Quote:

Original post by Edtharan What if the overall total of the stats doesn't increase over time, but the variation from a median can. In most stat systems when you gain a level you get X amount of point you can add to your stats. However, in this new system, if you increase a stat, you have to decrease other stats to compensate. The amount of points you can move increases with your level, but not the total of the points in the stats. For example: If you had these stats at these values at level 1 Strength = 1000 Health = 1000 Mind = 1000 Reflex = 1000 At each level you get to move 10 points between the stats so at level 2 you might have: Strength = 990 Health = 1000 Mind = 1010 Reflex = 1000 At level 10 you might have: Strength = 910 Health = 1000 Mind = 1050 Reflex = 1040 And so forth. OF course, you could have a larger or smaller amount of points that can be moved each level if you wanted. This way, all characters are equal, but they become more specialised over time. So a level 1 character could conceivably enter a level 20 dungeon, but they might not have as easy a time as one who had become a specialist in their field. It would also make it that new characters are more flexible in what they could do but they just would not be as effective in any one field. They would be a Jack of all trades master of none). This would actually make low level characters an asset, but would also give high level characters a role within the group. High level characters would feel advancement as they would become better at their given field (a low level fighter would not hit as hard as a high level fighter that had placed points their other stats into strength). If gear needed a certain level of stat to be able to be used (say a two handed sword needing a 1100 strength before it can be wielded), or special features to be used (anyone can wield a 2 handed sword, but to use the "Overhead Cleave" power of it you need 1100 Strength, or any character can wield the Illuminatus wand and create light and fire off some minor spell with it, but to unleash the "fireball" power you need to have 1200 Mind). This way high level characters have a non linear edge over the lower level characters, but Lower level characters still ahve a chance against them.

That's a really good system, I like it. It's not stat-less, however, it's a great way to allow players to freely grow their character in a direction they want.

You can create a bruiser with high strength but low inteligence, or a quick, agile character with low hitpoints, etc, etc.

It sounds to me like you are looking to give new players a chance at surviving your game.

Penalizing your advanced players by making their level balance against new players is likely going to upset your players.

However, there is a way to do some of what you want (balancing the players) with the simplest item of real life to implement which is player age.

Let the players get older as they gain experience. Like real life, age plays heavily on every aspect of our lives. We get sicker easier, recover from injuries slower, become weaker than in our youth and need to rest more. Our experience helps us keep up with the younger crowd, but our age offers disadvantages.

John

Quote:

Original post by borngamer It sounds to me like you are looking to give new players a chance at surviving your game. Penalizing your advanced players by making their level balance against new players is likely going to upset your players.

It's only a penalty if you see it as a penalty. Like I said above, there are plenty of games in existence where a player's skill is what determines the outcome.

If what you were saying is true, people wouldn't play games like Counterstrike, since playing for years gives you no better stats than someone who has never played. They play because they enjoy games of skill (with a little luck). In the game of chess (one of the most popular games ever created), both players have exactly the same starting positions and pieces. One player doesn't have higher level pawns that do more damage or move more spaces. It's all dead even and it works just fine.

Also to respond to your quote again, you're saying it's going to upset players, but it's only going to upset the older players. The new ones would enjoy not starting at such a disadvantage. So your argument is only half valid, which doesn't make it much of an argument at all.

Quote:

Original post by Si Hao What I am trying to say is that, almost all players will automatically associate levels with power, by using the term 'level' you are implicitly telling your players that they are getting stronger, which in fact they are not. In doing so you are setting up your players to be disappointed, and disappointed players will either start flaming your forums or simply quit the game, or both.

Actually, in practice they aren't getting any stronger because the monsters they encounter level up as quick as they do. So this feeling of getting more powerful is really only an illusion.

If the felling of increased power from gaining levels is only an illusion, then why can't some other method be used to create the same effect?

Better gear, new gear designs, different monsters, new areas available to the player, reactions of NPCs, titles, etc can all be used to create a sense of increased power that do not rely on "levelling up".

I have played pen and paper RPGs that don't use levelling, but yet you can still feel like you are getting more powerful.

Levelling up is not the only way to give a sense of power to the player, so this argument is really not a valid reason to include levelling in RPGs. Levelling up is an easy way, but it is also getting too cliché and felling like a waste of player time (grinding), and players are looking for alternatives.

Quote:

Original post by Malazar That's a really good system, I like it. It's not stat-less, however, it's a great way to allow players to freely grow their character in a direction they want. You can create a bruiser with high strength but low inteligence, or a quick, agile character with low hitpoints, etc, etc.

True it is not stat less, but it uses them in a way that is different enough.

It would also be feasible to do this without "visible" stats. If all this was contained in the gear the player had, then you could put on a ring that gave the same effects as increasing your intelligence (and reduced another stat to compensate), or armour that effectively increased the character's health but slowed them down (reduces the reflex, or whatever).

As all games need to use variables, to describe what a character is able to do (eg, speed, how much health, how much damage they do with a hit, etc) all these can be considered stats. All you need to do is to do is to normalise them to some value (in my previous example they were normalised to 1000) which is your starting value for your stat, and then whenever you design a piece of gear that enhances one of these "stats" (variables) it also reduces another one.

Even in an FPS the "characters" have stats, so all you have to do is to realise that they are only variables and then whenever you do something that raises one, you lower others to compensate.

A level 10 paladin and a level 20 paladin does have a power difference, a level 20 can kill monsters a level 10 cant. A level 20 paladin has an advantage over a level 10 paladin in stats, equipment and skills. That is evidence of a player getting more powerful as level progresses.

One thing you misunderstood, I am not saying statless RPGs don't work, what I am pointing out is that using levels, gives players the feeling that they are getting more powerful as they level up, which in this case is not true as TS's purpose is to build a RPG that does not allow players to get stronger over time.

Quote:

Original post by Si Hao A level 10 paladin and a level 20 paladin does have a power difference, a level 20 can kill monsters a level 10 cant. A level 20 paladin has an advantage over a level 10 paladin in stats, equipment and skills. That is evidence of a player getting more powerful as level progresses. One thing you misunderstood, I am not saying statless RPGs don't work, what I am pointing out is that using levels, gives players the feeling that they are getting more powerful as they level up, which in this case is not true as TS's purpose is to build a RPG that does not allow players to get stronger over time.

Indeed. It might be best to completely ignore "levels" as such, and focus in on other rewards.

If you are going pure statless, how will you handle damage? Similar to Dwarf Fortress, where the hp numbers are internal and never seen by the player?

What about carrying capacity and movement speed?

As far as the gain in power, you can still have some aspect of that by having skills. But that might be too much for your intended system as well. Have the experience points translate into a currency you can buy skills with, with higher levels of skills needing more XP to advance a single point. Thus, a new character who has put more points into a combat skill should be able to hang with a veteran in melee, when the vet has been working on other skills and only has a minimum (or no) combat skills.

Since the design focus would be away from pure combat (like 99% of MMO's now) without really penalizing it, you can be free to design complex quest trees and such that normally aren't found in MMO's.

Quote:

Original post by Konidias Quote: Original post by borngamer It sounds to me like you are looking to give new players a chance at surviving your game. Penalizing your advanced players by making their level balance against new players is likely going to upset your players. It's only a penalty if you see it as a penalty. Like I said above, there are plenty of games in existence where a player's skill is what determines the outcome. If what you were saying is true, people wouldn't play games like Counterstrike, since playing for years gives you no better stats than someone who has never played. They play because they enjoy games of skill (with a little luck). In the game of chess (one of the most popular games ever created), both players have exactly the same starting positions and pieces. One player doesn't have higher level pawns that do more damage or move more spaces. It's all dead even and it works just fine. Also to respond to your quote again, you're saying it's going to upset players, but it's only going to upset the older players. The new ones would enjoy not starting at such a disadvantage. So your argument is only half valid, which doesn't make it much of an argument at all.

I love it when people respond to a reply without reading the entire thread. They come up with wonderful nonsense like this.

If you read the original post by titanfantasy he talks about having characters leveling up but having a balancing mechanism so new lower level players can play the same areas as the higher level players without being destroyed. With a leveling system in place, this is absolutely penalizing your longer term players and having level advancement makes no sense. If I work at building a character up with weeks of invested time, it would upset me that a new player could collect the prize I'm after due to the game balanced for their abilities.

Now, to use your example of chess, I have never played a game of chess where a pawn becomes a level 2, 3 or whatever after the player has been playing for a while. So if you are going to use an example to put down a reply, have it make sense.

My response to titanfantasy to use player aging was a reply to offer a suggestion on how he could balance the game and still make effective use of leveling. Imagine an ancient and powerful mage capable of casting massively destructive spells. However, the catch is that because of his age he is temporarily too exhausted to even move for a few minutes after casting such spell. A younger mage may be able to cast simple spells that do little damage, but are able to dodge attacks after casting.

John

Quote:

Original post by borngamer Quote: Original post by Konidias Quote: Original post by borngamer It sounds to me like you are looking to give new players a chance at surviving your game. Penalizing your advanced players by making their level balance against new players is likely going to upset your players. It's only a penalty if you see it as a penalty. Like I said above, there are plenty of games in existence where a player's skill is what determines the outcome. If what you were saying is true, people wouldn't play games like Counterstrike, since playing for years gives you no better stats than someone who has never played. They play because they enjoy games of skill (with a little luck). In the game of chess (one of the most popular games ever created), both players have exactly the same starting positions and pieces. One player doesn't have higher level pawns that do more damage or move more spaces. It's all dead even and it works just fine. Also to respond to your quote again, you're saying it's going to upset players, but it's only going to upset the older players. The new ones would enjoy not starting at such a disadvantage. So your argument is only half valid, which doesn't make it much of an argument at all. I love it when people respond to a reply without reading the entire thread. They come up with wonderful nonsense like this. If you read the original post by titanfantasy he talks about having characters leveling up but having a balancing mechanism so new lower level players can play the same areas as the higher level players without being destroyed. With a leveling system in place, this is absolutely penalizing your longer term players and having level advancement makes no sense. If I work at building a character up with weeks of invested time, it would upset me that a new player could collect the prize I'm after due to the game balanced for their abilities. Now, to use your example of chess, I have never played a game of chess where a pawn becomes a level 2, 3 or whatever after the player has been playing for a while. So if you are going to use an example to put down a reply, have it make sense. My response to titanfantasy to use player aging was a reply to offer a suggestion on how he could balance the game and still make effective use of leveling. Imagine an ancient and powerful mage capable of casting massively destructive spells. However, the catch is that because of his age he is temporarily too exhausted to even move for a few minutes after casting such spell. A younger mage may be able to cast simple spells that do little damage, but are able to dodge attacks after casting. John

First off, I read the thread just fine. Maybe you just misunderstood my post. No need to call my post "nonsense". Everyone interprets ideas differently. I merely interpreted what he was saying as "it doesn't matter what level you are, you are all equal in these specific areas" which makes my example of chess totally relevant. If levels don't matter then it's just like chess, where everyone is on equal footing and skill matters the most. Feel free to explain why I'm wrong about this though.

Also, how does your aging idea even have any purpose in this thread? He never once asked for solutions to any problem. He merely asked if players would enjoy the system he described. I think maybe it's you who needs to read the thread again. As far as your aging idea goes... It looks like a thinly veiled disguise to the system and not a good one at that. Your idea is basically saying that players get older and weaker the longer they play (minus some explosive bursts of power). Instead of just stating that all players are equal at all times no matter the length of play, you're going out of your way to make the long time players feel like they are weakening and growing tired. That's just flat out bad game design.

Who would want to play a game where your character appears to get older and weaker the longer you play? It would be simpler to just show everyone as equal no matter how long they've played.

You also fail to understand that he is describing a system where players are 100% equal no matter how long they've played. His first "pros" sentence even says, and I quote, "a lv 9999999 defender has equal power to lv 1 defender". How is this any different from "a beginner at chess has the same exact pieces/starting positions as a pro"? I think the reason you don't seem to understand my example is because you didn't really think about it. You immediately jumped to "chess doesn't have level ups!!!!" as if that's what I was trying to point out or something.

By the way, when you call someone's post "nonsense" when you don't even grasp what they are talking about, that is called ignorance.

hi borngamer,

the leveling system will be for the following reasons :
to provide a false feeling of increasing your power. But in reality you will have the exact same power since your opponents will level up at the same pace.

Quote:

With a leveling system in place, this is absolutely penalizing your longer term players and having level advancement makes no sense.

1) it deceives the players' subconscious mind into thinking it is an rpg and increasing his joy. They will get a false feeling of increasing your power.

2) final fantasy 8 did something like this but it wasnt balanced.

a lv 40 player could deal 4000 - 8000 damage to a monster with 2000-4000 hp.
a lv 100 player would deal 6000 - 9999 damage to a monster with 10000-100.000 hp.

notice: that lv 40 does more damage because a) enemy has much less defense b) enemy has much less hp.

the level 40 i mentioned tried to increase all his str points but the lv 100 player had a weaker strength progression (cannot equip second guardian/junction on weapon to achieve same power increase . Also the game had a 255 strength limit and 9999 damage limit, making higher level characters worthless - they were 1000% times weaker ).

so as you leveled up, your character became weaker, there were simple monsters e.g on heaven island that on lv100 had 100.000 hp and it took you 20 minites to kill 1, at least in this game if you used doom, they died really fast.

what did final fantasy 8 achieve :
1) you grinded normally without really knowing that monsters leveled up also.
It really gave you the impression that your power increased, however the
opposite happened.
I have completed the game 2 times, and the game always manages to make you
feel that grinding/farming makes you stronger, when in fact i makes you
weaker.
2) Because enemies retained their power, thus allowing you go to previous areas and fight since fights werent boring (you couldnt 1-shoting everything).
3) gave a new filling a difficulty (which is unfair),
a ruby dragon was peace of cake at lv1 it had only 668 hp, but at level 100 they were impossible to beat (89.100 hp), if they casted meteor, you had instant gameover.

thanks,

titan, I still think that you should just remove "leveling" from your game entirely... and just have everyone on equal footing as far as fighting goes. Skill will determine who is best. You say you're trying to get rid of the level grinders anyway. So take away leveling.

Instead of trying to deceive players by making them think they are getting stronger when they really aren't, just remove that all together. Like I said, there are games that do this just fine and they have hundreds of thousands of players playing the same game for years on end.

You can still reward players who play more while not making new players feel mismatched. For example, you can keep track of a player's kills, how many monsters they have defeated, how much loot they've obtained, how much money they've collected, how high their crafting/mining/whatever levels have gotten, etc.

Older players can be visually noticeable based on clothing they obtained from winning a lot of fights, or crafting the clothing on their own after leveling their craft for many months. Wealth is also a sign of how long someone has played. If you just start the game you're obviously not going to be able to afford the best clothing and such, so when you see people wearing the cool gear, you'll know "that guy has played a long time!".

You could even go as far as having levels only affect non-combat things. So for example, you would need to attain a certain level before wearing the "uber cool helmet of awesomeness". But that helmet wouldn't have any effect on stats, it would be merely for show. It would still retain value in the community merely because it required a lot of time and effort to obtain and wear.

This system would allow old players to fight with new players and still have fun and even matches, while letting the old players feel more special for not having to wear the "noob gear" and such.

I hope this helps you in some way.