Power-maxing is great, it''s rewarding, it''s easy, and it show''s everyone just how big and strong you really are! Look at me, Î can stand at spawning point and click my little mouse until I could kill god! And this takes exactly the amount of effort it would take to actually swing a sword! Really! Now, if you were to somehow create a power-maxing-free game, there would still be a wealth of players to play it. I kid you not. There are people out there who rely on MMORPGs for simple escapism, not phallic compensation. What does power advancement mean to them? Not much. So how do you eliminate power-maxers? It sounds so simplistic, but it''s true. Strike at the heart. EVERY SINGLE RPG, without exception has been based in some way off of the D&D format. Experience levels are the center of power-maxing evil. Even if they aren''t murder-based; allowing the player the opportunity to "repeat this action over and over and eventually be awesome" is what powergamers need to survive. There are a few obvious, but pretty wild solutions. What if we removed the premise of advancement from our player''s minds? The systems weren''t intended to work this way, it was supposed to be a natural measure of your activity reflecting your general increase. So what if you just say "NO. Make an interesting, deep character who will be your vessel in this imaginary world. Do not expect upward incline, just work with what you''ve go." Well, the first thing that would happen is all the power-maxers would get up and leave. A few would stay and try to see if they can tyame a system with no advancement by making the most powerful character possible at starting point. Would anyone stay? Yes. All of the people who are sick of power-maxing. And the ones who are sick of the whole murder-based scene, which =was designed to harbor escapism, but ended up creating a microcosm of the crappy "real world". We don''t have deep Fantasy novel style intrigues. We don''t even have the level of character development of a freaking table-top RPG, and they aren''t that impressive. As for the VERY few powermaxxers who went out on that limb, they will find a system that is balanced. Since experience is not murder based, they will have no advantages, no encouragement. If they do choose to make a tough as nails fighter, they will actually be role-playing in their own weird, diluded way. AND HERE"S THE KICKER. The above described "no advancement system" COULD HAVE advancement. It just needs to be a different kind. If combat is now on an equal plane of worth to everything else, or even lower than everything else... you could create a simple skill system with attrition. Advancement would be so subtle no one would really take notice until it had happened. With no indicators to annouce the "raising of a level" since levels don''t exist... it would simply be the occasional realization that you seem to be having an easier time at certain things. BUT there''s a catch. Why bother with a skill system if the game isn''t combat centric? Do I really need skills to tell me how to do mundaner activities? So, enough primer. Here''s the topic for this thread: What are the implications of a no-advancement system? A low-advancement system? Any system that completely discourages power gaming by making it entirely not rewarding or worthwhile? Is there really a market niche for non-powergamers, or is landfish full of crap? C''mon, you know I''m full of crap! =)

Mammary Compinsation:



Edited by - Myopic Rhino on June 26, 2000 9:25:31 PM

Dammit I tried to make a joke about the landfish''s udders, and everything went crazy...sorry about that...I think I am better w/ C++ than HTML, and I suck w/ C++...

Cool! Now the post is in tabloid format! It''ll be so much easier to read niphty''s posts now!

yeah, that''s one way to look at it ...but I ruined a perfect chance to show the landfish picture

It''s OK nazzlie. We all know what it looks like. It''s so neat what happened to this post!

Bwahahahahahaha!



Be afraid!


Anyway, on to the topic .

I actually, completly agree with landfish. But so I don''t sound like some sort of Landfish worshiper I''ll argue from the other side.

Here''s the question I pose to you: just how does the player advance if he does not advance numerically. I''m thinking that there should be someway to advance, otherwise the player won''t have much incentive to continue the game. I mean, if you can kill the super powerful evil dragon right at the start of the game, then why keep playing?

So is your prestige based off the items you have? This is ok, but it leads you right back to the "get money, buy newer weapons, kill monsters, get more money" loop.

So how do we handle this? That is the question I leave up to you landfish followers! Bwahahahahaha!

It is pretty cool. I wonder what the hell I did.

I think some sort of advancement system is a good thing. In the types of games we're talking about, the fact the characters can become better and more skilled is a very immersing thing when it's not taken advantage of. In an action game, the only way you get better is because you can physically push buttons faster. In an RPG (or whatever name we decide to call these types of games) the character becomes more skilled as time goes on, and I think it gets the person playing to feel a sense of involvment.

Perhaps, one alternative to the-more-you-do-something-the-better-you-get is to have the character make some sort of in-game investment. Like paying for training or training taking in-game time (if game time is very crucial...like if you have to do things in a certain amount of time). At least this would make it so that the advancements are in the context of the game rather than being reflective of how many times you've done the same thing. It needs to be abstract. It's not very immersive when you have to repeatedly do mundane tasks like in UO or repeatedly kill stuff like in EQ. Your advancement is dependant upon how much time you spend in the game, not what you really do in the game.

Ideally, we need a system where you can just play the game and the advancement comes naturally as LF once said...

Edited by - Nazrix on June 25, 2000 2:04:52 PM

God that''s one ugly landfish... lol. granddaddy llama

Anyways.. Landfish.. you''ve got problems I still challenge you to show me how to make attrition work in a game where it doesn''t cause some players some kind of problems. It seems to me that it''s impossible. Prove it before i''ll believe any of your landfish crap

Now.. you''ve got a theoligy with no practical application. A theory at best here Landfish. So tell me how this theory can be applied? You pose all these questions, take input, and get annoyed when we don''t think like you.. so tell us HOW you think don''t just tell us "i don''t think THAT!" we want to know WHAT the hell is in your mind. Because in this post you''ve only been vauge and generalized and given no actual specifics. Is it because you yourself don''t really know and you just love to try to force others to think it out for ya?

If there is no advancement, there''s no game. You have to be able to advance something, or you have a MUSH. They already exist! But they''re never gonna go mainstream cause they''re just socializing. What fun is it to just socialize?

How do players make money in your game? Do they invest in some sort of stock market? Do they work a mundane job? The only reason we still use NPCs to gain money is because we don''t want to make players simply do repetitive tasks that is just like life! Like at UO.. not many people enjoy what they do there. It''s so mundane to do the same damn thing again and again. So how do you LANDFISH plan to make this system work? What exactly is the "kicker" you have hidden from us? eh?!

TheGoop, Landfish doesn''t have murder-based money, either. Therefore, you either have to murder other PC''s and get their starting cash, or you make character after character and give the money to another character. Cause as of yet, he''s shown no way in which he plans on allowing people to get exp or money.. only ways in which they WON''T be able to do these things. Am i missing something here?

Naz, paying for training still takes money. To gain money you hafta kill things according to normal system. What you''re missing here is the real point. There''s stats and there''s skills. A stat is something that takes a long time to raise and most games either you can''t raise them or you pay to raise them. Skills are things you learn. Like swimming. You learn to swim better the more you swim, but only if you''re TRYING to learn. I mean, do you really learn to swim better from playing in the pool with your friends? Prolly a bit, but not much. You learn from someone else''s teaching you. You could pay for this, perhaps.. but it also takes TIME. How do you account for that? Allow players to scedual a certain number of trainings to happen after they sign off so that they can socialize now? And then what.. make sure they stay off for X number of hours based on the number of training classes they''re doing? Somehow i''m missing how this would work. In life you learn things by repetition. Yeah, it sucks. That''s why D&D had set profeciencies you learned every few levels. It assumes the character used these skills up until that time.
perhaps a deviation off this would work. You use skills, and when you level up, you can choose to advance those skills you''ve worked enough in. But if you work them too much, it gets lost.. since you can only learn so much at a time. I''m personally working on something a bit off from this that uses a learning curve.. but no attrition because it doesn''t work. I''ve been trying to finish an attrition system with my girlfriend and we keep finding that we''re screwing one set of players out. Either those who socialize, those who aren''t on much, are those who are on too much. When do you say enough is enough? There''s no right answer, each person is different.

So.. go ahead, answer some of these let me see you can actually make a system worth playing! Don''t challenge me to make it for you!!!

J

I think that LF is merely posing questions to induce discussion. He has stated his own opinions many times. Perhaps, on an online game you should actually have to sit through the training even if it does take some time. Maybe just like 10 min or so real-time. That's kind of a dumb idea I'll admit though. When I proposed the training idea, I was thinking about single-player games more...


Edited by - Nazrix on June 25, 2000 5:12:00 PM