Within a match, I want my players to be able to go around picking up weapons, armor and usable items. Essentially "leveling up" by collecting them and using them to overcome other players. This gives variety and I imagine some players will have stories of how they managed to get a set of X or Y before being killed.

If they lose their advantages upon dying(like in most multiplayer-FPS) most of us wouldn't call it "leveling up"

(It's better this way though)

2) I want my players to have a sense of progress outside of a match. (again without grind and imbalance)

I want my players to be able to look at all the matches they have played and see the abilities, items, classes etc they have unlocked through playing these matches. Also, it allows me to "slow roll" my content, enticing the players to play to unlock new content and getting excited about future content.

If i may recommend, make a whole bunch of skills, let's say 50, let players unlock 5(10?) when they start the game,

when they play a match they 're allowed to pick 5(10?) skills they 've unlocked,

let them unlock more skills as they "level up" yet they still get to pick 5 (unlocked) skills when a match starts.

The only skills that would have some kind of prerequisite(aka being level 30 before unlocking it) should be skills that you do not want to confuse newbies with.

(This is a bit stolen from the LoL's skill-tree, they got two ways of leveling up that work approximately like this, maybe look at them)

3) I want to monetize.



The project, currently under developing, is a small free experimental game hosted on a server that I am paying for. But I want to have the option to ask for some donations to keep the server running or expand in the future. Being able to sell special items will help me do that.

Skins for characters, items, and whatever you can throw a skin on ;)

What purpose does leveling have in your game ?

I think this is the most important question to answer before even considering a level system for a free-for-all deathmatch game. What does this system do to make the game experience better?

Do you want these benefits to be persistent, or should everyone start on equal footing at the start of each match?

If newbies lack both the skill and experience level to compete with veterans...what's going to stop them from giving up and playing something else?

...

3) I want to monetize.

The project, currently under developing, is a small free experimental game hosted on a server that I am paying for. But I want to have the option to ask for some donations to keep the server running or expand in the future. Being able to sell special items will help me do that.

A word of caution on monetization - paying real-world money isn't fun or enjoyable for players.

Monetizing your game is a good idea (you deserve to get paid for the work you've done), but be cautious when adding new features, systems, or mechanics to your game. If one of the reasons you want to add something to the game is to get the player to pay you money, then it might not be a good idea because that goal (get players to pay more money) conflicts with the player's goal (maximized return on investment - the most enjoyment for the least cost).

Keep in mind that before you even start asking your customers for money, you need to have a product or service that customers want to pay money for. How many players does the game have and how many donations have you received? These are indicators of how much people like the game as it is, and these are the people you should reach out to for feedback to understand what your players like and dislike about your game. If either or both of these numbers are low, then you should focus on attracting more players and making the game more enjoyable before you consider adding more ways to make money. This is why so many video game Kickstarters fail to make their goals - they're asking for money before finding out what people want and they end up finding out the hard way that people don't want what they're pitching and they end up with a handful of donations from friends and family.

Make sure that the players want what you think they want before you spend time developing this system. You don't want to spend months developing a system that the players end up despising. There may be something else you can do that takes less time to develop and results in more enjoyment for your players.

I've been working on this problem in the back of my mind at work today, and I have a suggestion if you intend to implement a level system for a skill based game.

What you're looking for might not be a "leveling up" system. You might be better off with a rating system (similar to the ones used in chess). A player's rating would increase or decrease based on their performance in game, giving them an idea of their relative strength compared to other players.

With a large player base, you could use calculated ratings to pit players against other players at similar skill levels.

The Glicko Rating System

Why not award xp only for kills on players of at least equal level, and in fact award negative xp for killing players with lower levels? Not necessarily at a strict 1:1 ratio, but just enough so wasting ammunition on a lowbie plus losing a little xp makes it unattractive compared to killing someone of equal or higher level.

If D is the difference between your and your opponent's level, you migth for example gain 2*D + 5 xp if D >= 0 and lose 0.25*D xp if D < 0. That way you can still kill lower level people if nobody else is around (so you're not totally bored) but it will not help you advancing (even though you use ammo).

On the contrary, if you keep killing players that are way too low (more than 4 levels lower in this example), you will very slowly degrade in your skill. The others still get a chance to level up on you, however.

Add to that a "pack" mechanic which allows two or more weaker opponents to more easily attack a stronger one, if you like. For example, add something around a 1-2% chance of hitting if another player attacked a target within the last second. That way, one person would count as a kind of "barrage fire" for the respective other if both attack the same enemy. Don't overdo it of course, or you'll have zerging all over the place (so maybe limit the bonus to something like +10% max).

While I can't say I can recommend the "best" Level Up system for a Multiplayer Free for all, I can offer this idea:

Something like king of the hill. Multiple terraces, each terrace can only be accessed at certain levels. I.e. terrace 1 can be accessed by anyone. Every person you kill is worth % exp to the next level. higher level people are naturally worth more points.

Wow. Ever thought of developing this into an actual game? Sounds really interesting.

So, what you're essentially recommending is to stick to the traditional level up system where higher levels are more powerful than lower levels, but segregating them. Then, allow some ways for them to interact, and some incentives to control that interaction.

No, I just wanted to post the idea and hope someone else does so I can play it. Ideas are typically easy, its the long mundane battle of getting every bit (pun intended) in place, that detracts my interest from producing it.

The increase increment in ability should be fairly small (something like 20% (?) for one special purpose weapon and alot less for one generally used or applying to many activities) and any additional increments should be decreasing when addative.

You dont want someone to so-far outclass their opponents just because they were lucky about staying alive (with the 'loose it all when killed' (with scenario only improvement) and then getting too much advantage that in a head to head they are likely to keep winning. Ditto for permanent advancement if not even less artificial advantage - a player really should be able to almost as well with any weapon/level given them and the 'advancement' mostly window dressing to feed the ego oftthose who care about such things (getting new weapon types or weird abilities - ok- as long as the new advantages are still minor.

I've been working on this problem in the back of my mind at work today, and I have a suggestion if you intend to implement a level system for a skill based game.

What you're looking for might not be a "leveling up" system. You might be better off with a rating system (similar to the ones used in chess). A player's rating would increase or decrease based on their performance in game, giving them an idea of their relative strength compared to other players.

With a large player base, you could use calculated ratings to pit players against other players at similar skill levels.

The Glicko Rating System

This is a brilliant idea actually and fixes a potential problem: bad players getting to high level (through grind or purchasing accounts) and getting stuck with "pros" in games.

On the other hand, the majority of the players will get stuck and never progress beyond a low/mid level. Which....might be a good thing actually, since we do want to separate the pros from the regular players for the benefit of both groups.

A word of caution on monetization - paying real-world money isn't fun or enjoyable for players.

Monetizing your game is a good idea (you deserve to get paid for the work you've done), but be cautious when adding new features, systems, or mechanics to your game. If one of the reasons you want to add something to the game is to get the player to pay you money, then it might not be a good idea because that goal (get players to pay more money) conflicts with the player's goal (maximized return on investment - the most enjoyment for the least cost).

Keep in mind that before you even start asking your customers for money, you need to have a product or service that customers want to pay money for. How many players does the game have and how many donations have you received? These are indicators of how much people like the game as it is, and these are the people you should reach out to for feedback to understand what your players like and dislike about your game. If either or both of these numbers are low, then you should focus on attracting more players and making the game more enjoyable before you consider adding more ways to make money. This is why so many video game Kickstarters fail to make their goals - they're asking for money before finding out what people want and they end up finding out the hard way that people don't want what they're pitching and they end up with a handful of donations from friends and family.

Make sure that the players want what you think they want before you spend time developing this system. You don't want to spend months developing a system that the players end up despising. There may be something else you can do that takes less time to develop and results in more enjoyment for your players.

Great advice. There are too many "skinner boxes" out there. I have a friend who joined the casual/social game industry and the first things they were taught were to design "frustration points" that pushes players to pay up....instead of making the game fun.

No, I just wanted to post the idea and hope someone else does so I can play it. Ideas are typically easy, its the long mundane battle of getting every bit (pun intended) in place, that detracts my interest from producing it.

Ideas can be tough to develop into a practical plan sometimes. E.g. I was trying to design a modified version of Magic: the Gathering (a collectible card game) once and it took me literally more than a year of major changes and play testing before I could get my core ideas to work practically.

That being said, I know what you mean. I have like 3-4 fully formed plans in the pipeline. It is far easier to develop them than actually doing the programming and arranging for the art to be done. I could easily day dream about the plans while commuting to work or in the shower for example. But programming and art takes serious effort (and money)!