Poll: Multiplayer without leveling up. Would it work?

[Gearhead mk2]

Considering there was a gazillion fracktillion games with multiplayer in them that came before the modern era of spunkgargleweewe that didn't use levels, and a gazillion fracktillion games with multiplayer in them made during the modern era of spunkgargleweewe that didn't use levels, I'd say yes.

 

[Daverson]

You know, Quake didn't have any kind of levelling up system, people played it because it was actually fun, rather than a more expensive skinner box =p

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?

Well... yes. Human nature hasn't drastically changed on account of CoD. Now, maybe there's a kind of person who's gotten into online games because of the levelling system, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[Saregon]

Of course it works. I would argue it works a lot better than level-up systems, because the two big ones (BF3, CoD) have very poor level-up systems that give higher-level players a big advantage over newer players. Look at Counter-Strike for example, to this day, one of my favorite multiplayer shooters, because you jump in a game, and the only thing making you more or less likely to win is your own skill and teamwork. Now look at BF3, where you jump in as a new player, and you lack essential gear, like the Stinger, or the Defibrillator, it sucks. And made all the worse by being able to buy your way up.

The way to make the leveling system work, is to make the level-up unlocks either cosmetic, or a matter of personal preference. And make it possible to choose what you unlock each level. Basically, make the unlocks equal in value, so the older players can't dominate you by way of gear alone.

Now, I like BF3, but I don't play it all that much. And because of that, I'm having trouble competing with some people. Granted, it's partly because they're probably more skilled than I am, but it's also down to kit. Theirs is better, plain and simple. Which is the point where I exit BF3, and go play CS or something else.

 

[baconmaster]

Yes. "Leveling up" for the sole purpose of ranking players and fair matchmaking is cool, but earning new weapons and stuff? Fuck that shit. Why should the experienced players have an advantage? I enjoy Battlefield 3, but it really went overboard with this. You have to unlock counter-measures for your helicopter. That's pretty basic shit if you want to stay airborne for more than a minute.

Plus, I don't want to be forced to play a multiplayer game for 32502349543 hours if I want to see what it has to offer

 

[Yokillernick]

Snip

you would still have a leveling up experience by finding new and better gear....

No you don't because things are not unlocked in a predetermined manner but would be just found how you want them.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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.

Bollocks!

I meant TF2 doesn't have a levelling system. Oops.

 

[Saika Renegade]

It worked fine for decades before the advent of multiplayer game modes with leveling up systems, and seeing as how not every game multiplayer game continues to include it and yet manages to do well enough, it's not quite the industry game-changer like adding a third dimension was.

 

[Darmy647]

...The fuck are you asking me? ITS MULTIPLAYER *****. GET SOME QUAKE 3 ARENA GOING!!!! YEEEEAAAAHHH ROCKETS FOR EVERYONE!!!

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Levels make people feel good about themselves. People like seeing a number increase to make them feel like they're accomplishing something with all the time they are putting in to a product. In my opinion, it's one of the reasons Call of Duty 4 was such a successful shooter. I mean, people are willing to pay Microsoft Points to a guy that will help them get Shitzillionth Prestige because he has mods (can get you banned), so that'll tell you something about how people feel about it.

I myself don't care about levels. I came into this thinking it was going to be specifically about MMORPGs and had Star Wars Galaxies examples lined up and everything. Ah well.

 

[Coldster]

Team Fortress 2 wonderfully pulls off a multiplayer without a leveling system. Even better, the starting loadouts are still very effective and widely used. This allows new players to play without even needing to buy or trade anything, and I absolutely love it.

 

[geK0]

Levels are pretty much just a way of padding the game's content and making players feel more invested in the game. It seems VERY unnecessary for a lot of competitive online games (LoL, CoD, battle field etc) because you're always playing against other players and it just forces an uneven playing ground between new and old players (who should already have a skill advantage over new players anyway). I find that in MMOs though, leveling helps a lot with the learning curve by introducing more complex mechanics as the player levels up, and gives players a reason to explore each area in the game (why do all the quests in an area if not for leveling up).

I have to admit though, there is a certain glee I get when unlocking a new weapon in CoD or a new rune slot in LoL and hitting the level cap does make me a little sad to not have that experience anymore.

But yea, I voted yes, because there have been tons of games that worked just fine without leveling systems.

 

[General Vagueness]

What I'm wondering is whether multiplayer with leveling up can work. I've heard an enormous amount of bad things about it being in newer CoD games, I've heard some bad things about it being in other games, and having an aspect or form of it added to Halo has made Halo 4 worse (among other things).

 

[The White Hunter]

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.

Battlefield 3 also falls flat on it's face doing that with the marksman class. High drop, low damage semi-automatic rifles, when really all I want is that SV98 and a bipod.

OT: Yeah, it'd work fine, thats the best kind of multiplayer, means you can jump straight in and experiment with ALL THE TOYS.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

You mean like Quake, Counter-Strike, Team Fortress 2 etc.

No, it would never work.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

You mean like Quake, Counter-Strike, Team Fortress 2 etc.

No, it would never work.

Poe's Law Alert!

(Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing)

In this case replace fundamentalism with sarcasm.

Yeah, OP's original question was rather ill thought out.

As for people who like 'Skinner's box' style multiplayer? They can stay where they are.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

I take it you have never played Counter Strike.

 

[NardBasket]

I think it would of course work, but I much prefer multiplayer with progressive levelling, like in MMORPG's and some online shooters.

 

[Joccaren]

Battlefield 3 also falls flat on it's face doing that with the marksman class. High drop, low damage semi-automatic rifles, when really all I want is that SV98 and a bipod.

OT: Yeah, it'd work fine, thats the best kind of multiplayer, means you can jump straight in and experiment with ALL THE TOYS.

IMO the worst part is the vehicle unlocks.
First time playing in a tank? Don't worry, we'll set you up against an enemy with rapid reload, ablative plating and homing shells whilst you have just the basic smoothbore, just so its even. And no deploying smoke to avoid homing missiles, you've got to unlock that.
First time in a Jet? Don't worry, that guy over there has homing missiles, flares and a RADAR, you just have your machine gun, just so its fair. Nope, don't expect to be able to deploy flares to stop his missiles, you've got to unlock that.
Its the same with all land and air vehicles with unlocks, which really sucks. Unless you've been playing them for a fair while, you are at a major disadvantage when fighting against someone who has, regardless of their skill.
And don't even get me started on the bastards that would somehow fit 3 stealths on their jet so even after 30 seconds your homing missile wouldn't lock onto them -.-
Stupidest system I've ever heard of if you want people to start playing your game.

 

[II2]

It USED to WORK, just FINE... *grumble grumble*

DOOMs, Quakes, UT, TF Classic, Tribes 1 & 2, Battlefields > 2, Counterstrike, Battlezone, Halo 1, Crysis 1 / Crysis Wars, etc etc etc...

Also all the RTS / RTT / TBS games, but I resonate the strongest with the oldschool PC shooter era.

------

You know what, though? It's not AWFUL, but honestly I dropped as many many hours into those titles as the new ones with leveling and unlocks, because they were GOOD games with replay depth and a host of toys right out of the box... Curiosity is as powerful a motivator in instanced multiplayer games as making players grind for new toys.

 

[BBboy20]

By playing almost any game before this generation?