Trending Games | The Crew | Elder Scrolls Online | Lichdom: Battlemage | ArcheAge

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,844,794 Users Online:0
Games:732  Posts:6,221,884
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » forced to start over for new classes/horrible, anyone agree?

4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 » Search
63 posts found
  User Deleted
2/17/13 12:13:23 PM#21

Myself i could see more an option of you being able to sub-specc into other classes, such being a knight primarily yet then sub-speccing into a mage for other abilties, all on one character in the game that way you have more options for how you play or use that character. An yet also making it that a pure specc character that does not specc into other classes/speccs would be much stronger, and also gain access to abilities that peeople who sub-specc do not. Though the hard part is how to create enough synergy between the classes that sub-speccing would be just as good/powerful/useful as staying pure-specced. This would give people that like to roll alts that incentive to as which class you take as primary would affect how your character would play fundamentally, while allowing players that like to have just one class/character full open access to largely all of the options of a class with the being able to choose other speccs to augement their choosen primary specc. 

 

For the fact of end-game it is normally seen as the content that is at the fore-front of progresion, and so gives the best gear or rewards. Saddly even without levels you will always haave end-game as there is always going to be seen an area of the game content that is the best, or hardest, and so is seen as end-game content. Alot of this comes from the playerbase, and not the devs as the players will always be looking for what is optimum or on the cutting edge of progression. Exploration, questing, and such thigns really cann't be end-game as normally they are used as a method of getting the players ready to enter into the end-game via exp or gear, while crafting can be end-game in that it normally progresses with end-game yet does fall behind in how rewarding it is compared to raiding or pvp. At most each part of the game (crafting, raiding/instances, pvp, exploration.) can all take it's place as end-game for a period of time, such exploration being end game after new content is cleared an players are searching the world for other hidden content, quests for uncovering hidden truths ro plots, and so forth.

  waynejr2

Elite Member

Joined: 4/12/11
Posts: 3732

RIP City of Heroes!

2/17/13 12:16:59 PM#22
Originally posted by jtcgs

1. If you remove levels, there is no endgame, just game.

2. Alts are extremely important for an MMO as it vastly increases the games lifespan, even without classes its important.

3. games that had no levels, like SWG still had classes and it was great.

4. games with no classes like Asherons Call, still had levels...and it was great.

So, OP, the real problem isnt levels or classes...its piss poor game design that isnt good enough to run through more than once.

 Ah, if you had the  ultimate game the OP still wouldn't be bothered to level.  I understand you have your game issues so thanks for shoving it down our throats.

  sxvs

Novice Member

Joined: 2/14/13
Posts: 112

 
OP  2/17/13 12:28:42 PM#23
Originally posted by Asuran24

Myself i could see more an option of you being able to sub-specc into other classes, such being a knight primarily yet then sub-speccing into a mage for other abilties, all on one character in the game that way you have more options for how you play or use that character. An yet also making it that a pure specc character that does not specc into other classes/speccs would be much stronger, and also gain access to abilities that peeople who sub-specc do not. Though the hard part is how to create enough synergy between the classes that sub-speccing would be just as good/powerful/useful as staying pure-specced. This would give people that like to roll alts that incentive to as which class you take as primary would affect how your character would play fundamentally, while allowing players that like to have just one class/character full open access to largely all of the options of a class with the being able to choose other speccs to augement their choosen primary specc. 

 

For the fact of end-game it is normally seen as the content that is at the fore-front of progresion, and so gives the best gear or rewards. Saddly even without levels you will always haave end-game as there is always going to be seen an area of the game content that is the best, or hardest, and so is seen as end-game content. Alot of this comes from the playerbase, and not the devs as the players will always be looking for what is optimum or on the cutting edge of progression. Exploration, questing, and such thigns really cann't be end-game as normally they are used as a method of getting the players ready to enter into the end-game via exp or gear, while crafting can be end-game in that it normally progresses with end-game yet does fall behind in how rewarding it is compared to raiding or pvp. At most each part of the game (crafting, raiding/instances, pvp, exploration.) can all take it's place as end-game for a period of time, such exploration being end game after new content is cleared an players are searching the world for other hidden content, quests for uncovering hidden truths ro plots, and so forth.

 

yeah, that's why i would be open to removing levels if other things were changed as well.. because it morphs into a level replacement on certain things.

an example, you can only fight a certain boss if you have a certain requirement... how is that much different than needing to be a certain level to see a new zone?

or obtaining specific loot that creates a gear disparity in which other playaers also try and match that gear level.

it becomes confusing because some people seem to want you to have to work hard to obtain a certain thing, like you shouldn't be able to fight an epic boss unless you worked really hard to get to the point to defeat it, but isn't that sort of the same thing as going through the levels to reach "end game" just in a different way?

or you obtain the epic gear of doom in pvp and have the advantage over others and everyone works to obtain that gear to reach that level, again it seems pretty similar to me... just like you can't go anywhere to explore you can't just pvp or see certain dungeons/bosses, you must first do this before or reach this point or requirement.

it would seem to me if you one was to remove levels alot of stuff, ideals would also have to be changed with it.

 

as to the other point i see what you mean, although that's making it fairly complicated, i just wanted to make it simple so you can play 1 character always.

but i guess that type of thing could work as well, it's not that far off from the original ffxi system.

  Murugan

Novice Member

Joined: 4/18/08
Posts: 1567

2/17/13 12:44:30 PM#24
Originally posted by sxvs
Originally posted by Murugan
I loved the flexibility of FFXI and FFXIV's job system, and I'm looking forward to it again in FFXIV:ARR.  I hate alts, when I'm paying a monthly fee for a game I want to be attached to my character.  When I'm having to make alts and do the entire game again just because I want to play another class (or even classes I don't want to play, but need to in order to fill a certain needed role in a group) I feel cheated.

 

XIV's system topped FFXI's though in my opinion as we no longer have to go back to our mog houses to switch jobs, and in ARR you can even save equipment sets based on job so switching is even more of a painless experience.  I'm paying to play an MMO if I need/want to switch from say a melee to a ranged DPS I should have that option with as little inconvenience as possible especially when I have maxed everything.

 

 

exactly how i feel, it really takes me out of the game and having fun to start completely over with a new character to try out new classes.

i'm definitely giving ffxiv:arr another shot!! i hope they're continuing that same system.

 

 

They are, with some added improvements like I mentioned.  Just having your equipment auto-equip on class change is a very nice change.  Will remove the need for multiple macros to do the same thing (not to mention the blinking and how it slowed you down if you were trying to change on the run).

 

It isn't about the leveling, you still had to level other jobs in XI/XIV, it is about everything else attached to your character in the world.  The quest unlocks (for areas etc.), the mount, the bulk of the game which when you (in other MMO's) have to replay it for every job you want to play becomes a real chore.  This is why the FF's job system is so superior.

http://xivpads.com/?1595680
http://guildwork.com/users/murugan

  MightyChasm

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/03/13
Posts: 311

2/17/13 12:48:01 PM#25
Originally posted by MMOExposed
Originally posted by sxvs
Originally posted by MMOExposed

having levels is the problem. not the lack of dual class system.

 

 

just curious how it would work without levels? i'm assuming it would just focus on other stuff rather than levelling up?

i never minded levels that much, ever since rpg's began it was usually levelling up was it not?  that would seem odd to me to take away levels but it could be interesting.

you too hooked on the line of what rpgs traditionally had.

look at the biggest popular FPS games on the market. at one point in time, people thought Health Packs was the stable in FPS genre, until Halo came out with health regen which new aged FPS also use now.  Health Pack FPS get downrated now.

stop holding onto traditonal mechanics of the past. Levels are old. Not needed, since most of a player's time is spent at endgame anyway.

 

Just take a game like WoW or RIft which has level paths. If the levels were removed, than the whole game is endgame. from the first dungeon, to the last dungeon. Every single thing that is craftable is endgame crafting, since there is no need for low level filler crafting  which become useless to endgame players.

all progression is endgame.

Players can venture and explore anywhere from day 1, not until they reach a certain level.

That would nearly triple the amount of endgame content in most MMO like that. in Rift, the lower level events wouldnt be low level anymore, since everywhere you go is max level content.

Progression could be something thats more group focused rather than just fully indivisual like most MMOs tend to do things now days. There is so much that can be done in a MMO that didnt have levels. no more population tiers. The game would be a world. Players go and play where ever they enjoy, not just where the endgame starts.

but most developers cant see past traditions.

in the above example, I would have a character I play most, my main, and my alts can jump in and have their own progression and add to my overall group( aka Guild, or faction, or alliance, what ever) and build its own indivisual story. doesnt need levels to tell me what to do. playing and having fun, can do that for me.

 

oh well.

Aren't these levels by a different name?  I mean afterall levels are simply a way of measuring progression and without progression you don't really have a game.    

 

  Myrdynn

Hard Core Member

Joined: 3/25/07
Posts: 1386

2/17/13 12:49:03 PM#26

Horizons/Istaria did multiclassing the best ever fwiw

its still around, old graphics, but a great game and great community

 

  sxvs

Novice Member

Joined: 2/14/13
Posts: 112

 
OP  2/17/13 12:51:29 PM#27
Originally posted by MightyChasm
Originally posted by MMOExposed
Originally posted by sxvs
Originally posted by MMOExposed

having levels is the problem. not the lack of dual class system.

 

 

just curious how it would work without levels? i'm assuming it would just focus on other stuff rather than levelling up?

i never minded levels that much, ever since rpg's began it was usually levelling up was it not?  that would seem odd to me to take away levels but it could be interesting.

you too hooked on the line of what rpgs traditionally had.

look at the biggest popular FPS games on the market. at one point in time, people thought Health Packs was the stable in FPS genre, until Halo came out with health regen which new aged FPS also use now.  Health Pack FPS get downrated now.

stop holding onto traditonal mechanics of the past. Levels are old. Not needed, since most of a player's time is spent at endgame anyway.

 

Just take a game like WoW or RIft which has level paths. If the levels were removed, than the whole game is endgame. from the first dungeon, to the last dungeon. Every single thing that is craftable is endgame crafting, since there is no need for low level filler crafting  which become useless to endgame players.

all progression is endgame.

Players can venture and explore anywhere from day 1, not until they reach a certain level.

That would nearly triple the amount of endgame content in most MMO like that. in Rift, the lower level events wouldnt be low level anymore, since everywhere you go is max level content.

Progression could be something thats more group focused rather than just fully indivisual like most MMOs tend to do things now days. There is so much that can be done in a MMO that didnt have levels. no more population tiers. The game would be a world. Players go and play where ever they enjoy, not just where the endgame starts.

but most developers cant see past traditions.

in the above example, I would have a character I play most, my main, and my alts can jump in and have their own progression and add to my overall group( aka Guild, or faction, or alliance, what ever) and build its own indivisual story. doesnt need levels to tell me what to do. playing and having fun, can do that for me.

 

oh well.

Aren't these levels by a different name?  I mean afterall levels are simply a way of measuring progression and without progression you don't really have a game.    

 

 

yeah, that's what i was getting at.... the limitation on exploration makes complete sense and why it might be better without that limitation but there are other elements that incorporate the same "progression" beyond levelling up that are generally "end game" progression.

one would essentially have to eliminate all progression or it just shifts to something else most likely.

  MightyChasm

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/03/13
Posts: 311

2/17/13 12:56:03 PM#28
Originally posted by sxvs
Originally posted by MightyChasm
Originally posted by MMOExposed
Originally posted by sxvs
Originally posted by MMOExposed

having levels is the problem. not the lack of dual class system.

 

 

just curious how it would work without levels? i'm assuming it would just focus on other stuff rather than levelling up?

i never minded levels that much, ever since rpg's began it was usually levelling up was it not?  that would seem odd to me to take away levels but it could be interesting.

you too hooked on the line of what rpgs traditionally had.

look at the biggest popular FPS games on the market. at one point in time, people thought Health Packs was the stable in FPS genre, until Halo came out with health regen which new aged FPS also use now.  Health Pack FPS get downrated now.

stop holding onto traditonal mechanics of the past. Levels are old. Not needed, since most of a player's time is spent at endgame anyway.

 

Just take a game like WoW or RIft which has level paths. If the levels were removed, than the whole game is endgame. from the first dungeon, to the last dungeon. Every single thing that is craftable is endgame crafting, since there is no need for low level filler crafting  which become useless to endgame players.

all progression is endgame.

Players can venture and explore anywhere from day 1, not until they reach a certain level.

That would nearly triple the amount of endgame content in most MMO like that. in Rift, the lower level events wouldnt be low level anymore, since everywhere you go is max level content.

Progression could be something thats more group focused rather than just fully indivisual like most MMOs tend to do things now days. There is so much that can be done in a MMO that didnt have levels. no more population tiers. The game would be a world. Players go and play where ever they enjoy, not just where the endgame starts.

but most developers cant see past traditions.

in the above example, I would have a character I play most, my main, and my alts can jump in and have their own progression and add to my overall group( aka Guild, or faction, or alliance, what ever) and build its own indivisual story. doesnt need levels to tell me what to do. playing and having fun, can do that for me.

 

oh well.

Aren't these levels by a different name?  I mean afterall levels are simply a way of measuring progression and without progression you don't really have a game.    

 

 

yeah, that's what i was getting at.... the limitation on exploration makes complete sense and why it might be better without that limitation but there are other elements that incorporate the same "progression" beyond levelling up that are generally "end game" progression.

one would essentially have to eliminate all progression or it just shifts to something else most likely.

I do agree, however, that the idea of following a linear path through level specific zones is a bit crap, particularly given that it results in 90% of the game being utterly redundant at cap.  It would be nice if the entire world were open to anyone at any time, and by this I do not mean artificially lowering someones level to suit the zone.  

  sxvs

Novice Member

Joined: 2/14/13
Posts: 112

 
OP  2/17/13 1:02:22 PM#29
Originally posted by MightyChasm
Originally posted by sxvs
Originally posted by MightyChasm
Originally posted by MMOExposed
Originally posted by sxvs
Originally posted by MMOExposed

having levels is the problem. not the lack of dual class system.

 

 

just curious how it would work without levels? i'm assuming it would just focus on other stuff rather than levelling up?

i never minded levels that much, ever since rpg's began it was usually levelling up was it not?  that would seem odd to me to take away levels but it could be interesting.

you too hooked on the line of what rpgs traditionally had.

look at the biggest popular FPS games on the market. at one point in time, people thought Health Packs was the stable in FPS genre, until Halo came out with health regen which new aged FPS also use now.  Health Pack FPS get downrated now.

stop holding onto traditonal mechanics of the past. Levels are old. Not needed, since most of a player's time is spent at endgame anyway.

 

Just take a game like WoW or RIft which has level paths. If the levels were removed, than the whole game is endgame. from the first dungeon, to the last dungeon. Every single thing that is craftable is endgame crafting, since there is no need for low level filler crafting  which become useless to endgame players.

all progression is endgame.

Players can venture and explore anywhere from day 1, not until they reach a certain level.

That would nearly triple the amount of endgame content in most MMO like that. in Rift, the lower level events wouldnt be low level anymore, since everywhere you go is max level content.

Progression could be something thats more group focused rather than just fully indivisual like most MMOs tend to do things now days. There is so much that can be done in a MMO that didnt have levels. no more population tiers. The game would be a world. Players go and play where ever they enjoy, not just where the endgame starts.

but most developers cant see past traditions.

in the above example, I would have a character I play most, my main, and my alts can jump in and have their own progression and add to my overall group( aka Guild, or faction, or alliance, what ever) and build its own indivisual story. doesnt need levels to tell me what to do. playing and having fun, can do that for me.

 

oh well.

Aren't these levels by a different name?  I mean afterall levels are simply a way of measuring progression and without progression you don't really have a game.    

 

 

yeah, that's what i was getting at.... the limitation on exploration makes complete sense and why it might be better without that limitation but there are other elements that incorporate the same "progression" beyond levelling up that are generally "end game" progression.

one would essentially have to eliminate all progression or it just shifts to something else most likely.

I do agree, however, that the idea of following a linear path through level specific zones is a bit crap, particularly given that it results in 90% of the game being utterly redundant at cap.  It would be nice if the entire world were open to anyone at any times, and by this I do not mean artificially lowering someones level to suit the zone.  

yeah, i also agree with that...

maybe if someone can just make an mmo simply fun enough to play instead of where you played to progress, ie... you logged in just because it was fun to explore or fight a boss and you didn't have to progress.

i think the problem they run into is how much fun can you have with it? you explore a continent pretty fast without any progression and then what? i guess the progression is what is supposed to be the block to make you stay longer.

you spend a ton of time progressing to fight a boss, if you could just simply fight the boss you would be done pretty fast and then what... keep fighting the boss over and over?

because in a non mmo game you usually play the game for a couple months and then stop playing it as there isn't a constant progression really.

even skyrim an amazingly fun game to explore and play, you can't just keep going over the same stuff and have the same fun.

maybe progression is needed to keep you playing? or maybe they could just keep releasing new content to keep people playing instead, but is that realistic? seems alot more difficult that simply adding progression.

 

aghhh my head hurts now. haha.

 

  Magiknight

Hard Core Member

Joined: 4/10/09
Posts: 744

2/17/13 1:11:01 PM#30
If the point of an MMO is persistence then playing multiple toons is a bad idea. You should be able to play a single toon for years. Some hardcore players will still need more content, but they will be a small minority. Others will be angry because they can't experience everything the game has to offer in a month. I would hope these ridiculous people are a minority. FFXI had it right.  FFXIV will be similar.
  MMOExposed

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 6/17/10
Posts: 5975

2/17/13 1:11:17 PM#31
Originally posted by MightyChasm
Originally posted by MMOExposed
Originally posted by sxvs
Originally posted by MMOExposed

having levels is the problem. not the lack of dual class system.

 

 

just curious how it would work without levels? i'm assuming it would just focus on other stuff rather than levelling up?

i never minded levels that much, ever since rpg's began it was usually levelling up was it not?  that would seem odd to me to take away levels but it could be interesting.

you too hooked on the line of what rpgs traditionally had.

look at the biggest popular FPS games on the market. at one point in time, people thought Health Packs was the stable in FPS genre, until Halo came out with health regen which new aged FPS also use now.  Health Pack FPS get downrated now.

stop holding onto traditonal mechanics of the past. Levels are old. Not needed, since most of a player's time is spent at endgame anyway.

 

Just take a game like WoW or RIft which has level paths. If the levels were removed, than the whole game is endgame. from the first dungeon, to the last dungeon. Every single thing that is craftable is endgame crafting, since there is no need for low level filler crafting  which become useless to endgame players.

all progression is endgame.

Players can venture and explore anywhere from day 1, not until they reach a certain level.

That would nearly triple the amount of endgame content in most MMO like that. in Rift, the lower level events wouldnt be low level anymore, since everywhere you go is max level content.

Progression could be something thats more group focused rather than just fully indivisual like most MMOs tend to do things now days. There is so much that can be done in a MMO that didnt have levels. no more population tiers. The game would be a world. Players go and play where ever they enjoy, not just where the endgame starts.

but most developers cant see past traditions.

in the above example, I would have a character I play most, my main, and my alts can jump in and have their own progression and add to my overall group( aka Guild, or faction, or alliance, what ever) and build its own indivisual story. doesnt need levels to tell me what to do. playing and having fun, can do that for me.

 

oh well.

Aren't these levels by a different name?  I mean afterall levels are simply a way of measuring progression and without progression you don't really have a game.    

 

I build a house.

 

First I build the left wall.

 

than I built the right wall.

 

then I add a window to the walls I have so far.

I then add a floor and some tiles on it.

 

on and on.

its progression of building a house, but it it levels with a different name? maybe.

  MightyChasm

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/03/13
Posts: 311

2/17/13 1:15:34 PM#32
Originally posted by sxvs
 

yeah, i also agree with that...

maybe if someone can just make an mmo simply fun enough to play instead of where you played to progress, ie... you logged in just because it was fun to explore or fight a boss and you didn't have to progress.

i think the problem they run into is how much fun can you have with it? you explore a continent pretty fast without any progression and then what? i guess the progression is what is supposed to be the block to make you stay longer.

you spend a ton of time progressing to fight a boss, if you could just simply fight the boss you would be done pretty fast and then what... keep fighting the boss over and over?

because in a non mmo game you usually play the game for a couple months and then stop playing it as there isn't a constant progression really.

even skyrim an amazingly fun game to explore and play, you can't just keep going over the same stuff and have the same fun.

maybe progression is needed to keep you playing? or maybe they could just keep releasing new content to keep people playing instead, but is that realistic? seems alot more difficult that simply adding progression.

 

aghhh my head hurts now. haha.

 

You could have other forms of progression; exploration, acheivements, cosmetic rewards, skills, or just simply the fun of completing new stuff.  Afterall levels are a bit of a nonsense given that the mobs you fight are always (more or less) the same level as you (unless you enjoy hanging around low level zones showing off your shiny new weapon).  What I mean to say is that there is actually no requirement whatsoever for traditional levelling in an mmo.  

  sxvs

Novice Member

Joined: 2/14/13
Posts: 112

 
OP  2/17/13 1:18:32 PM#33
Originally posted by Magiknight
If the point of an MMO is persistence then playing multiple toons is a bad idea. You should be able to play a single toon for years. Some hardcore players will still need more content, but they will be a small minority. Others will be angry because they can't experience everything the game has to offer in a month. I would hope these ridiculous people are a minority. FFXI had it right.  FFXIV will be similar.

 

ineed, i played ffxi for 2 and a half years and only got 1 "job" to the artifect level which was beastmaster... i had so much fun just saying, "i want to try ninja today" and going and having a 4 hour ninja session and then later in the day before i went to bed i went ahead and worked on beastmaster a little.. i had a bunch of classes in the medium range and i greatly enjoyed that i had so many options available to me based on how i felt that day.

in a different game i would've had to start 6 new characters and get accustomed to all these characters... it doesn't make sense to me when it seems like it's so superior of a method to just have the 1 character.

i don't get why these warcraft games and such are making you play different characters each time.

coming from final fantasty to warcraft i was so confused by the system that i probably made 20 characters to begin with because it was such a frustrating/ineffecient way of doing things.

  MightyChasm

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/03/13
Posts: 311

2/17/13 1:19:57 PM#34
Originally posted by MMOExposed
Originally posted by MightyChasm
Originally posted by MMOExposed
Originally posted by sxvs
Originally posted by MMOExposed

having levels is the problem. not the lack of dual class system.

 

 

just curious how it would work without levels? i'm assuming it would just focus on other stuff rather than levelling up?

i never minded levels that much, ever since rpg's began it was usually levelling up was it not?  that would seem odd to me to take away levels but it could be interesting.

you too hooked on the line of what rpgs traditionally had.

look at the biggest popular FPS games on the market. at one point in time, people thought Health Packs was the stable in FPS genre, until Halo came out with health regen which new aged FPS also use now.  Health Pack FPS get downrated now.

stop holding onto traditonal mechanics of the past. Levels are old. Not needed, since most of a player's time is spent at endgame anyway.

 

Just take a game like WoW or RIft which has level paths. If the levels were removed, than the whole game is endgame. from the first dungeon, to the last dungeon. Every single thing that is craftable is endgame crafting, since there is no need for low level filler crafting  which become useless to endgame players.

all progression is endgame.

Players can venture and explore anywhere from day 1, not until they reach a certain level.

That would nearly triple the amount of endgame content in most MMO like that. in Rift, the lower level events wouldnt be low level anymore, since everywhere you go is max level content.

Progression could be something thats more group focused rather than just fully indivisual like most MMOs tend to do things now days. There is so much that can be done in a MMO that didnt have levels. no more population tiers. The game would be a world. Players go and play where ever they enjoy, not just where the endgame starts.

but most developers cant see past traditions.

in the above example, I would have a character I play most, my main, and my alts can jump in and have their own progression and add to my overall group( aka Guild, or faction, or alliance, what ever) and build its own indivisual story. doesnt need levels to tell me what to do. playing and having fun, can do that for me.

 

oh well.

Aren't these levels by a different name?  I mean afterall levels are simply a way of measuring progression and without progression you don't really have a game.    

 

I build a house.

 

First I build the left wall.

 

than I built the right wall.

 

then I add a window to the walls I have so far.

I then add a floor and some tiles on it.

 

on and on.

its progression of building a house, but it it levels with a different name? maybe.

This is kind of what I meant, all games have levels whether you choose to call them that or not.  Saying you don't have levels is like denying time exists because you hid your clock.  

What I meant however is that level specific zones are an idiotic design as they become redundant when you level above them.  Therefore, perhaps other froms of progression (rather than the 0-60 grind) should be considered that can utilise the entire map.  

  sxvs

Novice Member

Joined: 2/14/13
Posts: 112

 
OP  2/17/13 1:25:10 PM#35
Originally posted by MightyChasm
Originally posted by sxvs
 

yeah, i also agree with that...

maybe if someone can just make an mmo simply fun enough to play instead of where you played to progress, ie... you logged in just because it was fun to explore or fight a boss and you didn't have to progress.

i think the problem they run into is how much fun can you have with it? you explore a continent pretty fast without any progression and then what? i guess the progression is what is supposed to be the block to make you stay longer.

you spend a ton of time progressing to fight a boss, if you could just simply fight the boss you would be done pretty fast and then what... keep fighting the boss over and over?

because in a non mmo game you usually play the game for a couple months and then stop playing it as there isn't a constant progression really.

even skyrim an amazingly fun game to explore and play, you can't just keep going over the same stuff and have the same fun.

maybe progression is needed to keep you playing? or maybe they could just keep releasing new content to keep people playing instead, but is that realistic? seems alot more difficult that simply adding progression.

 

aghhh my head hurts now. haha.

 

You could have other forms of progression; exploration, acheivements, cosmetic rewards, skills, or just simply the fun of completing new stuff.  Afterall levels are a bit of a nonsense given that the mobs you fight are always (more or less) the same level as you (unless you enjoy hanging around low level zones showing off your shiny new weapon).  What I mean to say is that there is actually no requirement whatsoever for traditional levelling in an mmo.  

but doesn't that just shift to somewhere else? "the themepark" of levelling shifts to the other stuff.

because now i'm going through a linear path to reaching an achievement, or gearing up to fighting a boss, or whatever.

or grinding a reputation, it's a very linear progression similar to the levels. it seems.

i go to this dungeon, i wait for this drop... i fight this boss.

or i gather these materials from these places.

 

i guess i'm just not seeing how levels is that much different than the other.

the same way i can't go to a level 40 zone and do stuff at level 20, i can't go fight the epic boss until i do this, i can't compete in pvp until i go through the linear progression to reach that point. *shrug*.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13305

2/17/13 1:27:18 PM#36
It depends on how grindy the game is.  If you have FFXI levels of grinding, then yes, having to start over for a new class would be horrible.  If you have Guild Wars 1 levels of grinding, then you'll hit the level cap while you're still getting the hang of your class, so having to start over for a new class is no big deal.
  MightyChasm

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/03/13
Posts: 311

2/17/13 1:29:47 PM#37
Originally posted by sxvs
Originally posted by MightyChasm
Originally posted by sxvs
 

yeah, i also agree with that...

maybe if someone can just make an mmo simply fun enough to play instead of where you played to progress, ie... you logged in just because it was fun to explore or fight a boss and you didn't have to progress.

i think the problem they run into is how much fun can you have with it? you explore a continent pretty fast without any progression and then what? i guess the progression is what is supposed to be the block to make you stay longer.

you spend a ton of time progressing to fight a boss, if you could just simply fight the boss you would be done pretty fast and then what... keep fighting the boss over and over?

because in a non mmo game you usually play the game for a couple months and then stop playing it as there isn't a constant progression really.

even skyrim an amazingly fun game to explore and play, you can't just keep going over the same stuff and have the same fun.

maybe progression is needed to keep you playing? or maybe they could just keep releasing new content to keep people playing instead, but is that realistic? seems alot more difficult that simply adding progression.

 

aghhh my head hurts now. haha.

 

You could have other forms of progression; exploration, acheivements, cosmetic rewards, skills, or just simply the fun of completing new stuff.  Afterall levels are a bit of a nonsense given that the mobs you fight are always (more or less) the same level as you (unless you enjoy hanging around low level zones showing off your shiny new weapon).  What I mean to say is that there is actually no requirement whatsoever for traditional levelling in an mmo.  

but doesn't that just shift to somewhere else? "the themepark" of levelling shifts to the other stuff.

because now i'm going through a linear path to reaching an achievement, or gearing up to fighting a boss, or whatever.

or grinding a reputation, it's a very linear progression similar to the levels. it seems.

i go to this dungeon, i wait for this drop... i fight this boss.

or i gather these materials from these places.

 

i guess i'm just not seeing how levels is that much different than the other.

the same way i can't go to a level 40 zone and do stuff at level 20, i can't go fight the epic boss until i do this, i can't compete in pvp until i go through the linear progression to reach that point. *shrug*.

I guess there would need to be chains of events, but the above would simply allow you to use the entire map (think Skyrim), rather than have a level block on areas which means that you only ever use a small section of the map and ignore the vast majority of it at cap.  

  sxvs

Novice Member

Joined: 2/14/13
Posts: 112

 
OP  2/17/13 1:31:58 PM#38
Originally posted by Quizzical
It depends on how grindy the game is.  If you have FFXI levels of grinding, then yes, having to start over for a new class would be horrible.  If you have Guild Wars 1 levels of grinding, then you'll hit the level cap while you're still getting the hang of your class, so having to start over for a new class is no big deal.

but why can't you go through the process without starting over i guess is what i don't understand.

say you level up an elementalist to (don't know what the gw2 cap is) 40 or whatever, you feel like playing a thief.

the current system makes you start a completely new character as a thief and level that up seperate from your elementalist.

 

but why can't you start at level 1 with your elementalist character at 40, essentially you would be elementalist level 40 / and thief level 1.

you would then level up thief starting from 1 but it wouldn't be with a completely new character, then if you wanted to go back to your elementalist you could switch back to your level 40 ele.

 

then if you wanted to try necro, and say you leveled thief to 10.

you would be a level 40 ele/level 10 thf/lvl 1 necro.

since they don't combine classes like ffxi did it would be seperate from one another.

in ffxi they did it where you would be like a 40ele/10thf combined but it doesn't have to be combined for it to work.

it could just be seperate classes but with the same char and you can switch between them the same as if you had an alt.

  Metanol

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/20/05
Posts: 238

2/17/13 1:48:08 PM#39

To be honest, I like level progression when it's done right. See D&D 3rd edition (Example: Neverwinter Nights 2)

But WoW-like leveling, where you are restricted to one class and a silly talent tree? Things could be done so much better. Rift however was a shining example of taking WoW -like leveling system, modifying it and giving players just enough freedom.

I'm neutral towards completely free skill based RPG systems. They seem to always favour certain builds over anything else, and thus kind of ruin the immersion and the illusion of "freedom".

We´re all dead, just say it.

  Sovrath

Elite Member

Joined: 1/06/05
Posts: 17114

2/17/13 1:53:34 PM#40
Originally posted by sxvs
 

 

but certainly a person could in theory learn different things, no? i mean a person who learned different languages could they also not study elsewhere?

and you still have to go through the same process as if you created an alt, so what's the difference between a player levelling up a mage and then creating a new character and levelling up a warrior instead of using the same character to level up both?

that person could also just have 2 level capped characters and be on his mage, and then logout and log in to his warrior... it seems more effecient that he could just have the 1 character and choose from  his classes, i would think.

Because during game play you can't launch a series of fireballs, decimate the front ranks and then jump in with your sword devastating those who hid behind cover, then use your expert lock picking skills to open the greatest safe ever made.

As you say, ou'd have to log in on all your characters to do it. And that's just ridiculous. How many times will someone have to log in and out and in again just to make it through an encounter? Most likely they will take their one character through and make due with their party members.

To me, having one character doing everyting  is "everything but the kitchen sink" design.

no one is special because "everyone is special".

 

4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 » Search