Poll: Multiplayer without leveling up. Would it work?

[Joccaren]

MMORPGs?
No, you need the levelling up.

FPS/FIFA/TPS/RTS/4X/Whatever - Yes, and I'd prefer them without a stupid level up component that locks out all your attachments and half the good weapons until you actually play the game. BF3 is somewhat alright in this; it fails thanks to having to unlock the attachments, but the very first unlock for Assault is the best all round assault rifle [Not the best at any given task, but close in all tasks].
Crafting as you play is another thing I wouldn't really like as it requires you to play to be able to get the good stuff, which leaves those that have been playing for longer at an immediate massive advantage over those who have just joined. Honestly I'd just prefer achievements, like the BF3 dogtags, that unlock a purely aesthetic bonus. Its BS getting killed by a player not because they're more skilled than you, but because they've been playing long enough to get some arbitrary unlock that is OP as all hell.

 

[Abomination]

There has been a recent game released that has no character leveling system, it's called Natural Selection 2 and I racked up near 200 hours played on that baby.

I guess there is technically a "leveling system" in that there's a leveling system in a game of Starcraft but it resets every round.

So the answer is simply "Yes." From oldies but goodies of the past like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Starcraft and the Jedi Knight series to moderns like Natural Selection 2, Civilization 5 or even Guild Wars 2 (multiplayer area where everyone has the same number of talent points and equipment sockets - only thing that can possibly change is character APPEARANCE which means nothing competitively).

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Uh already has worked... Nox multiplayer kicked the everloving shit out of Diablo 2 and it maxed out everyone's character levels for multiplayer.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I can't tell if you're really new to gaming or making a lame joke to try and make a statement over an overabundance of rpg elements in multiplayer. I'm going to go with my gut and guess that this is actually a satire.

If I'm wrong: 10 years worth of examples before RPG elements became popular.

Otherwise: I don't think your joke is funny. If they bug you, just make a serious thread and state why. Yeah it's just another complaint thread in a list of thousands but I don't think this joke thread is really going to inspire any interesting conversation. It's too subtle with the satire and people are going to think you're really asking that question. Believe it or not, you need to be even more over the top with your satire for people to get it (the internet needs satire tags).

 

[Nieroshai]

You pitch pre-COD:MW ideas as if they're new. It will work, because it does work, because it has always worked.

 

[The Hero Killer]

At this point I'm so used to it that I wouldn't want to play it. At least not online, playing fighting games at home with other friends is a different story.

 

[Weaver]

This is a silly question. Remember basically every multiplayer game before 2007?
A better question, IMO, is would it work now that so many gamers are used to a progression system?

Though the answer is still "yes". Of course, Quake, Unreal Tournament and Tribes were amazing shooters. They were fast, required a lot of skill, and were all down to player skill. I'm actually amazed at how slow shooters are now. I recall showing quake III arena to my 13 year old cousin, and he couldn't even keep up with what was going on. It's kind of sad that games have gotten so slow, really. Maybe it's why I'm so bored with shooters now?

DOTA 2 and Starcraft 2, for a more modern example, have some achievements (and DOTA 2 has visual unlocks); and both have "levels" used for matchmaking. However, besides that, there isn't any power progression at all. You can do everything in the multiplayer aspect of both these games the first time you boot it up. The games are 100% open and fair, and relies on absolute skill of the players to compete.

It's also worth noting, Quake, Unreal Tournament, DOTA, and Starcraft have largely been, in their own time periods, the most competitively played and feature the most highly funded tournaments in gaming history. In fact, looking at the evidence, a power progression system seems to harm the games ability to be truly competitive. The odd man out here is League of Legends; however in tournaments LoL gives players a special client with everything unlocked and infinite runes to build. So even then, they work to eliminate all progression when doing actual tournaments.

Mario Kart 64, a game with no player progression, is still a ton of fun to this very day.

In fact, thinking about this, I'm kind of in remiss about the state of multiplayer. Maybe it's why I don't play much online anymore. Devs are content to put out a mediocre, if not sub-par online experience. We're talking some simple death match, throw together a good 6 maps that are uninteresting, designed in a lazy and fast way, and just slap on a basic unlock system to keep people playing it for awhile. Sometimes I go back to Unreal Tournament 99 and it's striking how good some of the maps are designed. They aren't necessarily anything overly clever (though some would be) but they're just fun and fair to play in.

No, obviously not EVERY multiplayer game is going to be featured at the next MLG, but it really won't be if it's just a lazy check-box you're filling in for the publisher.

 

[Lugbzurg]

Huh!? I wasn't aware leveling up was even something that happened in multiplayer. Is it one of those spunkgargleweewee things? While I do tend to go with singleplayer, I've never once encountered a game with any form of "leveling up" in multiplayer. In fact, the very idea of it all sounds incredibly absurd and unbalanced.

 

[thejackyl]

I think there should be a level system in online games, generally speaking. Perhaps hidden in the background so the player doesn't see it or anything, but I think it should be there.

Why?

Because, how many times have you played a multiplayer game and get stuck in a lobby/server of complete pros. The only game I've played that's even remotely fun if the teams are unbalanced is TF2 and even that gets aggravating after a while.

Let people who want to play for fun, play against people their own skill level, and people who play for competition/challenge play against each other in private matches or...

Matchmaking/Find Server
[_] Open - Find ANY open slot
[_] "Smart" - Finds matches with players with similar skill level

And of course you could freely join any server you want, but these would be for hitting "Quick Play"

As for leveling for Player Progression, only MMOs really need it. An Action RPG like Dark Souls or Monster Hunter(Never played this, any on PS1 or PS3?) could work due to how progression is done in game.

I think they should do away with skill trees entirely in RTSs and MOBAs, and just have an ELO based "leveling system" (Get better, play better opponents), and I Don't think FPSs need them either, but they are there to encourage repeat play (Only 5 more kills until I unlock a new gun, kind of thing).

 

[gritch]

The first game that comes to mind for me is Monster Hunter. There's no real leveling system in the entire game to begin with. There's hunter rank but that was more of a indication of the amount of quests you had done rather than a level. The only thing that separated an end game character from someone who just started was the equipment they wore. I thought it worked just fine.

 

[Yopaz]

Like everyone else has already stated, yes, it works. Looking at the list on Steam stats Counter Strike, Counter Strike: Source, Counter Strike: GO and Team Fortress 2 are among the most played games in the last 24 hours. Neither of these have a level system

 

[Stordarth]

You only have to look at the Streets of Rage and Golden Axe games on the Mega Drive to know that it can be done.

 

[NightHawk21]

Multiplayer games without "Leveling up" Although this concept seems strange in days that even FIFA 13 needs to have a levelling up systems do you think that a game could pull off interesting multiplayer without having to force you to level up or even worse have you buy you way to top level like its the case with the Battlefield 3 Shortcut Packs.

I for one believe that if the multiplayer was to be executed well and allowing players to either craft or find weapons while playing in-game rather than get them by ranking up would make for a much better and fairer online gaming scene. This would eliminate the bias towards players who are higher level since if everyone can craft/find the same guns then you cannot say that someone is overpowered and unfair because of their higher level.

Well that's my opinion, so what do the res t of you think?

I don't know what games you're playing OP, but there are a lot of games that don't have a rank up mechanic. Just looking at the installed games in my steam library Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2 both don't have level up grindy multiplayer, and the list gets much bigger if you consider games were levels are pretty much superfulous (Saints Row 3, Total War Shogun, Wrath of a Mad God, etc.). So the answer to your question is not yes it can work, it is working.

 

[Yokillernick]

I'm pretty sure Team Fortress 2 doesn't have multiplayer, and it's thriving!

My friend TF2 is a multiplayer only game, just putting it out there.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I mean people bring up TF2 and UT a lot but you have to admit that these games did get rather dull after sometime of playing the same thing.

The average number of hours played on TF2 amongst my friends exceeds 300 with a few having clocked over 1000. It may have gotten dull for you (hell, it became dull for me, too, so I understand) but it's certainly not the case for everyone. It's consistently one of the most widely-played games on Steam so I doubt that's restricted to my circle of friends, either.

My personal most played multi-player games are Left 4 Dead 2 and Counter-Strike, neither of which have level-up systems. In fact, I really dislike level-up driven multiplayer.

 

[loa]

You'd think the question if leveling up works in competetive multiplayer games since it creates an imbalance that isn't based on skill would be more in place.

 

[Rack]

If by work you mean "be much much better" then yes it would.

 

[Tropicaz]

I've sunk plenty of hours into Counter Strike and TF2 which dont have level up systems. you wrote in your edit " you have to admit that these games did get rather dull after sometime of playing the same thing."
No, I don't, because they didnt get dull. They're still fun for me now, I still play TF2 and if CS:GO hadnt come out I'd still be playing CS:S happily. Playing with friends, even playing with randomers, it's still fun because every games different.

 

[Trivun]

The obvious answer is yes. Unless the game itself is about level grinding then the entire experience is not about leveling up. While yes it adds another layer this isn't always for the better with high level players wiping the floor with new players.

I agree totally except for the idea that it's not always for the better. The problem isn't with the system of levelling up in multiplayer, the problem is with the ability for high-level and low-level players to be able to play against each other. The solution is simple, use a system where low-level players are only matched with those of roughly equal skill, and same for high-level players - like the Trueskill system (although improved, because Trueskill still has plenty of flaws...). And since there are games using that system now, it's not as big an issue as you seem to think.

In short, my answer is that multiplayer would work without levelling up, as it always has done before the current batch of level-based MP games. However, whether it would be a good idea is subjective and depends on several variables, not least of which is the effectiveness and efficiency of systems like Trueskill and other similar matchmaking programs.