I could see a system like that being useful in a single player game (1 level = 1 year), but in an MMO it's impractical, more for the fact that you'll have 2 people that start at age 16 and a few days later one is 32 and the other is only 24.

Back to Hawkins: Maybe I didn't phrase it well. I didn't really mean stop the ubers as in stop them from being uber, I meant stop the ubers as in keep them from dominating the landscape of your game world. Everquest was doing relatively good at this from start to Vellioius, but with Luclin, it started to become easier and easier to become an 'uber', particularly with quick leveling zones (Paludal Caverns) and the high number of zones targeting the ubers (The Deep, Ssra Temple, Akheva Ruins, Vex Thal) and it's just gotten worse in most of the other expansions, excepting LDoN. 4 out of the last 6 expansions were largely targeting only the higher end players, only about 10-15% of the playerbase.

Of course, you end up with a lot of problems with any system unless you put in caps and if you put in caps, then the playerbase is going to attain the highest level relatively quickly (every MMOG since EQ has had very fast leveling, with few exceptions) and then the highest end players are going to get bored. The lower end content is going to empty out, regardless of the fact that huge tracts of the game world were built around the early game, so then you have the option of putting in 'the grind', that dreaded thing that everyone apparently hates, but somehow seem to hate it not being there more.

This is something that Im struggling with as well.

With an level-grind system ...well its a grind.
With a pure-skill levels...someone could be come the master of all skills.

A Korean game called RF Online actually splits these up with an XP level and a level for each skill, kind of mentioned in this thread before.

So you can learn new skills, but you will hit with a low proficiency. Thats fine but once you reach XP LEVEL 30 you cant attack lower level mobs ...so that means you cant level up your new skills.

Now you can stay at a lower level until you raise all the skills for that level, but it would take a bloody long time to advance.

So what is the answer for designing a system with:

a) no classes - dynamic characters
b) no xp grind
c) skill per use but no one being the master of all skills

Anyone...anyone?

Quote:

Original post by Vanquish a) no classes - dynamic characters b) no xp grind c) skill per use but no one being the master of all skills Anyone...anyone?

Perhaps a maximum amount of skill points (you get these skill points when using the skill). You can use, for example, 300 skill points (skill max is 100 points) so you can be master of 3 skills. When all your skill points are used up and you start advancing in another skill your other skills will weaken accordingly.. Not sure if that's a good system but that's one way to avoid players becoming masters in all skills..

Aren't they all just different ways of making the player stronger as they spend time on the game?

I personally would prefer a skill-based system that gives you a numerical skill level based on your character's skills and abilities. Your level could be determined by your skill instead of the other way around; it could be merely an indication of how good you are.

I'm up for the skill based games....

however, just know how to make the player trees like a simple
"rock paper scissors" way of leveling

example:
I have a character with 20 points in my rock skill
If I go against someone with a 40 point rock skill, I would be owned to the end of time...

example #2:
I have another character with 40 points in my paper skill, I could just come up to Mr. lvl40 rock man and clobber his bum.

example #3:
At the sound of his friend being clobbered, Mr. lvl40 scisors man comes over and cuts me to ribbons...

As I'm saying, if there are always ways to combat each and every option, you'd eliminate that "leet"ness in your game.

At the same time, you would benifit those that play the game more.

On top of that, you get your all time addictive factor... diversity.

I hope this helped...

Nagromo = Daggerfall and Morrowind used such systems. Fighting in combat and killing monsters didn't give experience, actually using and increasing the level of your individual skills is what did. After a set number of skills improved you gained a level and were then able to increase the stats that those skills use. Monsters would also get stronger the higher level you are.

This was a great way of doing it since you could potentially sit there and train to raise your level without getting your ass kicked, or you could just go out and kill stuff. But really, who wants to sit there for hours leveling when you can go out and kill stuff for loot, and generally explore? ;)

Even in a class based leveling system (i.e., EQ), why would players level up so dang fast? I mean, if the XP requirements for the next level double every time, you're going to need more and more XP to level up. Right? Eventually it should take days of 24 hour a day play to get to the next level, and then weeks of 24-7 play, and then months....

But I'm guessing that games like EQ simply cap the requirement...so it only takes the same amount of XP.

Anyway, if the requirement was open-ended, and simply doubled every time, then wouldn't this be a way to restrict the ubers? I mean, the people who gain high levels in this type of system SHOULD be considered uber, since they've wasted most of their real-world lives doing nothing but playing the game.

Personally I prefer a 100% skill based system. No classes, no levels. Usage equates to increased skill. Skill gain levels off at a certain point, with diminishing returns. If I use my sword, my sword skill goes up. If I cast a spell, my casting goes up. If I sneak around, my sneaking goes up. Etc., etc. Stat gains are based on type of actions performed, so if you're using physical skills you increase your physical stats, and likewise mental skills increase your mental stats. This more closely reflects the real world, IMO. Stat and/or skill deterioration, if implemented at all, should be relatively minor, with quick recovery times. The pathways of the brain are sometimes quickly overgrown, but are even more quickly cleared back out again.

Just a few thoughts. Interesting discussion!

Take care.

My RPG system is mainly skills-based.

Skill learning occurs when you test the skill. If you succeed or only just fail, you get experience points in that skill. Generally, you never lose experience points for failing a skill test. If you succeed against an impossible opponent, it is assumed it was blind luck and you didn't learn anything, so you don't gain experience. However, you do get a temporary morale bonus.

When a skill goes unused, it atrophies: you lose experience points in it. Atrophying doesn't reduce your experience points in a skill to less than the nearest power-of-two, and it's easier to relearn a skill that has atrophied compared to learning a skill you never knew.

Unlike (modern) AD&D, a character usually has only one class. The character's class determines the kinds of skills he was trained in between birth and adulthood. Class skills are easier to learn, and you start off with experience in those skills. A character's level in a particular class is the average level of the skills associated with that class -- it's a cosmetic thing, and has no effect on the behaviour of the system. There are also cultural and racial skills, which reflect the training that all members of his culture or race can be expected to receive.

To prevent characters from becoming invincible, there are four mechanisms:

Firstly, the skill atrophy system mentioned earlier means that characters need to use it or lose it.

Secondly, using magic skills imposes penalties on your physical skills. The higher your magic skill, the higher the penalties. If a player throws fireballs at wine casks for a week, they might be very good at throwing fireballs, but a gust of wind will snap their neck.

Thirdly, with opposed skills, you cannot advance further than the skill level of your opponent. You can't more than 10 levels in lock-picking by picking a level 10 lock. That means that using an opposed skill when there's no opponent doesn't give you experience.

Fourthly, many skills become more refined as you get higher levels in them. For example, you can't gain more than 1 level in "basic lock-picking": later levels are in increasing more specific types of lock. So even if you pick a level 10 lock repeatedly, that would only make you skilled against that kind of lock.

Quote:

With a pure-skill levels...someone could be come the master of all skills.

That implies that there is a reasonably attainable cap. If you have skill caps then you end up having to implement a total skills cap or people end up becoming 'master of all' characters. The problem with this is that people start overspecializing, forgoing many skills to master 1-3 skills, UO is a perfect example of this. The goal then becomes how to gain the perfect skill grouping (perfect being most combat effective).

I'm trying to avoid reasonably attainable skill caps (make it 65534), where working on that skill for 3 years straight (yes, 24/7 for 3 years) would allow you to cap the skill, but within all reason it would be unattainable. At that point, you end up with people choosing to focus on skills. With creating a bell curve for skillups (people lower skill up faster, higher gains skill ups slower), it will create a system where being an uber is attainable, but requires work. Since the goal of MMOGs is to have people play together, it also allows for people who are just starting out to gain skill quickly, catching up to the majority of the playerbase, giving them people to play with.

Quote:

I personally would prefer a skill-based system that gives you a numerical skill level based on your character's skills and abilities. Your level could be determined by your skill instead of the other way around; it could be merely an indication of how good you are.

This is actually my initial inclination. I think that people should be free to do whatever they want. I definitely think that people should have natural aptitudes though. Definitely leaning towards the strategy game ideas though, class-chosen skill aptitudes and then allow people to choose to increase aptitudes (or take penalties) to further customize their character. I'd almost consider the customization to be a more advanced option after a certain point. I'm more inclined to allow class -> subclass options, though I think that enough games have done that to make it somewhat old hat.

The more I think about it, the more I like the strategy game style character creation idea.

Quote:

Anyway, if the requirement was open-ended, and simply doubled every time, then wouldn't this be a way to restrict the ubers?

Again, this would create a 'ubers' and 'non-ubers' situation. Catching up becomes harder and harder. This is why EQ has succeeded (to some extent), the level cap allows characters to play 'catch-up'. It also creates another problem, boredom. You attain the point where you can't get any further and everything gets more and more boring. Droppable items also make EQ a game where it's easier to 'catch up'. The excess of no drop items and keyed zones makes EQ slowly become a game of 'haves' and 'have nots'. The end result is again, boredom (mostly at the high end).

Asheron's Call is an 'open ended' (at least in my understanding) game, it has problems with the 'haves' almost always being that way. It's very hard to break into the upper echelons of the game, no matter how much you play (or at least that's what I've heard from people who play it). Of course, that game has other issues, stemming from it's 'allegiance' system creating a nasty Amway-style environment where the people at the top benefit hugely and the people at the bottom just get the castoffs.

Quote:

Skill learning occurs when you test the skill. If you succeed or only just fail, you get experience points in that skill. Generally, you never lose experience points for failing a skill test. If you succeed against an impossible opponent, it is assumed it was blind luck and you didn't learn anything, so you don't gain experience. However, you do get a temporary morale bonus.

Yeah, my system is based off using the skills. I wasn't going to go with an experience point system for the skills though, unless I incorporate some form of 'insight', where you can get an auto-skillup from an event.

As for the morale bonus, I'm incorporating something else into the game, where you get bonuses for survival. Death penalty is something that is widely accepted, I want to take it another direction, rewarding people for succeeding and living. If you repeatedly succeed on tradeskill based tasks/quests, then you get the same reward as adventurers gain from survival. When you die (or fail for tradeskillers), your bonus gets set back to zero, so there is a death penalty, but it's more a matter of killing your bonus than actually penalizing the player.

Sounds almost like someone wants a communistic type environment, where everyone is equal. No?

Then why CAN'T there be "ubers" and "non-ubers"? It's a fact of life that, if person A spends 10x the amount of time doing something than person B, he's going to be much better at it than person B. Oh, well, person B can't help that he doesn't have 10x as much free time as person A, so let's penalize person A. Or give bonuses to person B?

Blah. The Socialization of the MMORPG. Heh.

Instead, why don't we make games more interactive? More involved than just killing rats and fetching and delivering items. How about solving murders? Tracking down thieves?

Make it fun for the guy who only has a few hours to play every other day. And leave the ubers to their rats and bunnies. It's all about fun, and maximizing gameplay options, not minimizing or reducing them, increases the opportunity for fun.

For everyone.

Take care.