare to non-solo/grouping activities).  Reaching the top is irrelevant, as long as the only persons who are ahead of me earn it by the same activities that I enjoy, that is fine.  I can respect that some folks solo/group better than me and are ahead of me.  If someone is ahead of me because he PvP/Raid/Tradeskill as far as grouping/soloing uberness are concerned, I feel cheated and I quit.

If I reach the TOP, I will quit till next expension.  Odds are that I will return, as long as my memories are good...if I recall doing stuff I didn't enjoy, I am less likely to come back.

The irony of this article is it's not "the game" that dictates how character advancement is in MMOs today, it's the players. If you think for one second games like WoW and most other modern MMOs are made because that's was the dev's personal dream was, you're living in a dream world.

Character advancement in todays games is fueled by what the masses want. Crafting in a game like WoW, as an example, is made that way I would guess because the majority of people who play that game aren't really interested in hardcore crafting. Today when I talk to to ex WoW players complain is exactly what they liked about the game when they first started.

I agree with most of what the author said, but if we want games with good player economies, and polotics I think we should keep in mind that games have to comprimise to try to attract the "casual player" or the end up becoming a niche game.

So whenever you complain about the grind or how stupid crafting is.... consider what you're asking for.

Well companies that make MMORPG's generally want you to play & pay for as long as possible so they can maximise the return on each player.

Which also means they want you to not run through the content too quickly, so we get a grind where you have to spend a lot of time doing mundane things to advance.

I think a lot of MMORPG's have class systems as the previous poster noted this is what people have come to expect.

I think its easier to relate to from a Role-playing point of view as people who have never played these type of games before can still relate to the 4 arch-type classes of warrior, thief, priest and mage.

What it lacks is openness, and the ability for new players to compete (PvP) with veteran players.

So companies that make a game that has a steep learning curve - aka EVE , need to spend a lot of effort on the learning area for new players so that people arent put off when they try the game

Going to quickly derail and then get back on topic.  Something was said that needs clarification but a lot of good stuff has been brought to this topic that is much more post worthy

 

---

Originally posted by Sevarus

/mesaid  "The skill tree/level - there is no max level in Eve for characters. While some may appreciate this, in reality, older characters that are cared for and kept training, will always be ahead of newer players for as long as new skills keep getting added to the game."

This is the MOST REPEATED BIT of NONSENSE that keeps getting whined about on these boards.

I'll NOT repost the thread, rather link it which shows in point of fact that this is NOT true. Why isn't it true? People LEAVE THE GAME. The median average of experience points in eve is around the 5-10 million skill point mark. This 'never catch up' is a lame argument to bolster powergamer's desires to keep out those who cannot keep up because they have other commitments to fulfill in real life.

It keeps getting repeated until even those in EVE parrot it, and its enough to drive a person crazy.

EVE's skill time based training has been set up specifically with diminishing returns to AVOID this, which is yet another example of how this MMO attempts to change the "norm" of the traditional grind till you drop to get the next 'level' game.

---

Yeah, right guy.  You bring your 10-15 mill SP toon and I'll bring my 37 mill + toon (and still training) and we'll see, first hand, what "diminishing returns" means, not in theory.  Also, would this not be considered a knock against the game?  That if so true, that there is little difference between a newb, newer player and veteran character, what would be the point of the skill system or even bothering to train skills beyond the very basics? 

You're point is lost here...specialization was added to Eve years after game launch.  While specialization is something a newer player should focus on, I did mention as a positive, Eve's real time skill progression + skill tree design allows even a brand spanking new nub toon a chance to participate in the game, and even in meaningful ways after a pretty short time.  This being said, that individual noob character's gaming experience will be completely unrealatable to mine for years, even the imaginary mainline toon of 10-15 mill SP's.  In fact, if you started a character today, and tomorrow the devs announced no new skills will be added to the game ever again, it would take you a bare minimum 2 years of real time, game play to catch up to where my toon is today and have that level of gameplay flexibility, not "powergaming".

Now than.  There has been some really great ideas and also gaming idealogies brought to light.

The mentoring idea is really out of the box.  Imagine that, having to find a next level toon in order to advance up the chain.  Or even if you want to be 'a crafter', you would have to find an existing crafter to mentor under to become one.  I'm guessing there would have to be some NPC's at the start and then after that, it could be pretty much a player run system.  Definately tres cool idea.

The idea brought up, a straight to it MMO where it's all about the end game.  That would be pretty interesting.  I think the only problem with one of the ideas mentioned would be the re-design issue that CoH ran into.  The thought was to have a whole wack of skills to choose from at creation and away you go.  With a combination of enough skills and limitations on how many skills, you would still end up with a class system.  The problem to this I see is that if it isn't thought out extremely well, you could very well end up with many gimped characters.  While I can already envisage contests of who can make the most gimped toon, this would be a huuuuuge issue.

Mostly, the thing some others have mentioned.  What would be the hook?  Some (and I'm one of them) love the end game, a guy mentioned he digs the middle part, some like the beginning.  I guess that is the real question isn't it. 

For this gamer, I'd have to say the actual gameplay should be the hook.  I mean, any system of toon development will really do, as long as it doesn't have the stupid tread mill, that's just not my cup of tea.  But if the gameplay was solid and there was a lot to be preoccupied with, I could definately go with the all skilled up right after the character creation window.  I could even wait around a couple years for my toon to be max level or at least uber boastable.

Maybe the out of the box idea is gameplay that is varied and doesn't revolve around character development.  That's just something that comes along naturally as you expereince more and more of the game.

> Maybe the out of the box idea is gameplay that is varied and doesn't revolve around character development.  That's just something that comes along naturally as you expereince more and more of the game.

That is exactly my point.

We've gotten to where we define "advancement" as gameplay-driven improvements to a character. Why is that the only definition? Why don't we consider player advancement what really matters?

What I wonder -- and I'm not convinced, I just wonder about it -- is whether character advancement is just one obvious mechanism for accomplishing the greater goal of player advancement. And what I further wonder is whether people are confusing the two. I wonder if we're mistaking the obvious (artificial level-based character advancement) for the subtle (player advancement in knowledge and experience).

If you could get the same feeling of improved capability without character advancement, if succesfully navigating the challenges of a complete-character game allowed you to feel that you the player are better at something, would you still insist that games have to have character advancement? Why?

I'd like to see a serious shot at a major graphical MMOG that does away with the artificial character advancement model that we've created, just to verify whether it's player advancement that people really want. If it crashes and burns, then OK; maybe I'm wrong and people really do like the level-up grind (despite spending so much time complaining about it).

...

A couple other related points:

1. Classes aren't the problem. Character levels are the problem. Having character classes isn't what makes people have to spend time grinding to earn more skills in those classes -- it's having levels that causes this effect.

It would be entirely possible to have character classes in a game without character levels. I'd be interested in seeing a game without classes, but that's more of a personal preference. For that matter, you could still have skill levels (which aren't always the same thing as character levels) in a MMOG, as long as it generally isn't possible to raise skill levels through gameplay -- otherwise you're right back into Level-Up Land.

(There's a game called "Infinity" being independently developed that actually does away with not just classes and levels, but skills as well. I dunno; that might be taking things a little too far!)

2. A game without character advancement would appear to cause players to get "stuck" with one class, or one set of skills. To change those, you'd have to change your character (assuming one character per server/shard).

But that might not be as bad as it sounds. Remember, when you don't have to spend weeks or months improving a character, losing that character (through character death or whatever) isn't nearly as painful. If creating a character in a complete-character game is easy, then when your character dies or you just get tired of him/her/it, you just roll up a new character with a new class and skills and dive right back into the game.

As to the objection about losing gear, one possible solution is to allow characters to "will" some of their gear to another character. You probably don't want to let players transfer everything, but allowing certain valued belongings to survive a character's demise takes a lot more of the sting out of switching characters.

Bottom line: in a complete-character game, permadeath starts looking like a realistic option. Just another benefit of not having to waste time levelling up -- no extra charge!

--Flatfingers

Flatfingers, are suggesting that instead of characters levelling up and gaining added to hit bonuses and greater damage, that they learn how to attack and where?

Like in, through my own experiance I learn that if I use an upper cut with my dagger against a large lizard creature, I have a better chance to hit through it's scaley hide (in this case the soft underbelly) and might even kill it with one hit?

And that since I know that, then in fighting a dragon I might try this technique? And I might even figure out that using a longer sword against the dragon is even more effective, since it's a bigger creature?

Things like that? Where the actual player experiance is where it's at, instead of some number system?