Is level based easier? Is easier good? Why is the “box” scary?

[Kade]

Are level based games easier to make and maintain as opposed to skill based ones? As I am not in the computer industry and know very little about writing code much less full video games, I was curious what those who do have some experience doing such things had to say. As a layman I can tell you that I know that I have had more fun sum total in the skill based games I’ve played versus the level based ones as the perception they give is that there is a lot more to do. Level based games seem a lot more linear, with progression tied to leveling, and leveling tied to combat.

Why are developers so afraid of the sandbox method/concept of creating games? What factors make such a method so distasteful that the last AAA title to take a shot at it was Star Wars Galaxies? It would seem to me that given the freedom and tools to allow player generated content in game on a level that ‘box style games offer as opposed to what we’ve seen of level based ones, that would take a large amount of stress off the live teams to continuous pump content out and in essence give more time to put out what the popular catch phrase these days is “hand-crafted” content.

[Commander_Daedelus]

i don't think its a matter of implementation its just level based games are more common, personally though i'd prefer skill based as level based games seem to be more gear and endgame raiding focused and i don't want to see that in STO

[RandomRedshirt]

In a similar line of thinking, why does everyone feel that leveling or ranking is the end all, be all of game play in an MMO?

I have talked previously about ideas where the gameplay in an MMO would be open to all people of all "ranks" within the game, thereby eliminating end game. Ranks would only serve as a reward to players for their efforts, but would not deliniate a line of progression.

Some people would call that line of thinking a Sim. Maybe it is. Maybe creating a Sim for the Star Trek: Online experience isn't such a bad thing.

Let me throw this out. Let's say Ranks don't really matter, there is no Linear progression. Let's assume the game was created in a Sim type manner, thereby allowing all the hardcore purists their dream of "living" in Star Trek. Let's also assume that all content is open to all people, there is no "end game" and missions can be undertaken by people of all "ranks" just like on TV.

Now, after assuming all of the above, I'd like any gamer, casual or hardcore to tell me that a casual AND hardcore gamer can't have alot of fun with that model. Maybe the casual gamer might remain an Ensign for a long time. So what? If they can participate in joint missions with other "ranks" and see what everyone else can see, why is it such a big deal to have a Sim feel to it?

(Loved your post by the way Kade)

[imperialmyrth]

Actualy, the skill based, sand box method of character advancement is not any harder to implement, but it is exponentialy harder to balance. When you have class / level based systems, you have only so many fixed combinations to balance, where as a skill based system has much wider filed of choices that can lead to overpowered combinations. it can be done, but what what ends up happening in every game that goes the skill based / sand box rout is that the player base figures out the best skill combinations for a perticular goal and everyone copies it. If you stray from these optimum conbinations, you are no where near as affective and play becomes frustrating. Skill based sounds so appealing, but because its so hard to balance all the skill combinations it never delivers on its promise of diversity in character creation.

[Kade]

In a similar line of thinking, why does everyone feel that leveling or ranking is the end all, be all of game play in an MMO?

I have talked previously about ideas where the gameplay in an MMO would be open to all people of all "ranks" within the game, thereby eliminating end game. Ranks would only serve as a reward to players for their efforts, but would not deliniate a line of progression.

Some people would call that line of thinking a Sim. Maybe it is. Maybe creating a Sim for the Star Trek: Online experience isn't such a bad thing.

Let me throw this out. Let's say Ranks don't really matter, there is no Linear progression. Let's assume the game was created in a Sim type manner, thereby allowing all the hardcore purists their dream of "living" in Star Trek. Let's also assume that all content is open to all people, there is no "end game" and missions can be undertaken by people of all "ranks" just like on TV.

Now, after assuming all of the above, I'd like any gamer, casual or hardcore to tell me that a casual AND hardcore gamer can't have alot of fun with that model. Maybe the casual gamer might remain an Ensign for a long time. So what? If they can participate in joint missions with other "ranks" and see what everyone else can see, why is it such a big deal to have a Sim feel to it?

(Loved your post by the way Kade)

Thanks!

I also agree that in the scenario you present that I can't see how both casual and hardcore players wouldn't enjoy themselves, unless the given individuals spends their time doting over their perception of what the other side has, real or not. I must admit it is another reason I like skill based as I've found with level based I have 2-3 friends that play that don't usually keep up with me in level. It's more user friendly with skill based as such a system in my experience doesn't completly eliminate them from going along with me. With level based, there is absolutley no chance they could make it. You even see the trend in games now, such as AoC with it's apprentice system, in level based games to put in "artificial" means to bridge that gap.


Actualy, the skill based, sand box method of character advancement is not any harder to implement, but it is exponentialy harder to balance. When you have class / level based systems, you have only so many fixed combinations to balance, where as a skill based system has much wider filed of choices that can lead to overpowered combinations. it can be done, but what what ends up happening in every game that goes the skill based / sand box rout is that the player base figures out the best skill combinations for a perticular goal and everyone copies it. If you stray from these optimum conbinations, you are no where near as affective and play becomes frustrating. Skill based sounds so appealing, but because its so hard to balance all the skill combinations it never delivers on its promise of diversity in character creation.

Good points. I have to believe though that the matter of optimal combinations can be solved or other wise greatly minimalized, especially with the amount od experience in the field now.

[PhantomPhoton]

Many of us saw what happened when SWG went from a skill based game to a level based game...

I may take on a rather radical tone here but I do this intentionally. Level based games are for game boy RPGs. Loot based games are for those who play a game for 7 months then move on. I sure hope STO isn't either one of them.

[Cyclone_Jack]

To me, it depends on the game and the universe. For Star Trek, I can see them taking something from Guild Wars. In GW there were only 20 levels, and you could get there pretty quickly. However, once you got to L20, you were only about 1/4 of the way through the game and you still had a good amount of progression to do. In a similar fashion, STO can use Ranks as their 'levels'. There aren't too many of them, and it may not neccessarily take a long time to get up in rank, but once you are there, you still have a lot of progression to make. This is where I think the skill-based system should come into play. You Ranks basically give you more access to the ship, and thus you need to gain more abilities to do your job. Ranks thus unlock new skills, and these skills get better the more you use them.

So, in the end, I'd say...both.

[Raven0238]

In all reality, a "sandbox - skill based system" is the only way to go in STO....it really couldnt work that well otherwise IMO.

[Falin]

I think skill based, free form like eve (not nessacarily the times to train, but the template) is best for STO.

ranks on the other hand i think should be awarded by he NPC Faction as you accomplish set things and i think it needs to be dynamic. gather X amount of faction bonus points, gte Y rank, but violate the prime directive 200 times, you lose Z points and if it's enough tpo drop you under your current rank, you get demoted.

[Starknight]

There's a lot of stuff on this over on the Champions Online forums, mostly because a lot of people think the name means they should use the Hero System rules. :)

Short answer, as given by someone else: Level-based systems are generally easier to balance. It's also easier to gate content by levels, thus giving players an incentive to play longer, since there's something new to look forward to next level (or in 5 levels, or 10).

Another point in favor of level-based systems is that Achiever players want to feel they're being rewarded for time in the game. A nice 'ding!' coupled with advancements in stats, powers, and/or skills helps to fulfill this need for them.

I think you'll find that skill-based games are generally more popular with Social and Explorer type players, whereas Achiever and Killer players would prefer a level-based system. I freely admit I'm in the first two categories, but I can definitely see the other side's point of view.

[llamabread]

I think that level based games and skill based games to work both need to be represented by different combat systems. In a level based game, the combat system has to be that the higher level player always wins. In a skill based game, the combat must be based on player skill, not button mashing. The player who has spent more time in the game will have more skills and options, and therefore an advantage, but players without alot of skills still have the ability to beat the players with more skills if the newer player has better strategy, etc.

Games with a skill-based combat system must let a player's skill, strategy, organization, etc. be a factor in determining the winner, or else they are just a level based system in disguise.

[TheMasterpiece]

Id love to have a skill based game. I dont want to go into a long detailed essay, but i think that skills could be used so a player can focus in an area (medical, engineering etc) and as u become more skilled u rank up (ensign to lt) but its still based on the skill not a level. Everyone focuses on a particular area they want to be in.


Of course in the end we could all end up being just captains and having just levels. who knows

[njdss4]

Here are my thoughts on the two different systems:

People recognize level-based systems. It's very easy to understand and simple to play. This allows it to appeal to a wide audience of people. It also lends itself to more grinding aka boring play.

Skill-based systems are more open ended, true sandboxes. You raise certain skills, perhaps by acquiring skill points, and just get good at the game. This can be more rewarding, but it can also frustrate a lot of players. If they don't spend their skill points wisely or just aren't good at the game they might abandon it.

I think level-based games are well made for the most part because they are so easy to make. Skill-based games are harder to make, but if you do it well it will be better than any level-based game.

[FaeryFire]

I guess that, for game content design, a level based system is easier to handle since you know what abilities players will have at a certain level.
If skill based, you can still design content where only a certain skill level will be needed but because of the combinations of skills, you have to be more careful. On the other hand, it can stimulate your creativity.

Player side, level based is taking your hand through levels, with a limited "customization" (still planned by designers).
When a skill based, while offering more freedom and variations, might leave the player a bit clueless about what to develop to face the content challenge.

One of the biggest fear facing skill based system is you "cripple" yourself your own character by doing a bad allocation of skills (which can't happen with level based systems since most of the allocation, if not all, is done for you by the design).
Something which can be adressed by allowing players to "respec", to "retrain" and/or provide you templates to guide you.

[JoeCold]

Of course in the end we could all end up being just captains and having just levels. who knows

One of the best points I've seen in the whole forum thus far. Almost all of the discussion in every thread is kind of premature, at least until August 10. However, its fun. :D

There's a lot of stuff on this over on the Champions Online forums, mostly because a lot of people think the name means they should use the Hero System rules. :)

Short answer, as given by someone else: Level-based systems are generally easier to balance. It's also easier to gate content by levels, thus giving players an incentive to play longer, since there's something new to look forward to next level (or in 5 levels, or 10).

Another point in favor of level-based systems is that Achiever players want to feel they're being rewarded for time in the game. A nice 'ding!' coupled with advancements in stats, powers, and/or skills helps to fulfill this need for them.

I think you'll find that skill-based games are generally more popular with Social and Explorer type players, whereas Achiever and Killer players would prefer a level-based system. I freely admit I'm in the first two categories, but I can definitely see the other side's point of view.

Dead on. However, most market research suggests that Killers and Achievers don’t outnumber Socializers and Explorers by much. So, why do most games focus so heavily on the system focused towards Killers and Achievers?

Here’s an old paper by Richard Bartle himself on the topic for those that are interested in the balance:
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/wpm.htm


In a similar fashion, STO can use Ranks as their 'levels'. There aren't too many of them, and it may not neccessarily take a long time to get up in rank, but once you are there, you still have a lot of progression to make. This is where I think the skill-based system should come into play. You Ranks basically give you more access to the ship, and thus you need to gain more abilities to do your job. Ranks thus unlock new skills, and these skills get better the more you use them.

So, in the end, I'd say...both.

I really like this base idea and would like to take it one farther. You seem to imply here (please correct me if I’m wrong) ascending the ranks through a level system and then moving to skill based. What if each of the few levels (each labeled by a rank, so only 6ish) had its own rewards and opened up more to the player, but each were earned in a skill based system.

So, the player can develop skills as an ensign in a large number of different talents, each of which is one of several in a certain discipline (engineering, medical, science, etc.). The player can develop any and all of these to any degree or time schedule they choose. They can be a “jack of all trades” and increase skill equally or they can primarily focus on the skills within a particular discipline to “get promoted” or level more quickly.

For the sake of this example, let’s use a 100 scale for each skill. So, for example, when a user reaches skill 15 in all of the skills of any of those disciplines, he is promoted to Lieutenant and gains increased skills and abilities based on that particular discipline.

So, say the user did this in Medical. He is now a Lt. with extra skills and abilities (perhaps ship and starbase access and PvE mission types) unlocked for a Lt. in the Medical division. He can now further pursue Medical, or choose to increase his skills in, say, Science.

OK, so now he gets all his Science skills to 15. He unlocks the Science skills abilities and accesses, but does not get promoted again. To get promoted again, he has to get all of some discipline’s skills up to 30, for example.

Now, one of the disciplines would be “Line Officer”. This is where you have to advance to command a ship. A Lieutenant would be able to command very small ships with very small crews. Now it wouldn’t be any more difficult to rise in rank in Line than any other disciplines, but each bigger class of ship would additionally require minimum skill levels in all disciplines, making starship command the most daunting assent with the greatest rewards.

What do you think? It’s flexible, allowing users to “change their mind” without needing a reroll and without the progress already made being lost. It just means if they switch disciplines, they will be more well rounded with more accesses for the additional time and trouble to which they went. Casual gamers will still be able to spend their limited time single mindedly focusing on whatever they’re primary interest is. Hardcore gamers (principally Achievers and Killers anyway) will be able to revel in their quicker assent to larger ships, while casual gamers will still be able to get a command, but it will be quite a while before they get a big ship.

[Glavius]

I'd prefer to see a skill based system. Ultima Online did it best until they went and broke that game. Level based systems are simply more common as its a traditional RPG format.

[Kade]

I really like this base idea and would like to take it one farther. You seem to imply here (please correct me if I’m wrong) ascending the ranks through a level system and then moving to skill based. What if each of the few levels (each labeled by a rank, so only 6ish) had its own rewards and opened up more to the player, but each were earned in a skill based system.

So, the player can develop skills as an ensign in a large number of different talents, each of which is one of several in a certain discipline (engineering, medical, science, etc.). The player can develop any and all of these to any degree or time schedule they choose. They can be a “jack of all trades” and increase skill equally or they can primarily focus on the skills within a particular discipline to “get promoted” or level more quickly.

For the sake of this example, let’s use a 100 scale for each skill. So, for example, when a user reaches skill 15 in all of the skills of any of those disciplines, he is promoted to Lieutenant and gains increased skills and abilities based on that particular discipline.

So, say the user did this in Medical. He is now a Lt. with extra skills and abilities (perhaps ship and starbase access and PvE mission types) unlocked for a Lt. in the Medical division. He can now further pursue Medical, or choose to increase his skills in, say, Science.

OK, so now he gets all his Science skills to 15. He unlocks the Science skills abilities and accesses, but does not get promoted again. To get promoted again, he has to get all of some discipline’s skills up to 30, for example.

Now, one of the disciplines would be “Line Officer”. This is where you have to advance to command a ship. A Lieutenant would be able to command very small ships with very small crews. Now it wouldn’t be any more difficult to rise in rank in Line than any other disciplines, but each bigger class of ship would additionally require minimum skill levels in all disciplines, making starship command the most daunting assent with the greatest rewards.

What do you think? It’s flexible, allowing users to “change their mind” without needing a reroll and without the progress already made being lost. It just means if they switch disciplines, they will be more well rounded with more accesses for the additional time and trouble to which they went. Casual gamers will still be able to spend their limited time single mindedly focusing on whatever they’re primary interest is. Hardcore gamers (principally Achievers and Killers anyway) will be able to revel in their quicker assent to larger ships, while casual gamers will still be able to get a command, but it will be quite a while before they get a big ship.

It looks to be the grounds for a decent system, only the one part that initially glares out at me that gives me pause is no mention of a limitation on the amount of skill points you can invest. If this number is infinite, then you end up with everyone eventually mastering everything, which makes us all pretty much skill clones.

Additionally, I'd ideally like to see "rank" (Ensign, Lt., etc) tied to something other than skill progression. Maybe tied to mission completion in a manner similiar, but done in a Star Trek fashion, to that in Star Wars Galaxies. I say this because another key point I'd like to see is the ability to play the game and have skills/classes/professions that are not tied to Starfleet or any government's "military". If people want to live life like the Baku then I think it's reasonable and fitting to the setting and it should be available to players.

[JoeCold]

Agreed. There would have to be a total skill point cap, so at some point someone has to make a firm decision on career decision and we avoid endgame clones.

I also agree with you that rank should have an in-game meaning as well as being the game term for levels. Perhaps after achieving the necessary skill points in a discipline to justify "promotion"/"level", you still also have to have completed a short mission story arc. Perhaps there could be different ones for whichever discipline you earned the promotion/level.

Anyway, it was just an idea for funzies. I'm sure we'll all have a better idea on how it will actually work on August 10.

[Bretticus]

If you want realism and no levelling, then anyone can one hit kill a NPC controlled character with the most basic of phasers, and vice versa, therefore armour and Hitpoints would be redundant, and it will get boring very quickly. Cardassian, Bjoran, Ferengi, they all die the same way.

[JoeCold]

Frankly, with phasers in hand, I'd love one hit kills, both of NPC and when an NPC hits me (avatars, not ship to ship). I think any sci-fi game (not just STO) would be better if it was based on accuracy and defense stats rather than HP and armor. That is, on shot kills, but it is hard to get that one shot.

I do realize, however, that most people need the feedback of damage being done rather than the race of who can get the hit first. Thus, I never, ever expect to see this until someone can come up with a way that some progress towards the hit can be showed in a gratifying manner - such as fatigue lowering reflexes in a measurable and UI visible way or some such.

[Allardyn]

I could write a whole lot on this, but to touch on just a couple points.

I am a developer, and though I don't do game developing I do not believe there is much different between coding a level based system or a skills based system which I think is what your getting at. Either way could be as simple or as complex as they choose to make it

As far as why choose one over another? From a business point of view a level based system makes a lot more sense. Level based has better staying power, by that I mean that players will make multiple characters and level each up thereby extending the amount of time within the game. Level based systems also provide an "End Game"

Skill based has a much different effect, with a skill based system while the majority of players may have a handful of characters they rarely spend time on most players will have only one character the spend time on and instead of creating a new character will simply just change the skills if they desire. Sure it does take some time/effort to change those skill but it becomes easier and easier as time goes on. Also it is very hard for skills based to pull off any "End Game" type of content.

[Brenelael]

I could write a whole lot on this, but to touch on just a couple points.

I am a developer, and though I don't do game developing I do not believe there is much different between coding a level based system or a skills based system which I think is what your getting at. Either way could be as simple or as complex as they choose to make it

As far as why choose one over another? From a business point of view a level based system makes a lot more sense. Level based has better staying power, by that I mean that players will make multiple characters and level each up thereby extending the amount of time within the game. Level based systems also provide an "End Game"

Skill based has a much different effect, with a skill based system while the majority of players may have a handful of characters they rarely spend time on most players will have only one character the spend time on and instead of creating a new character will simply just change the skills if they desire. Sure it does take some time/effort to change those skill but it becomes easier and easier as time goes on. Also it is very hard for skills based to pull off any "End Game" type of content.

Yes but this is also the beauty of the skill based system.......absolutely no need for an "end game". With a well designed skill based system there is always some new way to advance your character without the need for the "Grind for gear" endgame that has saturated the MMO market. Without an endgame you have a game that just keeps going as long as they keep the game content up to date with expansions and updates. They just have to make sure there is always something 'new' to do. Star Trek gives them almost unlimited possibilities in that regard.

Bren

[J.L.Picard]

Are level based games easier to make and maintain as opposed to skill based ones? As I am not in the computer industry and know very little about writing code much less full video games, I was curious what those who do have some experience doing such things had to say. As a layman I can tell you that I know that I have had more fun sum total in the skill based games I’ve played versus the level based ones as the perception they give is that there is a lot more to do. Level based games seem a lot more linear, with progression tied to leveling, and leveling tied to combat.

Why are developers so afraid of the sandbox method/concept of creating games? What factors make such a method so distasteful that the last AAA title to take a shot at it was Star Wars Galaxies? It would seem to me that given the freedom and tools to allow player generated content in game on a level that ‘box style games offer as opposed to what we’ve seen of level based ones, that would take a large amount of stress off the live teams to continuous pump content out and in essence give more time to put out what the popular catch phrase these days is “hand-crafted” content.


I would like to See a Rank system with skill instead of levels