The 'leveling backwards' mechanic

[teknoarcanist]

In a previous Extra Punctuation, there was some offhanded speculation about how you could justify a 'leveling backwards' mechanic to make a game more difficult.

It strikes me that something like this would work great for a multiplayer setting. Take something like Call of Duty -- why not allow newbie players to start off with a full utility belt, letting them carry a huge assortment of varied weapons into battle: they can use knives, grenades, pistols, rocket launchers, etc. The low-rank matches are total ridiculous anarchy.

But you award experience for skilled kills and restraint, and as the levels increase, you begin to remove equipment/ability slots, while strengthening the weapons/abilities themselves. This presents a constant challenge, and makes each new level a litmus test for mastery of the game.

By the highest rank, you're pitting teams of people who have become EXPERTS with their weapon of choice against one another in settings which are very sparse. Teams of elite players are armed with nothing but pistols and knives, and play a game of capture the flag. Two top-level snipers engage in a three-hour battle of attrition.

You could even go cross-game with it. Pit ten Level 1 noobs with goody bags of crappy weapons against a one-man Level 50 kill machine, armed with the golden pistol and diamond body armor or w/e equivalent.

Hilarity ensues.

Thoughts?

 

[Hisshiss]

Because then your thinking so much about challenge and balancing that you forgot that what your doing is punishing people for playing your game. I think what your talking about though is just specialization, it doesn't really enhance the challenge for the high level dude when hes throwing around a golden mini gun and everyone else has a broken pistol and a butter knife xD.

 

[ScoopMeister]

Because then your thinking so much about challenge and balancing that you forgot that what your doing is punishing people for playing your game, which should never be an option.

I totally agree. People would get bored of a game very quickly if it isn't rewarding enough.

 

[teknoarcanist]

Your weapons would still be getting stronger and you would still be rewarded with new abilities -- you would just be challenged to choose more carefully between them and use them more effectively.

 

[Elamdri]

I always thought the game should just start handicapping the players who weren't performing as well. Give them more life, or let them do more damage.

 

[ScoopMeister]

I always thought the game should just start handicapping the players who weren't performing as well. Give them more life, or let them do more damage.

Dosen't handicapping make it harder? You just said you want to punish players who weren't doing well by making it easier. That doesn't make sense. I'm thoroughly confusticated.

 

[Elamdri]

I always thought the game should just start handicapping the players who weren't performing as well. Give them more life, or let them do more damage.

Dosen't handicapping make it harder? You just said you want to punish players who weren't doing well by making it easier. That doesn't make sense. I'm thoroughly confusticated.

Handicapping in gaming terminology is like in golf. You're giving an advantage to the player who is weaker in order to bring them to an equal level with the better player.

For example, many FPS games in ye olden days had a "Handicap" value in the settings, that allowed you to give certain players more hit points to compensate for them not being as a good at the game.

Most games used to let you give up to double HP to players.

 

[teknoarcanist]

I always thought the game should just start handicapping the players who weren't performing as well. Give them more life, or let them do more damage.

Couldn't a griefer just kill himself, or otherwise intentionally perform bad, to become stronger?

I always thought the game should just start handicapping the players who weren't performing as well. Give them more life, or let them do more damage.

Dosen't handicapping make it harder? You just said you want to punish players who weren't doing well by making it easier. That doesn't make sense. I'm thoroughly confusticated.

I think he meant handicap like in golf or fighting games -- as in, to OFFER them a 'handicap' level, which compensates for their lack of skills in some way (golf = more mulligans, help with score; fighting games you do more damage and have more health).

 

[Elamdri]

I always thought the game should just start handicapping the players who weren't performing as well. Give them more life, or let them do more damage.

Couldn't a griefer just kill himself, or otherwise intentionally perform bad, to become stronger?

Simple fix, just make it so that self-inflicted kills don't up your handicap.

EDIT: Hell if you wanted to be mean, you could make it so that killing yourself resets your handicap.

 

[darth.pixie]

I'm not sure I'd agree with the backwards leveling up mechanic at all. It sounds nice on paper and immersive if it's done well, but it would just be more frustrating while actually playing it. Especially if enemies are your own level and have better gear or more powers...and if you level up (down) do you keep your powers? Have new ones?

In real life, it might apply as someone really does get more experienced with said weapon, but in games, it's hard to see and actually do. In the end you're still mashing buttons. The gameplay wouldn't change much, the cool abilities would go away and the players gets punished for it, ends up in a poor armour and rusty sword which is miles less satisfying than having plate mail +1 and the sword of fashionable doom +5.

I actually like what Magicka did. You have the same spell "components" during the whole game, find a scroll here and there, though in multiplayer I rarely even used those and just get better with each level because you play more and have better control of the commands.

 

[Irriduccibilli]

It could work and it makes alot of sense,but I dont think games will appreciate losing their abilities over time. Thats one of the things that I like about games, learning new abilities, but I havent tried a system like that before, so I wont judge it until I have because it might just surprise me and I might just like it better than the leveling system we have now

 

[Freechoice]

His idea would work very well for an emotionally charged RPG in which a beloved/hated warrior/wizard/whatever contracts a disease/curse/parasite that continually saps their strength until the PC's death. And then you still have to save the world.

The ability to create a difficulty curve with this is preposterously easy. You can have the same guys that were cake to steamroll in level one and a complete ***** to deal with in the ultimate level.

 

[Davey Woo]

I've always thought it'd be amusing to have a game where you get to the maximum rank and you get given a knife and pistol.
Please not on Call of Duty though, because people can hack it so they stay at level 1 forever.

 

[thatman]

Hmm, I did like the whole 'levelling backwards' idea when Yahtzee pitched it, but i would never imagine it working in a multiplayer game. In my opinion it would only really work on single player games where they degradation of the character would fuel the plot.

 

[ManWithHat]

I think a backwards leveling could be a great way to get a player to specialize their style of play instead of being a walking arsenal of doom. Let's say in a FPS you start out with a general bonus to all stats or something and you can have all weapons. As you go up in level/rank you choose a new set of bonuses, but they boost less stats though they have higher bonuses. Then you can choose which weapons to improve at the cost of which ones to remove from your set. You could always switch between sets of bonuses whenever, but it means you become a more focused player. Think of it like TF2, but more customized.

 

[Continuity]

There is a good reason for forward leveling, you need to learn how to use all the stuff! if you thrown everything at the player to start with they will be bewildered, then you'll be taking stuff away before they've had a chance to get to grips with it, and by the time they are getting the hang of things you've taken most of their stuff away.....

Sounds like a really bad idea to me.

 

[thedoclc]

Some games actually do well; while most folks have thought about FPS, strategy and table games can do reasonably well when using this mechanic. For example, in tabletop games of Warhammer (both fantasy and 40k), there are variants where players occupy territory. The more territory they control (which is how you win), the thinner their forces are spread, resulting in bonus points for the losing player to spend on their army.

This can sometimes lead to a very dry and boring equilibrium where someone just can't win against their opponent's massive point advantage to end the campaign, but has routed them in every even match. It can also lead to a feeling where the less experienced player doesn't feel like they're completely out of the campaign because they've lost a few early games; they've got an advantage to help make a comeback.

I think in RTS or other genres, ranked play which awards extra resources to new/poor players based on the difference in rank might work much better than the "reverse leveling" idea in FPS. My $0.02.

Edit: A concrete example: suppose you play Shogun 2 and are highly ranked in multiplayer, and your next game is against a fairly new player. Grant the new player a 20% bonus to starting funds, making the battle more fair. Since power in an RTS is always relative, it is "leveling backwards," but players may be faster to accept handicapping a less skilled opponent than being "penalized" themselves.

 

[Elamdri]

I think in RTS or other genres, ranked play which awards extra resources to new/poor players based on the difference in rank might work much better than the "reverse leveling" idea in FPS. My $0.02.

Usually in an RTS context, resources are the things newbies need the least help with. More often than not, it comes down to them being unable to time properly and manage their units.

 

[V3x]

I think punishing people for progressing would work just as well as socialism.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

It is a stupid mechanic to me. Punishing me as I progress? Ending the game with bad gear? Who the hell wants that? It would destroy the satisfaction that comes with your rise to badassery in RPGs. If you can't properly scale your difficulty in later stages of a game then that is your fault. Don't punish me.