I’ve pretty much seen it all in modern MMO’s. I have a fondness for the old turn based NWN on AOL, I loved UO’s character development system (if not its PVP restrictions), I felt incredibly powerful in AC1 as I blasted through hordes of mobs without waiting around for a group.

Since then though MMORPG’s have turned into nothing but waiting, tedium, and extreme repetitivness. Most of this is a result of the swing in character Archtypes and the evil level system. I don’t know about the rest of the respondents here, but I’ve run a PVP guild since 1995 with average memberships of 30-50 players. Even though our focus is PVP, we enjoy a good PVE game because it gives us something else to do.

DAOC, SWG, EQ1&2, and AC2 all saw us in and out of their games in 3-6 months after retail launch. The most divisive issue was always levels, and level restrictions. Simply put a third of our members leveled fast, a third leveled moderately, and a third leveled slow. A general rule of thumb for guilds is that you only have 30-50% of your total active membership online on any given day.

Say the group size for a game is 8, and following the rule of thumb for a guild of 40 you’ve got between 12 and 20 people online any given day. That being the case the fast levelers hit a brick wall because they couldn’t put together a full guild group for the high end content. The moderate levelers and slow levelers hit the same wall. Grouping restrictions by level prevent anyone from helping the other, and people get nowhere fast. From a PVP guild perspective, we want to be done with the leveling process within 45 days so we can move on to the PVP part of the game. Restrictive level systems put a kink in that, draw out character development too long, and ends up making us leave the game in frustration.

On the flip side, we do play games that just offer PVE and the same problems arise. The big difference for us in a PVE game is the same sorts of level and grouping problems, but as we move up (at a snails pace) the new levels and content are too unrewarding to justify the time investment to level in the first place.

COH/COV has the sidekick thing down great, but the problem is that the sidekicked person doen’t come with any advanced powers. If you SK a level 5 guy, he’s in the group with two lame powers. SK’ing outside of a guild environment isn’t common unless the person is within 4-5 levels of the main party.

So give me a UO type character advancement model, an unrestricted grouping system, a huge world to explore (EQ1 + expansion areas), a good and time efficient travel system (UO recall stone and runegate), some PVP zones with objectives (ala CoV missions), and PVP rankings (ala Camelot Herald).

Everything that would make my ideal game already exists, its just spread out amongst several games.

1. Content (things to do) is a crucial feature for attracting and retaining players.

Goes along with:

Mostly people do what has worked before. And levels have worked very powerfully in terms of clicking with the audience as a clear advancement mechanism.

These are together from my point of view.

“Content” games (considered from the common point of view) are successful simply because they already fill the market and the industry has more experience making them. It’s just an observation of what is currently happening but there isn’t an evidence of a rule.

DAoC’s PvP is somewhat systemic and the players didn’t appreciate when the developers tried to go in the way of classic content (ToA). It did more harm than good. If it is somewhat successful today it’s for its systemic PvP.

So “content” games seems more successful and the only viable path just because we still have to see good games trying to go in the other direction.

From a really simplified point of view:
- If you add one point to a linear path (the classic idea of content), you are increasing the weight by one. It’s predictable and the system is so simple that you cannot really expect to optimize it.

- If you add one point within a system, instead, you increase considerably its complexity. This because all these elements are connected together and affect each other in a complex relationship (and often retaining a specific function, so never aging).

So if you are looking for a way to optimize the outcome it’s obvious that only a “system” will be appropriate. It’s just the best choice to create something that isn’t supposed to age and waste resources.

1. Build (autogenerate if possible)

This is just another myth that simply doesn’t work not because of lacking tools, but because it’s illogic:

- Adding a generic dungeon with armies of generic monsters is not content.

- Basically, content is a variation on systems.

There is just no way to magically produce content (feeling as content) if the underlying model doesn’t change.

This is also why I’m deluded by World of Warcraft. They have announced an expansion with the promise of new zones, new dungeons, new quests, another ten levels etc… But they aren’t building any new system (the flying mount, maybe). Now, if this content will have some value it’s just because of the handcrafted work it will have. New zones built from scratch, new monsters and so on. If they are even going to reuse a single element, the value of all this will just go to zero.

And, maybe, it is already zero. In fact the great majority of what that they’ll add will just replace what we have already. So the truth is that they aren’t adding anything, but removing and replacing.

I came to the treadmill conclusion years ago and got lambasted for it. But I have a somehwat different answer, which is also something I’ve been saying for a long time, which is that you should really have many different embedded games. Some of them can be skill-based, some of them can be treadmill-based, some can be easy and some can be hard.

I agree. Personally. I think that treadmills sell better however. WoW does offer some skill-based content (PvP, battlegrounds, the auction house) but only offers this at the very edges of its system. “Here’s your treadmill, and now if you really want to, you can go play a skill-based game that is derived from it, but don’t worry, you don’t have to!”

I would argue that all skill-based content inevitably takes the shape of PvP. The details are different but the meaning is the same — one players actions allow them to affect and overcome other players.

And I agree with your characterization of Puzzle Pirates. I’ve always thought that it was depressing that a certain style of combat is the only puzzle that most games choose to utilize. That is another issue where I think we find that we are dealing with the fact that familiarty sells. Both to players and to those funding our MMO’s.

I’m not sure if its bad etiquette to link to your own blog. I’m new to this blogging thing. But I just put up a blog and a post that might clarify where I am coming from on these issues. It’s pretty much my reaction to the Beowulf quest. I guess click the link on my name if you’re interested.

Many many games attract and retain players based purely on systemic changes, rather than different input variables into a system. Civ IV out now, is an example of this sort of game. So are most puzzle games.

Yes.

But where do we see developers looking to these to craft their game worlds? Do we have any indication that, well, this actually maps well to persistent/virtual worlds? Civilization has a start point and an end-point and is notoriously difficult to play multiplayer, for example. Same with puzzle games. You can play puzzle games multiplayer but they tend to be popular almost entirely based on their singleplayer fun.

We have Puzzle Pirates, but I’m not sure that really fits the bill. The puzzle games there are subsystems, ways to have fun while, well, grinding. Just alternatives to the combat subgame of most MMO’s.

I want games like this, games that require skill, an ability to adapt, that require choices. But I’m not sure games like this are ready for prime-time in the MMO world. Changing things throughout the life of a game pisses off players. They lose their hard-earned baubles, or their baubles mean something different which is roughly equivalent. Choices are VERY hard to implement. Choices tend to degenerate into: what’s the right answer, I’ll take that. True tradeoffs tend to be balance nightmares and piss off players when a choice goes badly for them. I think that a lesson from WoW is that achiever content is where to make your money and most players do like repetition for the sake of progression. Repetition is the only “safe” way to allow progression if you don’t want to piss off players by daring to demonstrate that other players may be better at the game than them.

The question once was, “how to wean players from the idea that they can be a hero?” I.e. given that everyone wants to be a hero, and not everyone can be one, how can we keep players after they realize that they aren’t a hero? Now the question is, “how we can trick everyone into thinking that they are a hero?” The best answer so far is progression through repetition, static content, and a polished but relatively single-player experience. And as much as we might complain, I think it is the right answer. At least when the question is, “what sells best to the most players?”

Actually, after writing this I read your comment in the “links” post and I it sounds like we are coming to similar conclusions.

I had a feeling I was going to get into trouble with any definition of “content.” *g*

“Things to do” was a convenient abbreviation for “features that lead people to want to spend time playing your game,” but I agree that it doesn’t capture the full practical meaning of “content” from a designer’s perspective.

“Features intended to directly reward gameplay” might be a slightly more precise description of what I meant. It’s accepting this as a design goal that naturally produces the content race, which is what I imagine leads to designers spending so much time trying to dream up effective ways to regulate access to content.

–Flatfingers

I’d describe levels as just one of many mechanisms for addressing the design challenge of limited content.

Start with a couple of simple observations:

1. Content (things to do) is a crucial feature for attracting and retaining players.

2. Players will always consume content faster than you can create it (the “content race”).

Many of the most consequential game design decisions in MMOGs lately seem to be aimed at trying to invalidate that second observation. As a supply and demand problem, it can be attacked from one or both sides:

Supply-side:

1. Build (autogenerate if possible) a very large universe of content relative to your expected player population.

2. Provide players with ways to allow them to create content for each other.

Demand-side:

1. Regulate access to content.

There may be some exceptions, but most MMOG designers these days seem to consider “regulate access to content” to be the only realistic option. Supply-side approaches, when suggested, are increasingly dismissed as leading to “sandbox”-type games (which presumably won’t sell).

I suspect that the prevalence of this attitude is why we continue to see gameplay mechanisms such as the following:

1. Levels — some content can be accessed only by characters within a relatively small range of power

2. Experience points (XP) — actions generate XP which must be accumulated to reach the next level

3. “Grinding” — some content may be (or must be!) repeated to generate XP

4. Zones — level-based content grouped geographically

5. Race — some content can be accessed only by characters of a specific race

6. Faction — some content can be accessed only by characters liked sufficiently by a specific faction

These mechanisms and others like them do address the “problem” of regulating access to content… but why are designers so intent on framing the larger issue of the content race solely as a demand-side problem?

I don’t think enough effort is being made to explore supply-side solutions. Like Amberyl, I think MMOGs would benefit from more Explorer-like design thinking. Unlike Jherad, I’m not yet convinced that “without levels, or a skill-based system which is similar, you must still allow the player to feel that his character is developing over time.” Character development over time, to me, is just another way to say “XP-based levels” — it’s just another demand-side mechanism for regulating the player’s access to content.

What about supply-side alternatives to running the content race?

–Flatfingers

But this isn’t about what the players are looking for in an Achievement environment. It’s really about folks who want a bit more immersion than creative writing variants on Kill X for Y and Deliver Z quests.

It’s really about both. Achievers are not uni-dimensional people. Player behavior is shaped tremendously by a game’s environment and expectations. For instance, I suspect that most Achievement-oriented MMORPG players play single-player RPGs quite differently than they do MMOs. Diablo-style play is fun, sure. However, most players are unable to stomach a steady diet of grinding. The veneer of quest and story is quite important, at least to Western players — anyone who has ever tried, say, Ragnarok or Lineage can attest to how much of a difference it makes.

Back to the core topic at hand: There need to be new solutions to the content problem, though, and dealing with the level/content curve needs to be part of that. Taking four years to develop an MMOG, as is becoming common now, is hugely problematic from a business perspective.

But don’t listen to me. I’m just jaded. I’ve given up on proving WoW and accompanying concepts “wrong”. WoW is the McDonald’s of MMOG’s — but it succeeds because, sadly, that’s what players actually want. I have determined that I’m not a core MMO demographic and won’t be anytime soon. I cling instead to a hope that WoW and its ilk succeed to such an extent that my particular niche may one day be viable beyond text.

Wow is successful because they have no rivals. If SWG followed the path Raph has showed them, and spent their time on developing their game, using the unique features of Jedi Master – Apprentice relationships, Bounty Hunters, player bases, pvp advancement, creating Factional cities, and advancing their undoubtfully perfect crafting system instead of dealing with CU and NGE, SWG would hold a lot of current wow customers.

I agree, swg would never appeal to some 18- age group customers, but middle-aged swg players had 2-3 accounts pe to balance this.

I prefer swg skill based system to wow levelling system any day. And, swg gave us the accomplishment feeling by giving us badges. It was a genius decision.

I’m not a fan of leveling myself. Ding! isn’t a reason to celebrate unless it’s the very last ding you’re going to get and even when people reach that last level they are let down because they have nothing left to work toward. There has to be more to it and to me more to it = refining skills more than just leveling. (Not to mention refining skills for the purpose of PvP over that of PvE.) Leveling I think puts too much of a limit on the ability to refine skills in most cases. There’s always a cap on just how much skill you can get within a level so instead of being able to take a skill as far as you like (whether gimping your character or not), you have to level more to get more skill. Just like crafting (not my favorite thing but still important) is often attached to level rather than skill. Crafters that want to play merchants don’t care about ding. They care about getting all the skills necessary to put resources to use into items they create.

Maybe I’ve become more jaded over time about leveling after working on guides and having to level over and over and over to squeeze out all the tricks of leveling effectively for others. I’ve also seen the detrimental effect it’s had on my guild and how it’s been a divider rather than a uniter. There is always someone that doesn’t have as much time and gets left behind and then they end up dropping out of the game because the only way anyone else can help them is to invest even more time to level them. Yes, there are a few games that address this but it’s not enough to give you warm fuzzies. Add to that the aging demographic *raises hand* that now have children and less time to devote to reaching level after level and it gets a tad depressing.

I’d also like to note that while taking Kung Fu it was interesting to learn that belts as we know them (white, yellow, blue, green etc.) are a construct created for Western Culture. We all wanted to know “How am I doing now?” and so there were ‘levels’ added in via belts to do that. I think too many people focus on the level and end up with tunnel vision. We lose sight of the fact that their is an entire game around us with other content worth exploring or worse, we realize that all there is to the game is leveling and we’ll never get to see the rest of the content until we do.

Levels are even more detrimental to those that are more social in nature. If they fall behind they end up lingering in the lower end content while all their friends and aquaintances keep moving to bigger and badder areas that they won’t get to see until they level even more so they can join them. I’m sure it’s great for the powergamer. They have a very real and defined goal of where they need to go and what they need to do exactly to ge there but I think leveling is the ‘dumbed’ down version of gaming. It’s taken out the real skill of playing a character vs learning how to create an effective character that YOU want to play. You’ll always know at x level you get y abilities and to some that’s comforting they won’t gimp their character and to others it’s confining that they can’t percievably gimp their character if they want to.

There are a lot of but, ands, ifs and could bes in regard to which is better. Most people say balancing is considerably easier if it’s level based. There’s no need to worry about too many variables and players are happier that they are in the competitive groove nice and cozy. Just my buck forty five. ;x

Probably like a lot of folks reading this, my personal preference is for skill based systems. A preference so strong I rarely stay with any level based game past the lowbie experiance. But I am going to assume we want to talk about commercial MMORPGs here and not drift off to the land of ‘if I were Bill Gates’.

I think its all about badges of achievement. When members of my family play pogo for example, they often play furiously to obtain this weeks badges. When my son plays SWG, he plays to ‘beat the game’ by acquiring every badge available or doing every challange in the game so that, even lacking an ingame trophy, he can say he has completed all the parts.

On broader levels, we see single player games where the gamers report ‘beating the game’ by playing it through to the end. And its hard to dismiss the success of level based MMORPGs in relative subscription numbers to skill based games that were temporaly competative. Futher, early on it seems like the hardcore players were willing to suffer through terribly repeatative content with little to no narative illustion to paper it over, just to get the advancement.

The upshot of all this is, for me, that you must have the Ding!, the louder the better, if you want to want to attract a broad segment of players. Of coarse, if you are forced to use repeatative content to control advanement rate, you might want to make it feel fast and furious while papering over it pretty well.

The other item I want to touch on real quickly is that levels provide the player with an easy to read difficulty of play adjustment. The question becomes how easy to read and is easy to read important.

I’m sure that none of this is news. Maybe you can integrate those kinds of achievement rewards and play difficulty adjustment into some other system. I am pretty sure your gonna tell us if you think it can be done.

Ok there are a ton of things here that one could work with however just to pick one, how about change the shape of the graph? Wait one says, everyone wants to be at the right most end and everyone starts at the left most how could the shape be changed and still have levels?

By not making levels intrensically a power increase. Sure make each a different set of ‘skillups’ or whatever but also apply negatives. Perhaps if done so in the proper combination you’ll find people deciding where in the chain to stop adding levels (course you have to provide a means to freeze ones level) just as the Monk would in various editions of D&D. You’d have to defeat a(the) monk of a higher level to advance. Sometimes you might not want to defeat said monk so you staid where you were.

Just my thought for now. Perhaps I’ll flesh it out more after some sleep.