What if We Leveled Backwards?!

[Formica Archonis]

Lore Sjoberg once did a Capybara Brothers comic on something like this. Called a Buddhist RPG, the player had just traded in his axe for a stick. Shame his site is down, otherwise I'd link to it. I think this is the right link [http://apocrypha.badgods.com/posts/buddhistrpg].

 

[PhiMed]

I actually had a very similar conversation with one of my friends the other day about Dead Space 2. Even if you consider any portion of the Dead Space games to be scary, the only parts that would qualify are at the very beginning of your first playthrough.

Anyone with any skill and understanding of the leveling system will be able to create a non-threatening situation pretty quickly. This culminates in the end of the game, where there is no fear whatsoever, because even if taken by surprise, you'll quickly dispatch whatever comes at you with little to no damage to yourself.

Goodie. Just what I wanted at the climax of my survival horror game.

 

[Enigmers]

I doubt it'd work in an MMO, but it could work well in a single-player RPG/Adventure game I think. I'd certainly give it a try. The issue, though, is that a complete newbie wouldn't want to use a huge repertoire of skills and abilities, and once you're down to the end of the game, having the gameplay reduced to "press X to not die" isn't fun either; there obviously needs to be some very, very fine-tuning for this to work.

 

[punipunipyo]

Interesting, good for a new game type, and may be an innovating way to make an adventure game out with. I had a concept, one that uses different approach from the traditional "MMO Diablo" game style, instead just "leveling up", try "advancing in rank". sounds like the same thing, but not entirely...

Personal stats only effect players them selves, while "ranking up" will effect how players interact with others. having "ranks" gives players more perspective, and not just "Hulk smash harder". "rank" works FOR other players; when a high rank player gives command, and the low ranker follows, the low ranker gets buff/boots/other benefits thus making the game REWARDING towards team work game play.

The higher the rank, the more complex command, the game starts off with "solider", then players will level up, become stronger/faster..etc, but depends on "success rates", they will also "rank up", much like army, from follower, to squad command, to tactic command (multiple squads), to strategy command (mini world map, basic direction of advancement, and requisition flow, but less visible battle); a built-in chain of command. as the players gets "higher rank" they receives more command access. battles are then won NOT based on how hard you can HIT, but how smart your tactic, and team work all through out the "chain of command".

This could work on 2 VERY well known game titles, WarCraft (wanna be war hammer) and WARHAMMER (and best if it's 40K, where chain of command actually make sense, in a future war). A game where low levelers who are high rank have the creditability to command high leveler (because they have to "RANK UP to that position" by their victory, and NOT how many blue rabbits they slaughtered), where all levels of players CAN fight side by side, and you don't need to "GRIND" to have "real action", you are at the REAL BATTLE the moment you enter the game.

How ever, this type of game will require a few adjustments, from the mainstream MMO-RPG...

No side walk monsters/bosses, players needs to battle "OTHER RACES" like orks vs Space marines; PVP, or PVN(NPC), only.

Changeable world, lands can be conquered, changed, towns can be wiped out, maps can be re drawn (with out a major cataclysmic event, just a major battle, and a fall of a base)

No more death punishment; because players are in a epic war, they are always "needed". and they are always going to be "reinforcement calls" and players could be "ported to reinforcement locations", hence, dead, demote,re spawned, try again, no time lost.

No accumulated wealth, in a war, your "allowance" are based on "rank", not level, there for, you die, you lost the equipments your country "invested on you", next time you get "cloned", you get demoted, and high ranker gets WAY more points to start a battle, because they use 30/70 rule , they are entitled to 30% of their wealth, and other 70%(optional, if not used, it goes toward bonus victory points->ranking), but as a squad commander, your underlings are actually your "investments" for victory... so more likely you'd buy THEM equipment to secure your victory... (hey! how many games welcomes nubs with a free BFG?)

It's just a concept I had that I think could bring positive momentum in MMO-gaming, after all, Levels don't matters any more, you could play with your friends regardless of level difference, there is no need to rush, and you can play for battles, or entire war, it's all the more flexible, yet, still hardcore, because you could be the next level 30 guy who wound up getting owned by a level 20, because his tactic kicks butt!

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Dear god, I think he's on to something.

At first glance, it sounds stupid, but after thinking about it, it makes a lot of sense.

Though I can't think of anything really wrong with it, it still seems odd.

 

[dunnace]

I would be interested to see if you can make the concept work in a single player game, Certainly, you could make it a very interesting story mechanic, the idea you are sacrificing yourself would become overwhelmingly apparent.

 

[MrGalactus]

I've thought this for a while now, concerning multiplayer anyway. As you use guns or whatever weapons, you lose them. That way, your rank actually reflects your skill. The best players can use anything. It would add an extra degree of strategy to playing, rationing off your favourite weapons and getting good at all of them. That and it makes prestige-ing less pointless.

 

[mechanixis]

I really like this idea in the context of a character being gradually beaten down over the course of a story. It might work for the game to have a bell curve to it - starting powerful in the first act, then gradually being whittled away to nothing in the second, and finally regaining all your powers and then some in the third.

It would take a lot of refining to work in an MMO, but I'd love to see it in a single-player rpg.

 

[etocadet]

usually tho enemies are supposed to level up aswell, In Final Fantasy 8 the monsters leveled up with you so certain enemies were always a challenge, even more so as enemies would get new attacks.

If you can level up the enemy certainly must be able to

my idea for the perfect MMORPG would be a city made of rings on the inner circle lies the top level players and on the outer circles lie the lower levels, however when you get enough XP you don't level up till you say so that way you won't be thrown into the inner rings with higher up players if you aren't ready

also MMORPGS should have players be controlled by AI when theyre asleep using the battle system FF 12 had where you could set your troops commands, with cool down periods so that players can't be continuosly bludgeoned to death.

It would be nice to isolate the casual MMO users from the nerdy hardcore ones

 

[GartarkMusik]

That sounds pretty cool, or you can always see if you could give old enemies new abilities as you get stronger, that way there's still variety in combat, and that even the weakest enemy will keep you on your toes.

 

[Dobrev]

You are Wrong! (edit: after reading the whole thing) You are Wrong in so many levels.

Mind you I do watch your show and enjoy reading your column for being smart and cynical. Yet when sometimes people talk shit they need to be called on. And today you are Stupid. Let me explain:

A single player game is fun when you are progressing and accomplishing something. And your hero getting stronger is exactly the part of character development of him getting better and more skillful at what he does. And while you can design a game where you progress in another more important path than strength, all you proposed was being nerfed. No fun there. If its too easy for you go ramp up the difficulty setting.

Haven't played Two Worlds 2, so I'm left to respond on your WoW comment that misc spells are unnecessary. If you are only using 30% of you skill that is perfectly fine. You are probably doing only quests which after all are designed to be easy for new players. Add dungeon groups, raids, PvP and extreme soloing and you'll end up using almost all your spells or die alot. But I forgive you since you are new to the game. WoW indeed does have some spells that have no use and are relics of old design, but these are pruned or updated over time.

Limiting ganks? What are you thinking? The only thing to prevent me to gank other people is the amount of preparation it requires. Ohh I only need to press two buttons and make you character - GG!


So yeah, while I wonder how far have you actully gone this time to write something funny, all your rambling is just plain dumb.


Here is a better tip for you: Make it a facebook game. The less friends you have the more you win. At least then you'll find a demographic that enjoys your game. (while you spam them with singles adds and cat toys)

 

[Csae]

GunGame Reverse.

CSS mod, i loved it and played it a ton.

Starts you with the strongest gun, and by the time you"ve "leveled" up to max level, you have to kill the other guys with a knife. Who btw are lower level then you, so they still have the strong stuff.

Quite fun and challenging and winning is a real show of skill and gives a sense of achivement

I'd love to try this concept in a RPG of some sort. Definitely would have to go heavy on the story though.

Its always irked me that i get "stronger"... but the enemies got stronger too... so i didn't really get any stronger did i... since its all so relative, games irk me when they do this too much. See Diablo2. Loved it. Hated the concept of fading strength.

 

[Withall]

"Level backwards"... that sounds like ageing. We start off building skills, physical performance and aptitude, and as we grow older, our physical performance deteriorate, which forces us to use the skills we learned and the (usually) mental aptitude we honed when we were younger <--First impressions.

Post read impressions: I agree wholeheartedly with this idea. The idea is sound, but a bit dicey to actually implement: "Who'd want to play a game where you get less good the longer you play?" is a thought that comes to mind. There'd have to be some thing that off-set the "young elite warriors" and "Wizened old guy". As I was writing that, I actually wanted to fill in with "banker" or something similar.

Aside from those thoughts, I'll leave it up to you guys to figure any flaws or ideas inspired from this.

 

[Supp]

That sounds like an awful idea! Having a final boss be a kobold...not a good thing.

I don't see how this could work. It sounds like Yahtzee took the idea from story telling that it is always darkest before the dawn and then tried to apply it to video game gameplay.

And this coming from a man who says not to confuse mediums.

 

[Hiraeth]

This idea fascinates me for a number of reasons. I'd be really interested to see the way in which the overarching plot of the game would incorporate this dynamic - if it'd just be an aging thing, or whether your character would suffer some kind of disease. I'm imagining something sort of 'fisher king' like - where as the world gradually decays through the course of the game, so too do the skills of your character. I also feel like there could be more of a focus on developing your own skills at playing the game, rather than your character's skills within the game, unlike, say, the Fable games, where there's a point at which you're so good at magic that the only skill you need is to be able to hold down a button.

I also got reminded of this: http://nerfnow.com/comic/459
What would the effect on pvp be if as your abilities (or gear) decayed, they were replaced by actual experience on your part in playing the character? I have no idea.

 

[00slash00]

this is not one of his stronger arguments. i agree that, after slaughtering all the enemies in the game, the final boss never seems all that daunting. however, i dont agree with his initial point, that rpgs get easier as you get closer to the end. you get stronger, but unless you spend a pathetic amount of time leveling, the enemies should still be stronger than you, or at least an even match. i think his solution of just making you weaker and taking away your abilities wouldnt make it harder, it would make it more frustrating

 

[Centrophy]

While it does sound interesting I don't know if I personally would go for that. I mean, I play video games to pretend to feel powerful and awesome(One of the many reasons I don't play an MMO, if it takes a raid party to just kill Thrall/King something face/etc or whatever why doesn't he/she just go and kill the big bads by himself?). If I wanted to feel like a weak loser I wouldn't be playing video games... wait did I just call myself a pathetic weakling? Nevermind... move along, nothing to see here.

Also, Sid Meyer's Pirates! did this already. As you aged(IE: played longer), the worse you became at melee combat, until eventually it became in your best interests to retire that character and start a new career. Let's also not forget the enemies leveling with you mechanic from Oblivion. Everyone hated that. Everyone.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

I love it. That sounds awesome. However i suggest a different idea. Imagine you. A swordsman in your prime, finished his training. You can swing that massive oversized sword fast and hard but without much skill. As you age you become more masterfull, but weaker as age ravages you. You downgrade to smaller swords and daggers, moving from tough guy SMUSH easy mechanic to, duelist small dagger right spot difficult mechanic. The first levels would make you use the easy young, tough, you to crush enemies with brute strength. As you get weaker you get more finesse. You have to be less dependant on strength and more on tactics, skills and application. The skill range morphs. You lose one skill (a shield blash for example. lack the strength) and gain another (catch blade, gain the finesse) which has to be applied more carefully and skillfully. Im totally thinking a kinda brute to yoda transformation.

I think a direct downlevel would be a poor mechanic. I would miss my favourite skills and being powerfull without ANY compensation. This is different. This is a focus switch over time. You dont just detract from an entire character. You add while doing so.

Experience is now more than a number. It is now properly experience. The learning of things through time as you grow older.

In fact for an awesome climactic boss you could fight an enemy with all your original powers, youth, strength, a massive sword. And beat him. With your weaker but more skillfull gameplay you aquired throughout the game.

 

[JokerCrowe]

I like the idea of you starting with everything and then moving more and more into specialisation. If I ever make an RPG I think I'll utilize that idea, because if you get to choose from everything you actually get to Roleplay, because then you can specialize.

 

[fundayz]

Except he missed a little tiny point. ENDGAME.

It makes no sense to give your customers less variety and more monotony in a game whose business model revolves around keeping the customer playing(and paying). This system might make a good "de-leveling" experience but it quickly drive players away after reaching stat de-progression, which is exactly the opposite of what the developers want and need.

How about actually playing an MMO up to endgame next time?