You also have to consider the non-newbs... if I''ve invested 100 hours in the game I want to be able to kill newbies easily. That would be the whole point of advancing in a game with no npcs, surely?

You probably need to encourage newbs to gang up for self-defence. I think alot of MMORPGs have done this?

I''m sorry, but I just don''t see the point of a role playing game of any type where gaining levels doesn''t give you any advantages. I mean, what would be the incentive to advance, or even play at all?

In other words, I believe the question isn''t "*could* it be done?" but is instead "*should* it be done?"

quote:

---

I''m sorry, but I just don''t see the point of a role playing game of any type where gaining levels doesn''t give you any advantages. I mean, what would be the incentive to advance, or even play at all?

---

Take the following truths:

1) Player-killing is half of the fun of an online game. There''s just a certain sense of satisfaction in knowing that you are superior to someone else. If you didn''t want to PK then what''s the point of playing a multiplayer game? Strictly cooperative play looses its appeal after a while.

2) Newbies do not want to play the game if they''re going to get killed every 6 seconds by some other OCD high-level player. They just won''t. Discouraging new players is bad business practice and will make the online world grow stagnant.

3) Restricting PK between player''s levels is dumb. You don''t want to only fight people of the same level as you. It is fun to show your mighty prowess off to lower-level players.

As you can see, points 2 and 3 conflict a bit with each other. This is a commonplace occourance and is solved with a practice that designers call "game balance."

The solution is not to REMOVE the advantage of being "higher level." The solution is to REDUCE the advantage of being "higher level." If you want easy kills, go play one of the existing MMORP''s (the kind where game balance goes to hades in a handbasket). If you want interesting fights, play this one.

There are many logistical advantages to this model of MMORP: Developing AI and trying to maintain an economy is much simpler. NPC shopkeepers and the like often have an infinate wellspring of resources/goods and that can hurt the value of currency or "rare/powerful" items. You won''t need to design/develop a plethora of monsters for the killing.

A very sound way of doing this is explained in my initial reply to this question. Inherit in the design is the fact that a more-experienced character will have the advantage in battle but a less-experienced character has a fighting chance. The exact numerics can be adjusted to accomodate a greater spread between experience levels but the objective is to remove the word "impossible" from the gameplay.

I can see how reducing the differences between character levels would be appealing to lower levels characters, but it would be much less fun for higher level characters.

1. If you''ve spent 200 hours playing the game, being killed by someone who has only been playing for 15 minutes is hardly going to give you a feeling of superiority.

2. Newbies should learn the art of tactical withdrawal and avoiding fights where their opponent is much stronger than them. Banding together and/or using guerilla tactics should be encouraged, rather than allowing them to go head to head with impunity.

3. What mighty prowess? If lower level characters have anything more than a slim chance of killing you, you''re not really that powerful after all.


To me, it sounds like the intention is to tip the balance too much the other way.

A level 5 character should have a fighting chance against a level 10 player, if (s)he uses superior strategy or has better equipment, but if everything is equal other than the players'' levels, the higher level character should have a much higher chance of beating the other.

Just because your opponents are controlled by humans rather than the computer does not mean that the game should allow you to win fights with stronger enemies any more often.

If the reason for wanting this adjustment is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of newbies by experienced players, then some sort of duelling or arena system could be introduced where both players have to agree to the fight before it can take place.

This wouldn''t have to be the only way to fight, just the only way for characters with widely differing levels to fight with each other.

I feel like a whore for saying this, but. . .

The truth of the matter is, no matter how good you are, you''re still mortal. A game might be fun in reflecting that. It forces players to think twice before throwing their lives on the line. It encourages more ROLE PLAYING and less MUNCHKINING.

How about a simple point system? Instead of having levels or experince you get skill points for each victory. These skill points are then spent to increase a stat, get more health, purchase new skills or improve existing ones. You also keep track of total skill points accumlated. The greater the diffrence in accumlated points the more you gain for winning the battle.


But instead of making fighting to death have the game use a dueling system. Player agree before hand on the rules of battle and can even wager items against each other. There rules could be things like:
first hit
first to score 3 hits
Reduce opponent to 50% health
Knock opponent unconsius.
Duel to the death.

But make death permant and the winner gains all the loser possions.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

TechnoGoth, don''t let the winner take all of the loser''s possessions. The formal duelling system you describe is incompatible with looting. If I''m going to go to the lengths of promising to stop fighting after the first hit, then I shouldn''t have that temptation of just sticking the guy and taking his stuff. It''s a return to homo lupus (that''s a Hobbesian term, it means "gay wolf" ). So you can wager stuff (and not just on fights you''re participating in. You should be able to bet on other people''s duels), but if you die and have wealth or property that hasn''t been divested from your estate, it''s included in your mausoleum. You are laid there clutching your magic sword, weearing your fancy armor, and surrounded by your various possessions. Keys, coins, potions, etc. are all arrayed about the room.

Better to have a dead character''s stuff be buried with him, or perhaps sold to get him a tomb in the Mausoleum of Heroes. It''s a spaceless place that has an infinite number of plots, only one of which can be viewed at a time (sort of like a top score list with an image for each entry, but, you know, magical). So if you die at a high level, you get a certain amount of fancy stuff in your tomb. If you die with a buttload of cash, you get more expensive stuff in your tomb. That way, even in a game with permadeath, there''s a lasting sense of achievement. You could even go to the Hall and look at the plot that''s reserved for you, to see how fancy it is. So you can wager stuff (and not just on fights you''re participating in. You should be able to bet on other people''s duels), but if you die and have wealth or property that hasn''t been divested from your estate, it''s included in your mausoleum. You are laid there clutching your magic sword, weearing your fancy armor, and surrounded by your various possessions. Keys, coins, potions, etc. are all arrayed about the room.

I suppose some way of retrieving those items for use in-game would be nice. Perhaps the next character that player creates would be able to "inherit" some of the items, but he might also be able to sell it. I''d leave out grave-robbing, since some jerk will make a career of it.

This is really just a post about perma-death. The game you describe, wutalife, isn''t too bad an idea. I think that a good representation of skill would be appropriate to make a gulf between characters. A supertough sworsman would be largely untouchable, but with TechnoGoths duelling system, a newb could pay him for lessons until he reached a level at which he could confidently wager. That way, character development and roleplaying are both ensured, since a degree fo fame and skill would actually affect the way other players treated you. You could conceivably have some kind of NPCs or monsters or something for players to butcher, but the real focus would be on getting skills and perhaps competing in tournaments or other forms of competition.

I think the idea of tournaments came up in another thread, but I''m too lazy to look it up. It was a thread about alternate XP systems, and we were discussing hiding stats from either the player or other players. Instead of saying "Hey, that guy''s a level 48 Paladin! I''d better watch out," you would either see that he was kicking your ass or else, through conversation or research, learn that he is in fact three-time champion of fencing and generally finishes in the top ten with hand-to-hand and has a few little prizes for archery and has eight confirmed player kills, either from duels or as a result of his profession as a bodyguard. If you see that guy in the woods, you steer around, but if you see him beside a dojo with a sign that says, "Fencing Lessons - 50GP or equivalent value in items," you go and talk to him.

Character development on that level would be almost Sim-like. You could even have characters with scars from real-blade duels or monster attacks. Get yourself an eypatch and a raggedy coat to go with that top-level knifethrowing and short blade use, and you''re a pretty scary assassin type.

Perhaps you need to consider what happens in the real world between people who are vastly more experienced in combat versus the rank and file grunts.

In medieval times, the heirarchy of warriors was rather simples, the peasents, the knights, then the upper-class. The upper-class never directly fought. The knights fought, but typically they just led the army and only fought other knights. The peasents fought in droves, but never fought the knights or the upperclasses.

Lets analyse why.

Peasents were generally unarmored. Leather was considered the best they could do. The reason is because any good armor was expensive. Fight a knight with armor and good weaponry, and you''d get killed real easy.

Knights were very well armored. However because of the expense of becoming a knight, there were few of them. Knights didn''t throw themselves into fights with peasents for two reasons. 1. He had his own peasents to do the fighting for him. 2. He would get overwhelmed and torn apart by the sheer number of fighters.

The Upperclass just plain didn''t fight. In fact, they weren''t even at the fight. The most they would do is sit behind the lines guarded by their own group of knights.

Now, last to understand is the difference between the unexperienced and the experienced.

Injuries.

The more experienced were almost guarenteed to have more permanent injuries. Peasents were obviously more guarenteed to be dead, but among the knights, for each fight with other knights, you faced a risk of having that armor break and hit landing being severe. If you survived the bleeding, the limb was ruined.

MMORPGs that support PKing have to take a look into what they could do about permanent injuries if they want the newbies to have any chance in beating the griefers.

In line with the last post: damage would have to affect you physically, and stamina would play a major factor. The longer you''re forced to continuously fight the more fatigued you are, and the more fatigued you are the less likely you are to hit - and more likely you are to be hit.

By the same token injuries should cause drastic fatigue declines, which then leads to the above. So should encumberance.

This gives a pack of intelligent newbs an advantage over an overconfident veteran. He might have great armor but it slows him down; over the long haul it fatigues him quicker. A stick and move attack by several newbies would quickly wear him down, evening the playing field.

"Hit points" should NOT be a factor, and there definitely should not be a way to raise it. You can increase your physical strength, you can learn skills to make yourself more agile, you can protect yourself to lessen damage - but you shouldn''t be able to drastically increase how much trauma your body can suffer.

Everyone should have a chance to hit with a weapon; the difference should lie in damage/weapon type, personal defense modifiers, positioning and skill at range. If I come up behind you with a baseball bat, I should NOT need a staff-wielding skill to bash your head into goo - it should be good night, over and out. Certain weapons shouldn''t require any skill at all to use - but having related skills (such as martial arts training with staves) should allow you stronger defensive abilities and a wider range and speed of attacks.

And, as I''ve said before, death penalties should be more severe (I''ll be kind and not go so far as to institute permadeath) so that people are LESS likely to rush bullheaded into a fight, knowing they''ll just respawn if they die and head back towards the battlezone. Force people to consider tactics and escape plans, and encourage working in groups.

Unfortunately the design of the game doesn''t allow for ganging up on people. It is impossible to make ganging up work, so it isn''t an option.

I want things to be as equal as possible between the two fighters. Slight advantages for the longer playing player would not work. It combines the frustration of being beaten by someone who has an advantage with the frustration of not obtaining enough for leveling.

The dueling idea also would not work. It would slow down gameplay too much, and does not eliminate the problem of an advantage. It also limits the number of people that you can fight, since you can only fight people around your level.

One idea I had was to add a class system. You start off with some classes that you can choose from, and after mastering certain classes others will be unlocked. The unlocked classes would be different, but not necessarily better, than the original classes.

I''m thinking this might not provide enough incentive to achieve new classes, but this is an example.