The leveling curve.

Content and general development discussion, including maps, quests, and server code from the development team.
User avatar
Crush
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 8046
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 17:08
Location: Germany

Post by Crush » 08 Dec 2006, 04:26

When you are even doubting that this will ever be implemented yourself, why talk about it anyway?
  • former Manasource Programmer
  • former TMW Pixel artist
  • NOT a game master

Please do not send me any inquiries regarding player accounts on TMW.


You might have heard a certain rumor about me. This rumor is completely false. You might also have heard the other rumor about me. This rumor is 100% accurate.
Madcap
Novice
Novice
Posts: 156
Joined: 02 Nov 2006, 08:16
Location: Oregon

Post by Madcap » 08 Dec 2006, 05:56

Crush wrote:When you are even doubting that this will ever be implemented yourself, why talk about it anyway?
Because I like to keep hope alive!

I like the idea. I happen to be one of those people that likes a lot of detail. The more detail (functional detail, not just "stuff" for the sake of having "stuff"), the better the gaming experience for me.
User avatar
yosuhara
Warrior
Warrior
Posts: 583
Joined: 16 Mar 2006, 22:19
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Post by yosuhara » 08 Dec 2006, 14:05

Madcap wrote:
Crush wrote:When you are even doubting that this will ever be implemented yourself, why talk about it anyway?
Because I like to keep hope alive!

I like the idea. I happen to be one of those people that likes a lot of detail. The more detail (functional detail, not just "stuff" for the sake of having "stuff"), the better the gaming experience for me.
aging certainly won't provide better gaming experience, cause like u have written: u'll end up to be slower, dumber etc....(hint: gamers don't like it) and details are good until they aren't annoying or unnecessary....
Image
Image
Image
Madcap
Novice
Novice
Posts: 156
Joined: 02 Nov 2006, 08:16
Location: Oregon

Post by Madcap » 09 Dec 2006, 04:40

yosuhara wrote:
Madcap wrote:
Crush wrote:When you are even doubting that this will ever be implemented yourself, why talk about it anyway?
Because I like to keep hope alive!

I like the idea. I happen to be one of those people that likes a lot of detail. The more detail (functional detail, not just "stuff" for the sake of having "stuff"), the better the gaming experience for me.
aging certainly won't provide better gaming experience, cause like u have written: u'll end up to be slower, dumber etc....(hint: gamers don't like it) and details are good until they aren't annoying or unnecessary....
You are entitled your opinion. I just prefer a variety of challenges and considerations in my gaming experience. I realize I am in the minority, and most gamers are just looking for a quick high, but there are those types like me out there.
kFiddle
Peon
Peon
Posts: 2
Joined: 19 Aug 2007, 18:46

Dynamic Monsters

Post by kFiddle » 19 Aug 2007, 19:20

So, this topic has been dead for more than a year. But, perhaps I can offer some useful suggestions anyways.

As for the learning curve, I think it would be a good idea to have the *appearance* of a high level curve, but with the curve actually being in the midrange. The appearance can be controlled, for example, by the number of damage points, among other things. A Lvl 1 character does 1 damage, a Lvl 2 character does 10 damage as an arbitrary example. However, the monsters in the first area have 15 hits points and the monsters in the next area have 150 hit points. Obviously, you don't want the overall progress to be flat like my example shows (1:1 gain), but you get the idea...

I think players love it when they level up and gain significant increases, and many of your concerns can be allayed by making many of these increases somewhat cosmetic.

On the other hand, I heard mention earlier in the thread of using different skills to beat a monster, rather than plain-old catch-all levels. I don't know what was meant by this. Just thinking about it--it could be, e.g. speed capabilities (allowing you to run past monsters and gain treasures), luck capabilities (alllowing you to potentially defeat high-level monsters, gaining tons of exp), thieving capabilities (either from monsters or real players), etc. Could be interesting, and makes the "curve" less of an intrusion.

As for maximum limits--theoretically, TMW would be a constantly evolving world anyways, keeping the players interesting in new stuff. You don't want the sole attraction of the game to be monster fighting anyways. I would say that player interactions (and not just chatting) are integral.

Of course, why not just implement a cave or something that contains monsters whose levels are based on the player's level? This would specifically be for the higher level characters to remain interested. You could make the bonuses exp related, and/or treasure-related.
User avatar
Bjørn
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 1430
Joined: 09 Dec 2004, 19:50
Location: North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Contact:

Re: Dynamic Monsters

Post by Bjørn » 20 Aug 2007, 08:11

kFiddle wrote:As for the learning curve, I think it would be a good idea to have the *appearance* of a high level curve, but with the curve actually being in the midrange. The appearance can be controlled, for example, by the number of damage points, among other things. A Lvl 1 character does 1 damage, a Lvl 2 character does 10 damage as an arbitrary example. However, the monsters in the first area have 15 hits points and the monsters in the next area have 150 hit points. Obviously, you don't want the overall progress to be flat like my example shows (1:1 gain), but you get the idea...
This totally works in single-player games, where there is no need to come back to the same area (usually you constantly move on) and no fighting with other players. However, in a multiplayer game the point is usually to play together with or against other players. For this, a certain amount of balance between players is necessary so that fights between them are challenging even when their levels differ a bit and so that they may fight together in a larger part of the world. This is why a less steep curve is suggested.
Hannie
Peon
Peon
Posts: 15
Joined: 11 Sep 2007, 07:21

Post by Hannie » 11 Sep 2007, 08:26

levels and skills are all great but i think we should have pets :D say any monster in game and perhaps a few rare ones...and give them all a set way of growing so they are all different but they get some of your exp while you have them out!

:D
User avatar
Crush
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 8046
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 17:08
Location: Germany

Post by Crush » 11 Sep 2007, 12:37

Hannie, please don't post comments that have nothing to do with the topic.
  • former Manasource Programmer
  • former TMW Pixel artist
  • NOT a game master

Please do not send me any inquiries regarding player accounts on TMW.


You might have heard a certain rumor about me. This rumor is completely false. You might also have heard the other rumor about me. This rumor is 100% accurate.
blackrazor
Novice
Novice
Posts: 332
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 14:38

Post by blackrazor » 22 Oct 2007, 13:08

It all depends what you're trying to build. Over time, you'll naturally attract and retain the types of players that you game "is", not the other way around.

If it's a "character simulation", then it's all about your character's growth, and a steep curve fullfills that.

If it's a "roleplaying world", then what matters most is your character's ability to meaningfully interact with as large a segment of the playerbase as possible, and so a flatter curve best fullfills that.

Personally, I prefer actual "playing of roles", interacting with others meaningfully, regardless of "level", so I would vote for a very very flat curve.

I often still play Continuum (Subspace) : Trenchwars, which has no leveling at all, but you definately feel like you have a "role" in the constant struggle to defend / acquire the base.

Which brings us to the point of making "roleplaying games". With a flat leveling curve, it's not all about interacting with the monsters, "training" for hours upon hours, just to gain those precious skull-bashing levels. Instead, it's about giving players something to do with each other.

Give them castles (bases?) to attack and defend.

Give them interactive / cooperative maps, where groups of players can work together to change the map, and achieve a group experience.

Give them arena-style maps, with rewards (monsters that drops rare goodies, or rare-spawns that could correspond to other skills, i.e. rocks for mining) so that players have a general reason to go there and compete with other players over the scarce resources.

Add private chat, chat channels, shout and auction channels, and friendlists so that players have better communication options for their roleplaying, too.

How does all this relate to your question? Because if you choose a flat-curve (my vote), then you will need all this interactive stuff to keep the roleplayers entertained. It will be more than monster-bashing, followed by a quick trip to the arena, to test how you "measure up".

P.S. Hybrid systems also exist, where a player "grows" vs. various groups of monsters seperately (could be monster types, or all monsters on a continent / planet, etc.), but that growth doesn't translate into huge power differences in PvP situations. It comes down to a more "subtle complex" combat engine, that applies different algorithms depending on the circumstances.

P.P.S. I do not want my character to age. I don't want to have to go to the bathroom, either. And for the love of god, please no "death penalties", especially permadeath. Roleplaying is fun, but certain things just aren't fun to roleplay (for me, at least).
User avatar
Arenlor
Peon
Peon
Posts: 48
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 05:12
Location: /Milky_Way/Sol/Earth/USA
Contact:

Post by Arenlor » 24 Oct 2007, 04:58

I suggest a steep flat curve. Using what I can see in this game make the level part flat but the skill part steep. So job levels would be more important than actual levels, a level 3 who only uses one skill would be deadly to a level 5 or higher (up to maybe 7) with that skill, but overall would be rather weak. It would leave it pretty even, but would give the higher level players something none-the-less. A level 10 would obviously have more experience and therefore a higher job level than a level 3. But if they spread it out they very well may be defeated. Using something like this would give players a bit of a guide as to who is stronger but it wouldn't be exact. A lot depends on, is there level limits (not as in total level but rather as in to use sword/spell/item A you have to be level X with skill level N) if there are then that level 10 would take a long time to be able to use what a level 3 may be able to, but he'd be able to choose from a larger list. I use to play (sadly it's M$ only) RPGWO which has a huge assortment of possible skills (maybe I'll install WINE to grab the list of them for you) and it's nearly impossible to master them all, you'd have to be stupid to be able to do so. Another thing to take into account as to whether to have steep or flat is will you have non-fighting skills, like cooking, carpentry, masonry, etc. If so then you'll need to decide if the level is based on all the skills or just the fighting skills, and if only on the fighting then what status things affect the non-fighting skills (wouldn't STR be able to help wood cutters) and then you'd have to fight to get those bonuses, which would make the game most certainly not about role-playing and only about fighting. R$ is all about fighting for example even though they have other skills added in to help you with that fighting, you still need to fight. Another thing is R$ is too restricted with its skills, Tibia is a little more open with them, though they are all only fighting skills. RPGWO has a very nice system, but after you get off the tutorial island there is nothing to do, plus you have to remember to eat or you die. Which is quite annoying, but it does take away from the repetitiveness of grinding, unless you're grinding one of the food skills, then it gets boring again.
Edit: Sorry should have put it in paragraphs, one thing is, I'm a very non PvP player, but I don't want to be stuck in a small area or an area that lacks the full experience and resources I need such as not fighting the toughest monsters or not getting the best metal ores for mining because I don't want to go to where I can get killed by another player, there should be set aside areas for this, and I mean complete areas of the map, but they shouldn't have anything "unique" maybe they would have unique monsters food drops etc but nothing like you have to go there to be able to mine the best metal type of thing. This way a player like me can cooperate the whole time and people who love to murder can do so too, but people will know that if they go somewhere they'll get murdered but they won't be required to go there for anything other than that pretty much. This also brings into question the will you have non-fighting skills be non-fighting, as in can I have a character not be an adventurer, if so I should be able to strap on some armor, get a good bit of resources, and make some gold before having to fight to get the better resources (and I should be able to higher another player to protect me instead of having to go there, you'd protect a blacksmith/miner who was getting the best armor making resource and making it right?) I know this isn't making sense, I'm dyslexic and tired and I have a mental thing that makes it impossible to fully censor and think through anything.
User avatar
5t3v3
Novice
Novice
Posts: 451
Joined: 31 Oct 2007, 16:08
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by 5t3v3 » 06 Nov 2007, 00:31

I would suggest steep curve. The problem of the limited range of monsters that can be combated can be solved my adding many more types, if people are up for the work that is. Also leveling by doing quests could mean that you can still level by killing monsters that aren't really a challenge to you anymore. Like get me 500 maggot slimes, and I'll give you experience in return. Oh, you could also lock the quest up until a certain level, otherwise you'll have to put an amount of experience that some will hardly feel and others go up 3 or 4 levels.
You could also have quest level appropriate, like if a quest has a puzzle; then solving it could raise your intel-stat etc.
User avatar
5t3v3
Novice
Novice
Posts: 451
Joined: 31 Oct 2007, 16:08
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by 5t3v3 » 06 Nov 2007, 00:46

Oh about the aging of character. I don't see that work immediatly, perhaps if one inplements way to cheat death and old age (like you could do a quest to make a new body, and then a quest to transfer your soul (and your stats and level) to the new vessel. I guess it would be fun if you have a "deadline" to make. Like do that quest before you reach 100 y or you lose your character. and as you come closer to deadline stats go down (but effect is reversed from transfer to new body). anyway, I think it's a dead (loving the pun) idea, but I thought I'd just give it some thought for those who care.
paradoxfox93
Peon
Peon
Posts: 19
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 05:43

Post by paradoxfox93 » 15 Dec 2007, 07:26

Okay, I'm going to try do this without dissing runescape too badly. However as it is my major reference for graphical multiplayer online RPG's it will be at least a little difficult so bear with me. If you wish to know why I think RS is the cut crack of video games and why I think Jagex is a dirty dealer, just say so and leave it alone, if there is demand then I've written a bit about this and will post it in Off-topic. (Edit - hey what-dya-know I did it without dissing runscape at all...)

That said, I would prefer one of several different dynamics which I will enumarate. Also, I really LIKE the idea of meaningful aging.

First I'll explore the Aging aspect then round-a-bout-ly move into the leveling curves. In short. SOME players could be 'immortal' and 'level' MUCH slower. Here enters race. It doesn't really matter to me if one uses the standard JRRT/D&D adopted race layout or we invent our own. Writing our own would be equally as cool, but we would need creative writers. I'm not sure if we have those but as a a avid ex-fantasy reader (more or less, I still read fantasy, just not as much) and writer I'd be more than happy to help out in that area. Certainly humans would level much faster and die before capping out or only be useful for a short period of time for some in-game purpose. Creative thought would have to be layed out into in-game activities to give purpose to these varying charecter types. Furthermore there may even be options for those magus type humans to become Liches of a sort (Immortal undead who require flesh eating/human sacrifice or something to that effect for sustinace). Then of course we come to the much longer lived but not quite immortal Dwavish types which may have their own unique purposes (level faster at and create better metalworks). Then of course you have your elvenish immortals who would level really SLOWLY but would be great rangers and such.

I know you you are trying to focus this thread on the effect of leveling but I can't help but think that the two are intertwined. IF one impliments an effective aging system of varying degrees and means then it seems me that an exponentially increasing curve (moderately flat) of both the effect and cause of leveling (I.E. both exp needed & benefit gained). Certainly this makes extremely high levels difficult to achieve and meaningless for the short lived who must find an effective balance. Certainly there is the appeal of the immortal who could gain infinate levels theoretically but it could be arrange as such that it is not necessary nor meaningful to attain that though possible. Of course there would be the miniscule demand for high level content by the few we all would roll our eyes at as they show off their rediculous badge of infinate levelation. Here also to discourage (but not prevent) rediculous levelation, the benefit curve might be as bjorn suggests and the necessary experience the opposite curve (I.E. cheap, then progressive and exponentially more expensive). This would keep most charecters in the median range of an effective level.

The whole of what Im saying here may seem a little vague. But if it's FAIRLY simple to achieve a certain level and therein the focus becomes about GAMEPLAY and not reduiclous amount of hours spent working. Certainly as proposed, could see it working out as most players having many multiple charecters. The purposes being:

1. Storage (Most likely by an immortal or near-immortal)
2. Combat type
2. Task type
3 specific mini-game
4. PvP

Each of these purposes just may very well have several charecters in each catergory. So each player might have between 2-12 charecters depending on how involved and advanced that player is.

Heres: the Jumble: Class level/Race specific items.

This will create heavy mover market. In other words, I have to sell this thing because my charecter is about to die soon and I don't have another charecter to transfer it to. Or train a replacement (If the curve suggests this is practical to do in time depending on how much a player plays)

Sure, I'll just pop it onto my dying high level human I made for storage purposes and keep logged out anyway so he doesnt age except when I need to transfer stuff. Nada...charecters will age even while logged out...albiet more Slowly (1/5-1/10 of the rate)

-----
Drawback - Those players who only play once a month or so.

There shouldn't be much you can't do with a regular charecter that you can't do with an immortal. an immortal's leveling curve may be much more difficult and certainly there will be SOME things one cant do based on this...however...if they don' really play....we're not really catering to them are we?

--------
paradoxfox93
Peon
Peon
Posts: 19
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 05:43

Post by paradoxfox93 » 15 Dec 2007, 07:28

5t3v3 wrote:Oh about the aging of character. I don't see that work immediatly, perhaps if one inplements way to cheat death and old age (like you could do a quest to make a new body, and then a quest to transfer your soul (and your stats and level) to the new vessel. I guess it would be fun if you have a "deadline" to make. Like do that quest before you reach 100 y or you lose your character. and as you come closer to deadline stats go down (but effect is reversed from transfer to new body). anyway, I think it's a dead (loving the pun) idea, but I thought I'd just give it some thought for those who care.
Death is but change. ;-)

Also, I think I ended up tripping on the aging thing by accident. I can do that when I'm on a creative tangent. I've done lots writing for systems and worlds for P,P,&D. Nothing commercial, just me and my buds sitting around sick of D&D and too much time on our hands.
User avatar
Pavitra
Peon
Peon
Posts: 1
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 07:56

Post by Pavitra » 21 Dec 2007, 08:31

I would rather have a flat curve, because this is a multiplayer game. A steep curve unnecessarily cuts up the playerbase by character level. It impedes playing together. This is a bad thing.

The strongest argument I have seen against the flat curve is the scenario of experienced characters being owned by newbies. I think this can be avoided by having a tactically and strategically deep system; a more skilled player can easily defend herself against an inexperienced one.

I certainly take strong exception with the idea of rewarding hours of grinding. The problem of the "treadmill" is probably the single strongest complaint against MMORPGs today; why should we walk willingly into it?

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that the curve should be completely flat: characters do not gain in power. Instead, a character becomes more finely customized with play; building up a character is something like building a TCG/CCG deck. All builds are theoretically balanced, but a few builds are just right for you.

You would gain not stronger powers, but rather a broader range of options for your character. Incidentally, this would also (as a side effect) increase the strategic depth of the game over time, hopefully matching the player's increasing competence. The game would grow with you.

This system would also suggest an interesting mechanic for mortality: over time, it becomes increasingly difficult to change a character's build. Thus, a player who spends a lot of time playing finds that her well-tuned build has settled into place and been engraved in stone.

Eventually, the character might even become a permanent part of the setting, like an NPC. Taking root has its advantages.

It doesn't have to work like that, though. Mortality could even be entirely voluntary; many people would choose it in order for their character to be canonized (so to speak). If giving up flexibility yields a deeper sort of permanence in the game world, many people may easily make the choice.

But I do like the idea of gradual customization and balanced builds. I hope this hasn't already been decided otherwise; I think the idea is good.
Post Reply