Instanced out-of-town

[Sekkurel]

Well since i finally developed the courage to read your post i have seen that even at this point you haven't explained your type of gameplay that is NOT level based.
Usually when you bring something up in a discussion, something the other person doesn't know you usually give them a need-to-know explanation of the thing that you brought up. I haven't seen you explain to me the type of gameplay that you liked so much. If you did somewere ( besides the examples of you beating a higher lvl player ) then please quote it.

I may have said that the level based system is better and for that i apologize. Its not exactly better but easier for both the player and the developer to do rather then your system.
Its easier for the following things :
1. Its a sort of ladder of who played longer then the other, of who knows the game more and who is more powerfull
2. It splits the world into different zones to avoid overfarming of certain items ( staying in 1 place 2 long will make it that you won't get as many drops as you did 10 levels ago )
3. It helps to plan your day ( this is mostly me ) meaning that you can plan ahead your day in the game. EX : Today i will make +1 lvl and 5 gold.
4.Adds another thing to do in a game besides loot and chat.

[Nyaro]

You know, those jibes about post length are getting old, especially when you're effectively critising me for posting to a message board. OMG, people might choose not to read a post with more than one line. And? What makes you think I should care about those people (whoever "they" are; as far as I can tell, so far it's just you) who are scared away by multi-paragraph posts. Please, give it a rest.

As for claiming I've not explained, the other one's got bells on so give it a tug and see if it tinkles. Reality check: I've not only explained but given you examples of... 1) an actual MMOG that didn't use levels, with satisfactory results; 2) my own ideas on the problem and; 3) comparative merits of using levels vs not doing so.

1. Please explain to me why one would need to know who is more powerful or who played a game longer? Perhaps you could also explain why you believe that levels are any sort useful indicator in this regard.

Assuming a player hasn't simply bought their toon, or otherwise cheated it, what makes the guy with a level 50 character better than the guy with a level 10? I'm a hopeless altahollic in games so, according to your theory, I'd be less of a player if I happened to be starting fresh? Or that I played a similar game for months means I'm a complete noob in this one, does it? Compared to what, exactly? Levels are wholly arbitrary and don't give the slightest hint as to the competancy of a player. It tells you one thing, that they (or someone they paid, cajolled or inherited from) can milk exp. Hell, the main thing I'd expect levels to do is tell me how good someone is at levelling but they don't even do that! A player may have picked the most laborious way available or died over and over but how would you know just by looking at their level?

2. Ok, so explain why splitting up what would have been a decent sized sandbox into exclusive chunks is a good thing. You certainly aren't avoiding over-farming of resources if higher levels can visit and those resources don't even have to be valuable, not when there are many reasons for those who have out-levelled content to come back later. For example, to grief, to help a buddy or to catch up on something you missed, especially true in games designed around group-play or exclusive classes because then you don't always have what you need to do specific content when it's deemed apprpriately levelled. Just because a game uses levels doesn;t mean that at any given moment, your level sandbox isn't over-crowded. Over-crowding/excessive competition is not a function of levels, never has been and never will be.

Meanwhile, if I'm looking to participate in content that is currently beyond my level, explain to me why I can't. I don't want to fight dragons 5 mins after I logged in but by the same token I don't want to fight the level 1 version on borg designation - species 10592. Seriously, little labels on everything telling me it's relative danger? Meanwhile, sorry Frodo, you need a couple more levels before you can sneak past nazgul into Mordor. Come back later, dude, go milk some Olyphaunts for exp, or somethin'!

3. Or you might plan to do any number of other things, including improve your character in a system that used skills instead of levels. You can certainly express a preference but I already know you prefer levels so no need to repeat it.

4. Gaining levels is a mechanism by which you improve your character yet it is not the only means to that end. Aren't we discussing the relative merits of such a mechanism, not the obvious point that it is one?

[Sekkurel]

Ok you really ticked me off now
You sir are narrow minded or simply do not know some of the basic things.

1.Online games are a competition. Knowing what your adversary does and has is always useful. Also when you plan to go to an instance or go raid something etc. you will not take a lvl 1 char no sir you will take a char according to the level of the boss be it 1 or 8000. Thats why levels are usefull. There used as a sort of ranking so that you won't have to play with some1 that dies in 1 shot. Also explain to me how would i know how well a player plays in a system with no lvl ??? Without looking at his gear, watching him in battle, or personally knowing the person behind the toon. Answer this Sherlock !

2. I already cleared it out how levels are used in that way so im not going to continue. You just keep on saying that people buy there toons or they bot then to max lvl or cheat etc. Thats just a small % of the player base. Maybe 10% ??? Even less i think. So your saying levels are bad because 10% of the player base are bad ?? Lol.

3. Because lower levels can do the same as higher levels if there is no restriction involved. While a party battles the big bad dragon my lvl 1 toon can sneak up behind and steal his treasure and leave those guys to deal with the menace.

4. As a soldier in real life you usually go thru a routine even in a full out war situation. Shoot the enemy, hide and reload, save some innocents, shoot some more, blow up an important location, go back to base. Repetition is inevitable since its what keeps MMO's alive.


I considered you a smart guy ( or girl ) so i expected you to somehow understand things about level based systems. Heck you even said you played a few if im not mistaken. So why do you keep making the same mistakes ??

I repeat. Levels are used as a measuring system for a player. You simply can't compare a lvl 50 with a lvl 10 and shouldn't even. Yeah its unfair to get ganked by higher lvl players but if your smart you can avoid that.
I have a problem with walls of text because they tend to be mostly TLDR rather then something usefull to read. You could explain your point of view in a shorter more condensed way but if you don't want to fine. But don't expect us to read it all and reply.

P.S. : If you did explain to me how the system works, you didn't quote like i asked you to. You fail.

[Nyaro]

1. Now try answering my questions and the points I raised, instead of ignoring both. You say I'm closed minded but you utterley fail to acknowledge the plain fact that you have yet to show that levels do what you claim they can. You seem blinkered to the point of obsession, unable to entertain the most basic perspective on your chosen object.

I will say again, explain how levels do what you claim they can do and, more importantly, why what you think they can do is desirable. There are thousands of competative games and sports yet you insist MMOGs should be the exception to the rules on fair and challenging play. Or do football teams get to sit in on rivals training sessions? Are scrabble players required to show their opponents the tiles in their hand? Need I go on? Even when something akin to levels is used in fair competition, like tennis rankings for example, are the lower ranked players forced to sit out tournaments or wait while they obtain a higher rank before being allowed to participate?

2.No, I give you examples of things that can be done in level-based games. If you refuse to acknowledge these points then you are either being deliberately obtuse or you've never played a level-based MMOG. Your argument is going from the sublime to the ridiculous if you can't even grasp the simple ideas that A) levels are proven incapable of removing over-crowding (they can exacerbate such problems but otherwiose have no effect on them whatsoever) so the whole basis of your point here has been shot down before it took off and B) the very fact that abuse has occured in respect of level systems, intentionally, unintentionally or by a flaw of design, proves there are exceptions to what you claim levels are good for. So stop being so single-minded and either address my concerns, concede the point or simply back down and stop embarassing yourself by attempting to negate plain fact with such inane comments. If a thing has flaws then it is flawed but by all means, suggest a means of overcoming these drawbacks, if you can.

3. Yeah, cuz that happens in levels-based MMOGs currently on the market, not. If it did then you just shot yourself in the foot, by claiming that levels don't, in fact, matter.

4. Again, what has this to do with the relative merits/drawbacks of a level-based system?

...i expected you to somehow understand things about level based systems

Oh but I do understand level-based systems and yes, they have their place. However, I am also capable of acknowledging their flaws, as well as weeding out irrelevancies to this discussion that you keep repeating.

The problem here isn't my understanding but your own, especially when you keep resorting to name calling and critisism of me rather than responding to my argument. I've asked you several times to desist but it seems that you have become too emotionally involved to comply (by your own admission btw, when you said... "Ok you really ticked me off now" followed by more vitriol). The only answers you provide to the points I raise aren't answers at all but an attempt to dismiss what I said with ridicule. If you can't answer me then fine, I'll agree to disagree with you, but answering as you have done at best makes you look ignorant of level-based MMOGs and at worst makes it look like you're trolling.

That said, I've yet to take offense because I'm not easily offended Cant say a mod won't disagree but for my part it's all good, though I'm not going to sit back and take your abuse without trying to reason with you. I don't yet believe you to be intentionally trying to piss me off so don't worry, I'll still respect you in the morning, even if you don't feel able to return the favour :p Fail indeed? That's a good one coming after all you've said, like you're giving me a cherry on top to lessen your misguided blows hehe

PS I already pointed out that reading is at your own pleasure (well, it didn't take a genius to spot that now did it). If you don't wish to read messages on a message board then no one is twisting your arm. In other words, you're belaboring the obvious so can we finally put your opinion of my posting habbits to rest - I'm really, honestly, truly not interested; cross my heart and hope to be crystal clear on the matter.

[grysh]

Ok you really ticked me off now
You sir are narrow minded or simply do not know some of the basic things.

1.Online games are a competition. Knowing what your adversary does and has is always useful. Also when you plan to go to an instance or go raid something etc. you will not take a lvl 1 char no sir you will take a char according to the level of the boss be it 1 or 8000. Thats why levels are usefull. There used as a sort of ranking so that you won't have to play with some1 that dies in 1 shot. Also explain to me how would i know how well a player plays in a system with no lvl ??? Without looking at his gear, watching him in battle, or personally knowing the person behind the toon. Answer this Sherlock !

2. I already cleared it out how levels are used in that way so im not going to continue. You just keep on saying that people buy there toons or they bot then to max lvl or cheat etc. Thats just a small % of the player base. Maybe 10% ??? Even less i think. So your saying levels are bad because 10% of the player base are bad ?? Lol.

3. Because lower levels can do the same as higher levels if there is no restriction involved. While a party battles the big bad dragon my lvl 1 toon can sneak up behind and steal his treasure and leave those guys to deal with the menace.

4. As a soldier in real life you usually go thru a routine even in a full out war situation. Shoot the enemy, hide and reload, save some innocents, shoot some more, blow up an important location, go back to base. Repetition is inevitable since its what keeps MMO's alive.


I considered you a smart guy ( or girl ) so i expected you to somehow understand things about level based systems. Heck you even said you played a few if im not mistaken. So why do you keep making the same mistakes ??

I repeat. Levels are used as a measuring system for a player. You simply can't compare a lvl 50 with a lvl 10 and shouldn't even. Yeah its unfair to get ganked by higher lvl players but if your smart you can avoid that.
I have a problem with walls of text because they tend to be mostly TLDR rather then something usefull to read. You could explain your point of view in a shorter more condensed way but if you don't want to fine. But don't expect us to read it all and reply.

P.S. : If you did explain to me how the system works, you didn't quote like i asked you to. You fail.

Hmm, I'll give it a shot as I think what Nyaro says is worth listening to.

My interpretation of what he's saying is that levels is too much of a focus in most games, what enemies you can kill depends on your character level, what gear you can use, where you can go and what skills you can use and this causes segregation of the player base. Also, a shitty lvl 15 character can usually kill a good lvl 10 character too easily, there should be a decent difference between the one who's wielding a flaming two-handed sword in each hand and the one who uses his fists. But if a newer player manages to get his hands on those swords he should be able to kill an unarmed older player without much trouble, depending on what kind of skills and armor they are using as well as their personal skill at handling their characters.
That doesn't mean a new player and an old one should be equal, this is a rpg after all, but there are other ways to do this than to do exactly the same thing as everyone else.


Edit (I wanted to clarify/add some stuff):
The way pretty much everyone does it nowadays is that when you level up you get to choose what skills you want to become more powerful, you get access to gear you haven't been able to use before, you get more mana and hp, new areas you can enter and new drops you can't use yet. And when you hit max lvl you change your skill points and start looking for gear.

The problem with how it usually works is imo partly because of the respec system which lets you grind to max lvl with a build that makes it easy and then suddenly you can use all the "endgame" skills with the press of a button. I also find it a bit annoying to have a max level you have to reach before you even get to come in contact with the big boys.

I like Eve's way of handling levels but I cba explaining it right now, if you're interested you should look it up and imagine how it would work in an arpg where you grind instead of wait.

[Sekkurel]

Well what examples you gave here are very poor example. Games in which a lvl 10 can't beat a lvl 11 even tho the lvl 10 has superior gear is a shitty 1 and should burn in hell ( the game ). Im just saying that a game in which a lvl 10 char can hold his ground for a considerable amount of time against a lvl 50 is just stupid. 5 levels are ok and can make little difference ( it made little difference in lineage 2 in pvp and pve same did for rakion ).
Donno if you noticed but a lot of mature people with jobs and family started playing MMO's in the last decade. What was once only a kid thing has now spread to all ages ( i know 2 3 55+ people that play mmo's and im sure you are one of them or know a few as well ) so now they have to make it easy to learn for all people. Sure there will be some hardcore games that require medium to high knowledge levels of mmo mechanics to manage to play them but they are few and they target a very specific market.

The thing is they have to make the game on a "easy to learn hard to master" mechanic meaning it has a easy to learn interface and a simple mechanic but as you advance in the game you will be struck by the complexity of skill enchanting, armor crafting, raid tactic, etc.

[Nyaro]

@grysh

Thank you.

@sekkurel

OK, let's clear some things up.

1. Dunno what it's like in your part of the world but I imagine not much different than the UK, where the average age of gamers used to be (last I checked, not that many years ago) around the mid-20's. I believe it was slightly lower in the US but slowly rising in both, as a generation of gamers aged. Perhaps it was console gaming figures that lowered the stats when you saw them? You have seen such stats at some point, yes?

Moving on, any immature gamers out there looking for a quick fix of brain-free gaming have plenty of alternatives already but that's beside the point, until you show some evidence (even a rational argument would do, ie not just you telling me, without any substance to back it up, that it's what you personally believe) that skill-based games are harder to learn. Then again, that is also beside the point when it's enjoyment of a hobby that counts, something that doesn't necessarily include having all the rules on how to optimise your character laid out in front of you. If you are able to optimise a character, or pick a class that's game-mechanically better (even if only perceptively, not actually, when dev communication also matters) then obviously something is wrong. Meanwhile, some of us actually like to go with the flow and pick things up as we play because that's half the fun.

2. I never said a level 10 should be able to square up against a L50. For a start, I compared my encounter to a L10 vs a L35 and you're twisting my words when I clearly stated that one on one the L10 couldn't win. I thought I made it clear that my problem with levels in this regard is that such a fight would be insta-win for the higher level, even assuming such a low level was allowed into the area where he/she could have lost so easily.

Bottom line - It's not the either/or proposition you're trying to paint it, it's about reaching an intelligent balance, something that is sadly lacking in level-based MMoGs made to date. A good start would be for any encounter, either against another player or the environment, to mostly take account of the character's build and not add so much weight to the character's level.

3. You've claimed that levels are merely a structural framework that offers guidance to the player, yet we see example after example of games where levels take on the role of ultimate arbiter, if not the be all and end all of an encounter.

Well, and this is where I think you're falling down in your ability to interpret what I'm saying - there is nothing wrong with levels, only in how and what they are applied to in order to obtain game balance. Apply them on a macro level, to the character as a whole, and your ability to balance said game will be limited. However, apply them on a micro level, to the building blocks of all characters and your ability to fine tune just improved. This inconsistency of builds is particularly noticeable in games that revolve around levels, those that put far more emphasis on them than you would have us believe. Just pick any of the mainstream, and possibly niche too, MMOGs of the past decade or so and you'll see the proof of how they use levels and it's not at all as you say it is.

With skills, a level 10 skill in swordsmanship makes your character a better swordsman than the character with only 5 skill in it. In a fair sword fight, excluding the whims of lady luck, you will win. Now I'm not going to type you an essay on character design considerations, or I'd still be doing that long after the game came out, but needless to say it can get very complicated. My point, though, is that those complications don't go away just because a dev team decided to brush them under the carpet we'll call character levels.

4. You've made some claims about what levels do and what they are used for yet have failed to defend those comments against my replies. You want me to explain myself more clearly for you but you don't have to? That's not how mature discussion works. Of course, it'd help immensely if you stopped responding the charicature you're inventing and start replying to what I actually say but that's up to you.

[Sekkurel]

Ok so what you are saying about levels is that they limit the customization of a char and its growth ?
Well i tend to disagree on that.

Both a level based system and a skill based system can fail hard in a game. Why ? Because they have been poorly implemented into the game.
I will make a comparison with a tree here to better make myself understood. Excuse the crude english but i am not a native speaker as you may have guessed and i learned english by sound mostly and may make some small/big grammar mistakes here and there. Tho this is not an excuse i would like to apologize in advance for possible future mistakes.
Ok here we go.

I see the level ladder as the trunk of a tree. The branches are the skills and the leaves of the tree are the skill enchantments. Just take a look at 2 apple trees. Tho they are of the same kind they don't look alike almost at all. This is how i see the level based system or how it should be. Some games came close to this some failed from the start but a level based system shouldn't be dismissed from the start because of some situations.
Ok some people will bot or buy there chars or pay off to get the best stuff in the game etc. That can also happen in the skill based system.

The level based system carefully gives you portions of the whole game just to make sure you don't choke while you eat them while the skill based system gives you access to the whole thing and tells you " do what you want ".

There's also another aspect that you may have not considered.
If Runic had unlimited funding then yeah a skill based system would have worked nicely and i would have supported it. BUT they don't have unlimited funding. So they have to design an easy-to-make and easy to maintain system that will appeal to a very large portion of the gaming community so that that can get as much money as they can. Yeah i made it sound like they are greedy and im sorry for that but they still have to make money off there games right ?
Anyway to make a long story short the skill based system involves a truck-load of money, effort, time and thinking a thing i suspect Runic isn't capable atm.

[Nyaro]

Ok so what you are saying about levels is that they limit the customization of a char and its growth ?

No, that is a function of balance in general and not levels specifically. I am saying that levels aren't capable of fine-tuning like a skill-based system. If levels are fine-tuned then by definition it was done via skills so why did they invent the extra complication. Also, levels have a tendency to take over the whole picture when it comes to character ability so what we get is level vs level instead of character vs character or character vs environment. Not forgetting that levels limit content, by design. That last is not necessarily a bad thing, probably even unavoidable (unless someone invented personalised content), but it's a matter of choice vs railroading, or trial and error vs signposting if one's preferences lay in that direction.

Both a level based system and a skill based system can fail hard in a game. Why ? Because they have been poorly implemented into the game.

Yet in a skill-based system every step up is, by nature, a small one. Character development doesn't just fly out of the window but character ability isn't artificially inflated or deflated due to the introduction of character levels, making participation fairer. If the differences between high and low skill or high and low level were kept reasonably small then there wouldn't be so much of a problem but one fact is undeniable - a level-based component is an extra bonus/penalty (simple example... attack - defence becomes (attack+level) - (defence+level) ) so discrepancies will obviously be higher. IMO it just doesn't need to be there. But what if there were levels and no level-based component to encounters? Well, then I'd have to ask what levels do.

The level based system carefully gives you portions of the whole game just to make sure you don't choke while you eat them while the skill based system gives you access to the whole thing and tells you " do what you want ".

Why should it? That you can go anywhere doesn't mean you should or that you want to. After all, unless areas get tougher as your character developes it'll be pretty boring. Doesn't mean they have to stick a signpost over the mobs' heads telling you what's safe or risky, though. I think all of us are capable of spotting that the ogre over there might be a bit tougher to beat than the goblin in the last cave or that lions, generally speaking, tend to fight a bit better than house cats. If not then we're all capable of learning from experience or listening to our buddy who explained how he got wiped in that area last week.

I don't see why a smart group can't take down something tougher than them either but with levels we're back to artifical inflation, at the very least, and all too often outright impossibilities when it doesn't matter how many L1's try to take down that L10 mob, it's just not happening.

And BTW, level-based games allow you into areas you're too low for already, they just make it impossible to beat anything in there if the powers that be deem you too low. It's a disappointment when that happens - "you can go but look, don't touch!". Like I say, skill-based makes fine-tuning better so while you will eventually encounter areas you really shouldn't enter, you ought to be able to move out further than in level-divided playpens, given the right preparation, luck or player skill and most importantly, not having to account for level-based inflation on mobs.

There's also another aspect that you may have not considered...

Nor will I consider Runic's plans until the game is released, or at least more info is provided. I've said in response to you before that I think the chances are they will opt for a level-based system. That's what they already have in T1 and will have in T2 but there is no harm in discussing other options and IMO their current system wouldn't take much tweaking to make it skill-based, though programming it would be a whole other matter of course.

...the skill based system involves a truck-load of money, effort, time and thinking...

On what do you base this assessment? If they needed to change after having already started then sure, but that would be true in reverse too. In theory it should be no more expensive to avoid levels because you still have to balance the same things. The question is, do you try your best or do you try and paper over the cracks by introducing character levels and hoping no one notices. If anything it should require less thought and planning because you have one less thing to take into account when balancing. And why shouldn't it be easier to tweak after it's made, when that extra layer is removed from the equation? If you balance the basic building blocks of a player character instead of whole classes and levels of them then it stands to reason it'll be easier to adjust later, if necessary.

[Sekkurel]

Every time you post a reply to make me think you are not arguing with me but with the system itself. That and the fact that you lead me to believe you haven't played any recent f2p mmo.

You have to understand that not all players will have the smarts to understand it all. Hell it took me 3 days to understand the basic stuff of EVE Online. And i was a fanatic about it. Imagine a 12 year old or a 14 year old. If something doesn't blow up soon they will get bored and leave.
You may think the TL player base is mature from the forum but i think we ( the forum members ) represent 30 to 40% of the entire TL player base. There are those that heard of the game played but never bothered to post and so on. So your assumption that every TL MMO player will have decent intelligence is flawed.

Your saying a level based system is not designed for fine tuning. I tend to disagree here.
Reread my last post about the tree. Better then that i can't possibly explain so if you still don't get what im saying then i dunno what to do.

[Nyaro]

Every time you post a reply to make me think you are not arguing with me but with the system itself. That and the fact that you lead me to believe you haven't played any recent f2p mmo.

You have to understand that not all players will have the smarts to understand it all. Hell it took me 3 days to understand the basic stuff of EVE Online. And i was a fanatic about it. Imagine a 12 year old or a 14 year old. If something doesn't blow up soon they will get bored and leave.
You may think the TL player base is mature from the forum but i think we ( the forum members ) represent 30 to 40% of the entire TL player base. There are those that heard of the game played but never bothered to post and so on. So your assumption that every TL MMO player will have decent intelligence is flawed.

Your saying a level based system is not designed for fine tuning. I tend to disagree here.
Reread my last post about the tree. Better then that i can't possibly explain so if you still don't get what im saying then i dunno what to do.

Maybe I should let this alone after a couple of weeks away but I've been too busy to reply before now and we can't leave on a note like that so I'll just say...

Obviously I'm arguing against level-based systems. That you are the one arguing for it is merely a vehicle for me to do that but otherwise entirely irrelevant. I have no beef with you personally, only with the ideas you're sharing on this subject.

What's my recent gaming history to do with it when quite clearly, character levels in MMOGs do not work how you claim they do. That puts your experience in doubt, not mine, so do you really want to insist on background checks regarding authority to type on the subject? After all, you've not actually played a skill-based game, even a flawed one. Naturally, I've considered that when reading your arguments but the thing is, you're continuing to home in on nothing more than a demonstration of fundemental errors in the way you're viewing the subject, something that needs to be cleared out of the way:

1. Being unable to one-shot a lowbie does not mean the game must therefore be slow-paced!

2. Why must every game pander to 12-14 year olds, even if 12-14 year olds made up the bulk of MMOG players? You have no evidence to suggest that the bulk of MMOG players might be 12-14 year olds because they are not!

3. You think you need to be clever to understand how to play a skill-based game? I get that you're reading this in a foreign (to you) language and that it's about concepts you haven't encountered in games before so you not getting it might be viewed as understandable, not intrinsically difficult!

Ultimately, we can agree to disagree, nothing wrong with that; however, you can't use disagreeing with me as an argument because it isn't one. I reckon I'm done now, unless someone can bring something new to the discussion.

[DarkTails]

I don't know what "instanced" means so this is all hard to follow >_>

[Perictione]

Tails et al:

Instanced: Any dungeon or area that is copied so individuals or groups can explore or quest without interference from other groups or players. Basically, a spawned environment replicated from a set piece.

On another note, I'm finding this thread...ummmm, interesting... but a bit difficult to follow too, especially as there's good points being made by all posters, who are not necessarily at complete odds with one another.


- P.

[Zidders]

I think the thread has gone massively off topic and needs to be in its own thread, IE Skill based systems vs level based systems. Personally, I feel skill based systems work better with first or third person games, and not necessarily top down isometric diablo-style mmo's, so I dont get what it has to do with the Torchlight MMO, since we don't know if they're still going to do it and if so, what play style it will be. Maybe title the subject 'Should the mmo be top down, first or third person?" and then ask the people who want a first or third person game wether theyd want it skill style or level style.

[Perictione]

Interesting observations, Z... and that set me out on a brief search of recent games (none of which I've played, I'll cheerfully admit) to see what's been done in the past and what, if anything, worked. In this search, I quickly came across an interesting Diablo-like game called 'Dungeon Siege,' and from what I can make out it looks as if this game employed a hybrid experience system that loosely identified a separation between experience and skills, thus allowing for the creation of multi-class characters.

Wikipedia describes this system as follows:

In the original Dungeon Siege, the four character specialities (also known as classes) differed only in the items and spells they were allowed to use. In Dungeon Siege II, each speciality (Melee, Ranged, Nature Magic, Combat Magic) has a unique set of skills, arranged in a skill tree reminiscent of those in Diablo II, that determines a character's particular strengths. For example, melee-oriented characters can get better at using a shield to defend their allies or they can improve their two-handed weapon skills to more effectively attack opponents.

As in the original game, multi-classing (distributing experience and skills to more than one class) is possible, but it is best to do so with caution: A character learning skills in too many different areas may find him or herself spread too thin and unable to perform any role effectively.

In the expansion pack for Dungeon Siege II, "Broken World", two new character classes have been introduced. These classes are multi-class characters: the Fist of Stone being a multi-class of Melee and Nature Magic, and the Blood Assassin being a multi-class of Ranged and Combat Magic. These new classes have been given their own specialised skill trees in addition to the others, allowing them to multiclass more easily without being at as much of a disadvantage. For example, the Fist of Stone is able to cause small earthquakes when attacking to keep up with the damage output of a pure melee character, and the Blood Assassin is able to cause targets to hemorrhage blood to keep up with the damage output of a pure ranged character (as they multi-class, they cannot upgrade their weaponry as often and would otherwise be weaker in combat).


Now, given my leanings, this sounds interesting to me. I wonder, though, has anyone played this game? And if so, how was the game's system in terms of accumulating experience? Could a similar, enhanced system be employed by the Torchlight the MMO?

- P.

[Zidders]

Dungeon Siege was a really great action/rpg that was really underrated, due to it being marketed as a Diablo Clone, when it really wasnt. It was in development about the same time as D2, and while it had gameplay mechanics similar to Diablo, it was an entirely different beast.

http://www.guru3d.com/gamereviews/dungeon-siege/
"As the game begins, you will have a choice between 4 core combat abilities. Melee, Range, Combat Magic and Nature Magic. Dungeon Siege does this incredibly well. Forget the days of endless leveling to advance just one trait of a class. Now you get a chance to choose which route you will want to take. An ingenious way for character development that has been attempted, but never really succeeded, which will enable you to customize your character in any percentage of those core abilities. Included are 3 sub-core abilities. Strength, Dexterity and Intelligence. What is unique here is that the core abilities effect different sub core abilities.

For example, if you wish to increase Strength, you will want to use melee in combat. Strength will then move up at a faster rate than had you been casting spells or firing a bow. The same goes with range combat when you would like to increase dexterity. And last with casting, when you wish to increase intelligence. The reason for wanting to increase the sub skill system, is purely for item choice. Again, a flawless victory for Dungeon Siege. Most of the items you will encounter in the game have a pre-requiste for actually wearing or using the item. For instance if you want to wear a metal breastplate, and the item says you need a strength of 18, you will want to melee to get the strength up to that level. What's so awesome about this? Seems to be just like Diablo. Not really. Because if you wanted to, you could effectively increase combat magic to become a powerful caster, than after you are happy with your casting ability, melee to get strength up to wear plate armor. You are now a battlemage.

The possibilities are endless with which type of combination you would like to use. Which is what makes character development that more exciting. Only only a poor sap farming carrots out of cement, you are now a powerful battlemage! If only great grandma was around to see it."

[Perictione]

Zidders et al:

So... just to be absolutely clear on this (and I sincerely apologize if I'm soundling particularly dense at the moment), couldn't a similar system of character advancement work within a semi-isometric MMO?

Also, I've read that 'Dungeon Siege' used reagents as enchantment bases. Presumably the acquisition of reagents was done through purchase, quest or harvest, right? And couldn't such a system be enhanced and incorporated into a MMO?

Finally, just to tie this thread back into the OP's article, 'Dungeon Seige' was (errr, is) a multiplayer game, and so it's likely players could work their way through the game on-line cooperatively or independently of one another a la Diablo 2. Again, presumably, some form of scaled 'opponent regeneration' was required so as to allow characters in the first act to play through at the same time as characters in the second act (though I realize Diablo 2's quests in multiplayer were not similarly regenerated). Is it safe to suggest that this is, in it's most basic concept, a modified form of instancing? If so, isn't this what the Torchlight 2 developers are planning on producing (Although I also know T2's opponent scaling and regeneration is going to be much, much more sophisticated than that of D2's) ?

And... now the final leap...

Couldn't an MMO handle various parties the same way without resorting to instancing?

*ends the post feeling very lawyerly *

- P.

(P.S.: Although I'm responding specifically to Zidder's post, folks... the more points of view, the merrier! So, please, don't hesitate to dive in with your observations and opinions!)

[DarkTails]

Instanced: Any dungeon or area that is copied so individuals or groups can explore or quest without interference from other groups or players. Basically, a spawned environment replicated from a set piece.

Ah.

In that case I don't see why the overworld should be instanced. The whole point of playing a MMO is to "Do whatever!", as the cute Subrosian Smithy in the Zelda games encourages you to do.

If someone wants to kill steal and camp at places where popular monsters spawn then that's their right, there isn't much you can do about it unless we have the option of attacking that fool to chase them off (or form a lynch mob, haha). I think that's the ideal gameplay, survival of the fittest and whatnot.

And how about people who are farming items? If a certain group of monsters only spawn in a certain area and someone is running around killing them all to gather the item they drop, annoying you because you can't kill fast enough, is that a reason to make an instanced overworld? It's just part of the game, they have as much right to farm as you do.

I think the best way for any game company to handle camping/killstealing/griefing is to give people the ability to defend themselves and say "Have at it!".

If that's not your cup of tea, how about placing a limit on how many times per day you can kill a certain monster? That would work great for unique monsters that drop great loot. There should be more than enough things to do in the game to keep you busy until the next time you can kill it.

I think some dungeons should be instanced though, mainly those that require parties because I think players would like to tackle a challenge with just their friends without worrying about some highlevel fuckwad coming out of nowhere and ruining the experience. I know that contradicts the "survival of the fittest" theme but you've gotta have SOME respite from the dicks of the world to enjoy the game haha.

On another note, I'm finding this thread...ummmm, interesting... but a bit difficult to follow too, especially as there's good points being made by all posters, who are not necessarily at complete odds with one another.

I agree with P, this thread needs MOAR DRAMA!