Poll: Multiplayer without leveling up. Would it work?
- Thread starter Yokillernick
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why wouldnt it? In dorms we like 30 dudes had a Rubber ninjas championship on my laptop(Was AWESOME) and there was no leveling up (mabey endorphine and adrenaline glands bursted)but no signifficant levelling up, Also I play UT 2004 and counter strike source and no levelling up there soo yeah...
Are you telling me leveling up doesn't get dull? It's usually filled with holes you know.
In fact, I wish they would just discard the whole leveling system and focus on making the game more fluent and interesting with awesome game play and many weapons and modes to play in.
In fact, I wish they would just discard the whole leveling system and focus on making the game more fluent and interesting with awesome game play and many weapons and modes to play in.
FTFY.FinalDream said:
Yeah, yeah, I know CoD is Activision, but meh. Same shit, different name.Space Marine's multiplayer is a particularly good example of leveling in multiplayer being a bad idea, not helped by the games terrible matchmaking (if it even has one) system and chronic issues with host migration and lag. But then...the only online multiplayer games I've played (leaving EVE aside, because that's a whole different kettle of fish) are UT (the original one), TF2 and a bit of Space Marine. Of the three I certainly found where I could be pretty much instantly murdered by some Level 48 Chaos Raptor least fun. Sure, I could be just as quickly murdered by a Sniper in TF2 who'd spent hours perfecting his craft, but other than the practice at it, his time spent in game gave him no other real advantage and I'd be just as capable of killing him in return given the right circumstance without having to spend the same amount of time playing the game.
They already do. There are plenty of multiplayer games that do not have leveling.\
I on the other hand like leveling up. it gives me a "goal" that i can reach. i do not grind levels, but i like when levels "just come" when im playing. In games without such i create my own goals, like X number of matches with certain weapon or w/e.
I on the other hand like leveling up. it gives me a "goal" that i can reach. i do not grind levels, but i like when levels "just come" when im playing. In games without such i create my own goals, like X number of matches with certain weapon or w/e.
I'm from the opposite end of the spectrum. UT'99 is still my shooter of choice (and yes, I've been playing it since its release date), its install directory has become a bloated, 50+GB mass of mods and maps... and I love it. Multiplayer action games with leveling systems, regenerating health and simplistic (if high-resolution) maps will never be my cup of tea. ie. I find them terribly dull.
What does "work" mean? I mean, I'm fairly certain that the great majority of decent multiplayer games are fun to play for a match or two, whether there's levelling or not. I assume you're meaning "lasting appeal"? If so, then hell yes. I'm still playing Half Life 2: Deathmatch, and that has no leveling at all. TF2 has been brought up quite a lot, and frankly I don't see why leveling is NEEDED. All that gaining a level does in most multiplayer games is gain you either bragging rights or occasionally some sidegrade ability. It has no effect on the flow of the game, or the feel. Matches are still the same. Maybe it's just me, but I don't play multiplayer games for a sense of progression (Unless it's me myself becoming better, and that only really counts for stuff you play over looong periods of time, like TF2, into which I have well over 400 hours invested). I play them for a fast burst of adrenaline, and then back to real life stuff. If I want progression, I'll go play a Baldur's Gate, a Dragon Age, or an Elder Scrolls, not a round of multiplayer (The obvious exception being MMORPGs, but let's not get into those).
Of course it can work. But rewarding good/long play is almost always more fun than not being rewarded. Take TF2 or Heroes of Newerth for example, hats and skins are purely cosmetic. They are great fun as is, but that little extra makes it much more enjoyable. Reward system is a human trait, that's why it works so well. When it doesn't work well, is when the game is clearly unbalanced because someone is a higher level than you.
Of course it would work. The levelling system you describe is pretty Skinner Box-y in nature. Kind of like playing WoW where you know it's not really fun anymore, it's grinding, but oooh man just 2 more levels until you get that unlock and today's the double XP weekend!
That's the time where you need to step back and reevaluate if you're having fun or if you're gonna regret putting in all this playtime after the effect wears off. But man, imagine how many people would take their time for studying and doing homework if it gave them random drops during that time.
I think Counter-Strike has a neat little compromise. There's no metagame, but you do "level up" between rounds by making money and buying bigger, better guns. That way you still have progression and rising stakes and some gameplay variation as you can't always pick your ideal loadout and the first round will be fought with pistols and knives only.
Personally I'm really in favor of a few more "no bullshit" multiplayer titles.
That's the time where you need to step back and reevaluate if you're having fun or if you're gonna regret putting in all this playtime after the effect wears off. But man, imagine how many people would take their time for studying and doing homework if it gave them random drops during that time.
I think Counter-Strike has a neat little compromise. There's no metagame, but you do "level up" between rounds by making money and buying bigger, better guns. That way you still have progression and rising stakes and some gameplay variation as you can't always pick your ideal loadout and the first round will be fought with pistols and knives only.
Personally I'm really in favor of a few more "no bullshit" multiplayer titles.
Yeah, I think must be one of those things. I don't think I own a single game where one does level up in multiplayer.Lugbzurg said:
How do you... what?
I can't think of a single instance where 'levelling up' in multiplayer is a good idea. All I can see is one person with no life having the advantage over others.
Unless it's co-op of course, but even then it just seems like it'd breed resentment because the higher level person is doing all the work, essentially just turning it into an escort mission with a real person.
Multiplayer levels and "perks" are the only reason why I don't play CoD or any other PvP multiplayer game. I played one session of Ass Creed Bro multiplayer and got put into a match with someone that was already level 10 or 11. Everyone else was a level 1 or 2, so we only had knives. That guy just climbed up to the rooftops and sat there with the pistol (that he unlocked because of his level) shooting everyone; totally unfair, game sucks, no more multiplayer for me.
As others have pointed out, BF1942 was an awesome multiplayer experience that didn't have a leveling system. I remember playing for hours and hours against people and never had an issue when someone dominated because I knew it was based on their skill, not because they had unfair advantages. I remember a guy named "Swoop" that used to pwn in a BF109. The guy could fly that plane anywhere, hit anything with it, shoot down anyone that came after him, etc. If he didn't get the 109, he was crap. But once he got in that 109, you were toast. And I was cool with that.
As others have pointed out, BF1942 was an awesome multiplayer experience that didn't have a leveling system. I remember playing for hours and hours against people and never had an issue when someone dominated because I knew it was based on their skill, not because they had unfair advantages. I remember a guy named "Swoop" that used to pwn in a BF109. The guy could fly that plane anywhere, hit anything with it, shoot down anyone that came after him, etc. If he didn't get the 109, he was crap. But once he got in that 109, you were toast. And I was cool with that.
It can work; however, that is predicated upon the existence of some other system of reward. Old games had novelty for example. All the way up to games like Counterstrike, the community could make maps at will meaning there was almost certainly always a set of maps you had never played available for your favorite game. Given that, in the last seven years or so, people have come to realize that gamers are perfectly willing to pay for a new set of maps if given no other option, that more or less forced the introduction of a skinner box to keep them playing long enough for maps to be generated and released.
Without some mechanism to keep the game fresh, you basically need the leveling system. In some cases of modern games, the leveling system serves as little more than an extended training period. For example, the mega-popular league of legends forces players to play dozens of games before they're able to participate in ranked matches in order to ensure relatively equal footing when ranked games finally begin.
Mechwarrior Online offers a somewhat different route, albeit one lifted from World of Tanks. Each chassis can be leveled up, a process that can confer significant advantage given one can achieve something like 7% better heat dissipation, 10% higher heat cap and 10% faster speed through the leveling system. Given that currently there are only a handful of maps and only two game modes in what remains a deeply flawed game, this system serves little purpose beyond convincing people to stick around for a bit and, hopefully, dump some real money into the title.
The bottom line I suppose is that a game without a leveling system is going to have problems. That system offers a compulsive mechanic that serves several purposes to studios and publishers. Moreover, because there exist a variety of reasons why developers keep players from being able to build maps, most old systems of novelty have expired leaving few options save leveling systems to shore up core mechanical competencies.
Without some mechanism to keep the game fresh, you basically need the leveling system. In some cases of modern games, the leveling system serves as little more than an extended training period. For example, the mega-popular league of legends forces players to play dozens of games before they're able to participate in ranked matches in order to ensure relatively equal footing when ranked games finally begin.
Mechwarrior Online offers a somewhat different route, albeit one lifted from World of Tanks. Each chassis can be leveled up, a process that can confer significant advantage given one can achieve something like 7% better heat dissipation, 10% higher heat cap and 10% faster speed through the leveling system. Given that currently there are only a handful of maps and only two game modes in what remains a deeply flawed game, this system serves little purpose beyond convincing people to stick around for a bit and, hopefully, dump some real money into the title.
The bottom line I suppose is that a game without a leveling system is going to have problems. That system offers a compulsive mechanic that serves several purposes to studios and publishers. Moreover, because there exist a variety of reasons why developers keep players from being able to build maps, most old systems of novelty have expired leaving few options save leveling systems to shore up core mechanical competencies.
Not only would it, it can and has in dozens if not hundreds of cases. Like DayZ, where player prowess is determined by how well you can get around and whether you can procure some good items. And where your resources are the only difference between you and a fresh spawn. It's a mod admittedly, but just look at the rest of the thread for all the other games, TF2 being one of the more recognisable ones.
It all depends upon what is conferred by the leveling mechanic. Dawn of War 2, for example, has a level system for each Army but all it does is offer cosmetic changes to the army - no unit has it's stats improved as a result. Ideally, the unlocked options offer little real advantage to a player in any particular shootout. I would like to point to various FPS titles as examples except all of them offer some sort of optical upgrade that offers tremendous advantage in many cases and in the case of vehicles, many of the unlocks are necessary for effective operation.Starik20X6 said:
That said, in most cases, the advantages conferred in games is relatively trivial when compared to the gulf in skill that develops between the new player and the veteran. This scenario, as much as anything else, is what leads to many perceptions of some degree of unfairness being offered by leveling systems.
SoulCalibur V decided it to be a good idea to include levelling up to 99 because... logic and reasons.Ekit said:
Yes but that was a long time ago. What if every single multiplayer game like CoD or BF decided not to have level up multiplayer and just give players the weapons. Would they still want to play ? Can the mass of players, once they experienced the leveling up system and how 'addictive' it gets, come back and play something with no leveling up?Daverson said:
Umm, yeah? Did you just start playing games in the past few years or something? They never used to have leveling systems. The games actually survived on great gameplay, level design, and fun, not some compulsive need of the players to accomplish something.
People played Counter-strike 1.6, yes? Some probably still do, even.
I don't believe TF2 has leveling either?
I don't believe TF2 has leveling either?