Poll: Multiplayer without leveling up. Would it work?
- Thread starter Yokillernick
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree with everything you said about the vehicles. I came to it straight from Bad Company 2, which did have some balancing issues (the starting weapons were utter shit for every class but the sniper and even that needed magnum ammo to ease off the drop a bit), but at least if you hopped in the UAV or a Tank or a Helicopter you could blow something up usually.Joccaren said:
I suffered jets long enough to get lock-on rockets but the problem is then you can't do jack shit against ground targets. I also hated the flare system and lock-on stuff, I'd always just seem to die within a minute of someone deciding to point a rocket at me but whenever I'd try the flares reloaded much faster than any rocket I could carry.
Helicopters are worthless in BF3 as well, if they're on a map without an AA tank or Jets then they dominate completely because 4 people with flares and stealth spamming away happily, but an AA tank or jet just rips them out of the sky.
BF3 was a terribly unbalanced and poorly thought out game for me, handed far too little to new players and favuored those with thousands of hours to pump in far too much. Not to mention everything was clunky to use and the controls were weird at best, shit at worst (fucking helicopters), I've said it before but the whole game feels like they started making Bad Company 3 then decided to make Battlefield 3 halfway through, give it ugly realistic graphics and then make it try to play like COD to bring in the mass markets.
Yea, fighting games. (actually imaging fightings games with a level up system...)
The thing is, People like to be rewarded or feel progress so I'm all for unlockable stuff, but I think its better to have more aesthetic things as opposed to making advanced players OP, given that there experience will already make them better than newbies.
The thing is, People like to be rewarded or feel progress so I'm all for unlockable stuff, but I think its better to have more aesthetic things as opposed to making advanced players OP, given that there experience will already make them better than newbies.
hahahhahahahah Were we playing the same games? TF2 and UT didn't get boring because they were FUN. In addition, there was always someone better than you. Reason enough, considering the specified games, to keep playing. And you do realize UT came out before MW? I mean, using a game that came out before the "level up" mechanic became popular pretty much invalidates your point.Yokillernick said:
Also, multiplayer modes with level up are Skinner box mechanisms, not games.
Thus, your argument is invalid.
I believe it's called sarcasm. Even without explicit indication, you can tell.Yokillernick said:
I believe you are a foll who wasn't read the other comments/IGetNoSlack said:
As you can see he admitted he made a mistake.Hero in a half shell said:
Now maybe you can have fun grinding the same two games over and over but that doesn't mean others will get the same satisfaction. So yes we were playing the same games and you should stop trying to sound so smug since it will annoy people.
This is completely the wrong thread for me to be in, as I don't play multiplayer games (assuming we're talking exclusively online multiplayer). But uh, why is there a leveling system? What does leveling up accomplish?
To answer the question, though: of course it'd work. You just have to make sure the engine is built around a multiplayer that won't need leveling. Like... CoD has levels, right? I'm assuming that if you used its multiplayer, but took the leveling out, and didn't change anything else, it'd be all fucked up.
To answer the question, though: of course it'd work. You just have to make sure the engine is built around a multiplayer that won't need leveling. Like... CoD has levels, right? I'm assuming that if you used its multiplayer, but took the leveling out, and didn't change anything else, it'd be all fucked up.
"Would it work?" Shouldn't even be the question here because games don't use leveling up in their multiplayer and they work fine, I find games with no leveling more fun in most cases. Some games have multiplayer with no permanent player progression such as Civ 5 and Portal 2. I'm not generalizing here but a lot of shoehorned multiplayers are level up based and are normally not very good.
Asking whether multiplayer works without leveling is like asking whether eating food works without a fork. Of course it does, but the fork makes certain things easier. Like the fork, in the end, leveling mechanics are just tools.
If used properly, they can add a lot of value to the game. They can give players goals to aim for, and can help drive home the concepts of a player improving themselves. Leveling also invests a player in their character, making them less likely to drop the game for something else at the drop of a hat.
That being said, leveling also bring negatives to a game. It increases the gap between new players and vets, since a level 1 player probably can't even harm the player that is level 9001. This can be discouraging for new players. In some games, like CoD, this also limits a player's options and prevents them from playing how they want to play until they have invested a fair amount of time into the game.
No game inherently NEEDS leveling to succeed, it is just a design tool. There are plenty of games that implement leveling well, and are successful for it (Borderlands is my favorite example), but there are also plenty of games that are successful despite no leveling whatsoever.
If used properly, they can add a lot of value to the game. They can give players goals to aim for, and can help drive home the concepts of a player improving themselves. Leveling also invests a player in their character, making them less likely to drop the game for something else at the drop of a hat.
That being said, leveling also bring negatives to a game. It increases the gap between new players and vets, since a level 1 player probably can't even harm the player that is level 9001. This can be discouraging for new players. In some games, like CoD, this also limits a player's options and prevents them from playing how they want to play until they have invested a fair amount of time into the game.
No game inherently NEEDS leveling to succeed, it is just a design tool. There are plenty of games that implement leveling well, and are successful for it (Borderlands is my favorite example), but there are also plenty of games that are successful despite no leveling whatsoever.
Why would I ever have to admit that? Moreover, what does leveling up even do to stop that? Eventually you max out your levels and you either have the choice to keep playing at the max level (ie: doing the same thing over and over again) or restart and level up all over again (in essence, doing the same thing over again as well).Yokillernick said:
A good multiplayer game is going to have more than enough depth and complexity to last a long time with or without any leveling shenanigans. As for whether or not games can succeed without leveling, this isn't even a question to be honest. Games like Counter Strike: GO, Starcraft 2, etc. are all doing very well without leveling. In fact, in many ways they're doing better than most games with leveling.
I don't think Call Of Duty would survive very long if the level system would be gone, the fans would be outraged, and go back to playing older ones. A leveling system is basically only used to pad-out game play, give an additional goal. Team Fortress 2 does this too, with the hats. there are still a few games that use "reset leveling", IE every game you start as lvl 1, and level up per game, which is also cool, I would use LoL as reference, but there is a general level system, and they do get more money to buy perks. I'm more in favor of the old: everyone is equal, noone has perks granted by playtime. Team Fortress 2 does this well, by making the default weapons so good. (almost) every unlock has a disadvantage, which can be exploited. slower firing speed, less damage, extra damage taken etc. It makes the game fair, and I think that's the best system.