Linear Character Development: The Problem with Levels in MMORPGs

PinWang · 2008-06-13T23:28:33

What's up guys, you knew this one was coming :) I have, for a very long time now, been a proponent of non-linear character development in MMORPGs. In other words, I'm not a big fan of the system of levels that are pretty much the norm in MMORPGs these days. In this thread, I'm going to look at some of the different aspects of MMORPGs that I think are hurt by linear character development. At the same time, I'd like to identify why this system will continue to be successful regardless of its flaws. Finally, I will suggest some ways that developers could counter-act the flaws of a linear character development system without making overly drastic changes to MMORPG design. I just want to point out that this is the Game Design forum and not the Business & Development forum. As someone trying to break into the industry, I have no illusions or fantasies about how things work or what designers actually do on a day to day basis. However, I really think that "what works" cannot be an excuse to stop us from exploring ideas- if not at work, then certainly here in the game design forum. Anyways, let's have a good discussion and try to stay on topic! The Level System So, the subject of my criticism is pretty much an accepted convention of the RPG genre: the level. This system of gaining experience to a certain point, where a player levels up and is in return awarded with additional skills or increases in stats is a shared trait of the majority of RPGs in existence. As you might guess, the term "level" derives from the original gaming concept of stages, where a player plays through a series of "levels" to systematically advance in the game (although of course it didn't actually derive from the gaming concept... just this idea of stages of advancement/progress). By applying this concept to character development, one very smart designer effectively moved game progress from a linear narrative to a non-linear character-based system. With character-development based play, players could focus on developing their character instead of just "beating the game" in the sense of a linear narrative. The level system basically took this concept and systemized it in a way that opened up the door for tons of RPG systems and for games like dungeon crawlers where a story wasn't even necessary! So, you ask, what's the problem? The Problem I - Levels Reinforce Linear Play Well, it begins with a very simple fact: levels, while being part of character-development, still reinforce linear play. Levels are an integer, and they can only increment as integers, so fundamentally they represent linear development. Obviously, game designers have found ways to sophisticate this very basic system of levels, skills and stats. Equipment is the most obvious factor, with added items that players can use to customize their character. Likewise, other game systems outside the level system like classes, titles, feats, crafting systems, etc. have all made the process of leveling- an inherently linear process- seem a lot less linear. So, you ask again, with all these extra features, what's the problem? The Problem II - Levels Applied to EVERYTHING The problem, is that the system of levels pervades all aspects of an RPG even if it does not do so directly. Equipment, for instance, commonly has "requirements" in level and in attributes (which are determined by levels). Likewise, feat trees may be dependent on levels, and "Advanced" or "Secondary" classes may be unlocked by achieving a certain level. Every level increases the HP, mana and attack/defense of a character, and every level has its own set of monsters. In many cases, a player will be forced to play in the area that is "in his level range" until he levels up. Upon leveling up, the player then moves on to the next level's area- effectively returning levels to their original meaning. This is good in the sense that it provides players with a smoother learning curve while systematically increasing the difficulty. It is also good in the sense that the narrative as put forth by developers can be consumed in a very predictable way. Again, this does not seem too bad, since this is what RPGs are all about anyways- character development and narrative... right? The Problem III - Linear Development in a Persistent Worlds Unfortunately, this is only true in single player RPGs (and only some single player RPGs), as MMORPGs claim to be more than this. One of the most fundamental advantage of an MMORPG is its online, social aspect. A common claim is that players will "forge their destiny in a world" and "influence the story of the game." But really, what makes your average MMORPG different from, say, Baldur's Gate 2, which you could play online with other players as well? The answer to this question is that, for much of the time playing, it's the same- except the MMORPG will have more options of party members and it's story and combat system are much weaker. Certainly, every MMORPG has its own unique features: end-game raids and PvP arenas, crafting content and economies, as well as all sorts of mini-games and events. But at the same time, there is no denying that until a player levels up to whatever level limit, s/he is effectively playing a glorified linear RPG (sometimes cooperative, sometimes single-player). There is no actual player influence of the game world, there is no sense of a changing "persistent world," because until you reach the end-game, most MMORPGs are a linear process of leveling. Fundamentally, the promise of an MMORPG is to grant the player non-linear play- gameplay that allows them to influence the world around them, through their own choices and actions, in meaningful and interesting ways. Yet what is provided in most cases is only the illusion of non-linear play, while linear play dominates the majority of play time. Now I am not saying here that linear play is horrible and should be banned forever. Certainly, linear narratives and gameplay have been primary features of many great games- MMORPGs included. WoW is the perfect example of a well-executed MMORPG with linear development, with well-timed expansions increasing the level cap and extending the "end" of the linear narrative. How Levels Fundamentally Cripple Player Competition & the Economy The problems, however, have just begun. A standard system of levels in an MMORPG also cripples its player competition, because the competitive aspect becomes focused wholly upon "leveling" and not on the competition itself. Even if one player may have more skills than the next, if he is 5 levels below that other player his chances of winning in a PvP engagement are not very high. Likewise, participation in the economy at a lower level becomes impossible as loot, NPC drops, and crafting materials are stratified based on the range of levels and cannot be accessed by those at a lower level. Therefore, lower levels of players are excluded from meaningful participation in the economy. Even if valuable materials are placed in low-level areas, higher-level drops will always sell for more game currency, and thus resources will always be bought up and controlled by higher levels. This pattern is the very same inflation that plagues every MMORPG economy out there, except for the ones with non-linear character development (see EVE Online case study). How Levels Hurt Meaningful Play In this way, player competition is restricted to who can level up faster, and who can farm the hardest. Until the level cap is reached, it is a race to the top and to be competitive a player must learn how to "power level." Not only does this undermine and take the fun out of the linear gameplay that is laid out by the developer, but the player is effectively forced to "grind," or in other words, engage in a meaningless activity to attain their real goals. Obviously, there are some players who simply attempt to "enjoy the game" and feel no such pressure to level. Indeed, it can be said that most players enjoy the process of leveling to a certain extent. At the same time, however, it would not be incorrect to state that the need to "level up" takes away from the enjoyment of simply playing the game, and that this enjoyment is NOT the primary reason that players play MMORPGs. Developers are also not all as well-versed in content-creation as Blizzard, and therefore this process of leveling is rarely as engaging, polished, and bug-free as it is in WoW. The meaningful play in MMORPGs comes most often at the end of the leveling-up process, where end-game content provides unique cooperative challenges and competitive PvP play. The question I ask in this thread is this: is the grind to the max level all that necessary? Why Levels Are Still Preferable- To Developers as well as Gamers There are many reasons for keeping things the way they are, and "it works" is only one of them. The most apparent point is that its easier- for both developers and gamers. Developers can simply extend a game by adding more content, and the only difference would be that the content would be higher-level. Likewise, many gamers prefer to "grind," and prefer the tangible progress that comes from a mindless activity to the intangible progress that comes from testing their skills against other players. These players simply prefer to have an easier path in advancement than to have "meaningful play." In other words, they enjoy showing off their level 60 character and calling level 20s "noobs," when in fact all they did was grind more than the level 20s! How to Upgrade the System Without Breaking It So with this in mind- is it worth upgrading to a more sophisticated non-linear system for character development? YES!!! You can do it without sacrificing those players who prefer the grind. Going back to the example of EVE Online, European developer CCP was able to come up with a system of "skill points" based on "trained time" that was not related to in-game activities. Character progress and "leveling" effectively became a grind that was based on time subscribed and not actual time spent grinding in game. For those gamers who prefer the grind, what could be a more mindless activity for character progress than... doing nothing! At the same time, the integrity and value of player skill in the game is preserved because even if those players subscribe to an account for 3 years but don't know how to play, they would suffer due to their lack of skills in the game. It's NOT Just the Levels It is important to note here that levels themselves are NOT the issue, it is the stratification of items and the additive increase of player power that results from levels that are the real problem. In theory, levels could be maintained in a game like EVE, by simply having an equation based on the number of SP (SP, after all, is basically like XP!), and it would not affect gameplay at all. The real benefit of EVE's non-linear character development system is that player power does not additively increase every level for over 50 levels. Increases in skills, in other words, have diminishing returns in value and are capped out. This gives older players an advantage while still including newer players in player competition. Certainly, this is a major reason for why EVE's economy has been heralded as the strongest economy of all MMORPGs. For more on EVE Online, please see my case study on the game. So just to reiterate: levels are not the problem. The problem is that for every level there is a set of equipment, NPCs, skills, HP, and Mana that is increased in a linear manner. This increase mathematically prohibits the game's design from having feasibly practical competition between players except at "max level." The result is that the game will always be based on this form of linear grind of levels, and that the bulk of content created by the developer is simply played once, then becomes completely irrelevant for the rest of the game experience. By converting to a non-linear system of character development with, most importantly, diminishing gains for character development and a set of game-world items, areas, etc. that remain CONSTANTLY relevant, developers can focus on creating content that adds depth to a MMORPG as opposed to simple length. That's it for today, and I look forward to your replies. Cheers, -Pin

Game Design and Theory Game Design

Started by PinWang June 08, 2008 03:02 PM

23 comments, last by Iron Chef Carnage 16 years, 8 months ago

Vicente

136

June 11, 2008 02:41 PM

Quote:
Original post by Stangler
I think a lot of people want what they want now. PVP does not always provide that.

People wanted WoW before it existed. Blizzard realized that people liked a certain type of gameplay and polished it to extremes (as they usually do in their games). There's no sign that supports that people in the future will like very different things than what we have now (or if they want it, companies developing MMORPGs are failing to see it).

Quote:
Original post by Stangler
I think people want a fair fight. PVP systems in MMOs don't always offer that.

I love PVP and I don't want fair PVP (to be fair you have to constrict it in some way, I like free PVP).

Quote:
Original post by Stangler
I think people want rewards. PVP systems in MMOs don't always offer that.

The problems are not rewards, are rewards of PVP compared to rewards of PVE. As there seems to be far more people who enjoy PVE than PVP it feels logic giving more rewards to that area to encourage PVE players to join your game.

Quote:
Original post by Stangler
Considering how PVP has been done I am not surprised you feel the way you do. I don't think people have gotten what they wanted in the past so they don't participate in large numbers.

I love EVE PVP (in small gangs, I don't like huge 0.0 alliance battles). This has nothing to do about how I feel, I would love EVE to be cloned and refined and WoW dead, but that doesn't change the truth that the majority of players out there like WoW-like games more than EVE-like games.

Quote:
Original post by Stangler
I don't want a stiff death penalty either. It discourages PVP and can mess up an economy. That does not mean you can not have loss and destruction.

I do want death penalties that matter because they encourage intelligent PVP instead of just doing the idiot. They make teamwork important, gathering information, organization, plannning,... They add a lot of depth (even if when things go wrong is a pain :( ).

Quote:
Original post by Stangler
Something like DAOC Darkness Falls is also great, both PVE fans and PVP players liked it.

A small percentage of the MMORPG total player base liked it.

Hawkins8

100

June 11, 2008 08:25 PM

I am speculating how those big world MMORPG failed. They claimed to allow 10000 concurrent players.

Level grind is a virtual small world model. It's easy to design, easy to control and thus is very stable.

Player locality is predictable, player majority will always be in areas matching their levels. You just need to boost up servre resources to those areas. For example, when player majority is at level 10, you put all server resource to the newbie cities. On the other hand, when they are at level 40s, you can withdraw the server resources from those newbie cities as they will be totally empty at that time.

Without a level grind treadmill, player patterns are difficult to predict, you may lose control at a certain point. A sudden player gathering may simply crashes your server due to the fact that it fails to re-allocate the resource automatically to tackle with such a sudden scenario.

I think that this is one of reasons why a big world model is difficult to establish and maintain. While a level grind treadmill is easy to control as virtually it's a small world model due to the fact that player majority always stay in predictable areas.

Big world failure examples include Dragon Empire, Wish and Dark'n Light. I think that the above may contribute to their failure.

The giant game developers may consider to step out of the level grind treadmill model when the big world technology becomes stable and handy. I think that they all realise the problem but refuse to take great risks in developing a game outside the level grind treadmill model.

[Edited by - Hawkins8 on June 11, 2008 8:25:56 PM]

Chrono1081

108

June 12, 2008 03:14 AM

This may have been addressed but as I was floating through the threads I saw someone talk about "Areas" for certain level players.

Final Fantasy XI is a perfect example of this, and that game, in my opinion is a perfect example of what NOT to do in an MMO.

A lot of people are under the assumption that the only way to let the player play is to go to certain places when they reach certain levels. This creates a VERY boring gameplay experience.

For example, in FFXI you start in your starter town, then you fight till your level 10 and can group, then you go to the 10 - 15 area, then the 15 - 22 area, and so on and its always the same places.

Now, in older games, like Asherons Call you could pretty much go wherever you wanted. There were a few level restrictions however when you were close to a town, the enemies were easier. The farther away you went from town, the tougher the enemies got. This encouraged exploration because when you went into the wilderness in that game you would find dungeons in the middle of nowhere, or weird monsters, or rare plants, etc. The whole game was essentially open to anyone of any level and it was good that way. You weren't confined to one hunting area because of your level, you could go pretty much anywhere with the exception of some dungeons. I never felt like I had to level grind in that game because I was always exploring something new, I didn't have to grind to get to a new, less boring place.

PinWang

Author

100

June 13, 2008 02:45 PM

Great posts and I especially like the points Hawkins makes.

We've been talking a lot about the RPG aspect of MMORPGs, but I think a lot of the complaints that come forward about this genre are because people want different MMOGs. In other words, the genre definition of "RPG," though proven to be an effective combination genre with "MMOG," does not and possibly cannot provide everything players want from massively multiplayer games.

Though it might be better to start this in a new thread, I think it's a good idea to talk about MMOGs of other genres. Certainly, there is a demand out there for more "massive" games of other genres. Indeed, "MMO" is simply about scale and this is a concept that perhaps could be applied to other genres that are already very competitive.

Take FPS games, for instance. Stangler mentioned that at a certain point in DAOC, certain maps were like FPS games about "fragging," but he suggested that "a mix of frag counts and PvP objectives would be better." In FPS games, these types of systems have been refined already, and many FPS games have been implementing massively multi player aspects. Take Battlefield 2, for instance, which implemented a ranking system based on accumulated scores that unlocked weapons. Call of Duty 4 took this to a new level, and both of these games had successful experiences with this concept.

More generally, the concept of "massively multiplayer" can be applied to the creation of a gaming context that goes beyond one "instance" of a game (one server in Counter-Strike, one match in Battlefield 2, one Warcraft III game on B.net, etc.). Leagues, therefore, might be considered a type of MMO experience. From this perspective, ranking systems as used in BF2 as well as automated game matching systems used by such RTS games like Warcraft III and Company of Heroes, and now by FPS games like CoD4, are a form of MMO play. All of these systems create a broader context, and the primary difference between them and an MMORPG is the lack of game narrative... but is that a mandatory feature of an MMOG?

It is not a big leap forward to provide that overarching narrative. One Day of Defeat league, for instance, crafted a "battle for Europe" where matches between Axis and Allied factions (formed by a multitude of "divisions" or player-run clans) played out on a game map of Europe. Would you consider this an MMOG?

What if you took a game like counter-strike, crafted a similar system, and allowed players to gain game money based on their performance in matches and accomplishment of objectives? What if this money could be used to customize the equipment of the team and even allow them to purchase higher quality equipment that gave them a bigger advantage? What if certain world map locations became resource-granting points of contention? In such a situation, player factions and politics would certainly emerge. What if this game was not based in the Counter-Strike theme, but was instead based on a post-nuclear wasteland theme? Indeed, this would certainly be an MMOG.

Every time I post about MMORPGs, I get the same old replies of "that's not a valid business model" and "that's not what players really want." The truth is, when I talk about MMORPGs, I am also talking more broadly about MMOGs and their potential. They don't need to be articulately crafted "big world" enterprises either, they can be simple volunteer-run leagues like DoD's "Battle for Europe" that I mentioned. These are all steps in a direction towards "massively multiplayer online" play that is only going to increase, especially as competitive pro-gaming becomes more popular. Most importantly, as other genres drift towards the MMO realm, I think MMORPGs and these other games can certainly learn from each other and adopt beneficial characteristics that work in all genres. Of course, my entire point is that there is no reason you cannot start thinking about that now!

Iron Chef Carnage

1,845

June 13, 2008 11:28 PM

I'm just getting into WoW with a buddy, and I have to say that the most infuriating and game-breaking (in terms of roleplay and immersion) for me is the constant sense of linear progress. You "graduate" out of areas' monsters (WoW has that neat aggro feature where mobs will actually stop picking fights with you about the time that you don't gain anything from fighting them anymore, cutting down on unnecesary butchery) but all that does is lead to a scorched-earth system, where you need to have an endless parade of level-specific content available. Gear is the worst. I have a nice two-handed sword I'm using now, but when I get up to higher levels, I know I'll have to carry some pastel-colored, fire-spouting, acid-dripping limb of the World Tree because the game gives penalties (!) for using gear that doesn't jack your stats up to a degree that's in keeping with your numerical level. As an EvE player, I feel most beautiful and noble when I'm kitted out with cheap, expendable, standard-issue hardware, and making it work well through superior skill and tactics.

While we're all volunteering our pipe dreams for ideal MMO experiences, one of my great desires for EvE was always to have the corporations have more options for business-type stuff. It's nearly always better in that game for everyone to solo, and then team up for PvP, but what if there was a way to make the corp the base player unit? Ships could be "signed out" of the corp hangar, used and returned. Industrial operations would be members using their skills to operate company hardware, and they'd be paid a portion of their yield, but most of it would go to shared goals. An internal "standing" system could be used to automate different administrative tasks, like ranks, access privileges and credit. Score PvP kills? You can sign out the corp Deimos for roaming gangs. Get the corp Deimos blown up? You get busted down to Brutix pilot. Turn in 600,000m3 of Scordite Ore? You get to use the Hulk, but be careful with it, or you'll be flying a Bantam next time. Earn a net profit of 238% with your savvy market trading? Your line of credit on the corp wallet for speculation is extended, keep up the good work. If you start pounding our money down a rathole, you'll have that revoked.

Payscales, collateral, audit logs... I just love the idea of teamwork with organization and infrastructure, designed to reward individuals for benefitting the group.

You could even take away character skill, then, and have awesomeness scale with the acquisition, defense and successful use of assets. Anyone can fly a Sleipnir, but in order to deploy it you've got to help the corp build/buy the thing and keep your combat standing high enough to gain access to its hangar. If you whore the best gear and get pwned all the time, then the problem solves itself when you get demoted.

Linear Character Development: The Problem with Levels in MMORPGs

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Linear Character Development: The Problem with Levels in MMORPGs

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines