The 'leveling backwards' mechanic
- Thread starter teknoarcanist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's an interesting concept to say the least, but it seems that your punishing players who actually play the game for extended periods of time. Giving Handicaps to newbs does seem feasible, but they might get used to them, and then fail as soon as they are stripped of them and stop playing.
I'd suggest just having equally skilled players playing against themselves, for example, keep track of a players Kill
eath ratio and then pit people with similar ones against each other, seems simpler to me...
Or the good old method of just practicing to get better, MP games (especially FPS and RTS) have huge difficulty curves, but the more you play the better you understand the maps and different player types, as well as building your own strategies and sharpening your reflexes and reaction times. The 'proficiency through repetition' method, you may have to play De_Dust2 (Counter Strike) a hundred times before make any progress, but if your committed you will get there.
I'd suggest just having equally skilled players playing against themselves, for example, keep track of a players Kill
eath ratio and then pit people with similar ones against each other, seems simpler to me... Or the good old method of just practicing to get better, MP games (especially FPS and RTS) have huge difficulty curves, but the more you play the better you understand the maps and different player types, as well as building your own strategies and sharpening your reflexes and reaction times. The 'proficiency through repetition' method, you may have to play De_Dust2 (Counter Strike) a hundred times before make any progress, but if your committed you will get there.
Yes, but since the game cannot handicap the match by making new players smarter (except by encouraging them to play and learn, which being repeatedly beaten badly does -not- do), the game has to handicap in another manner.Elamdri said:
Also, your comment implies you're thinking of the CoC/Warcraft model, where you have to earn resources during the battle. In Shogun, the rest of the Total War series, and many others, you are allotted a budget before battle and purchase your force -before- the battle, then deploy it when the battle begins. Giving one army 10k to spend, and another 12k to spend, in a game of Shogun would be a quick and dirty way to handicap in favor of a player and encourage the new player to take a chance on units they haven't learned how to use well yet.
It's the opposite of Skinner Box. Much as being rewarded for performing an action is simple, it does work, and we wouldn't particularly want it taken away.
Really, it would work better if improving in level meant you could only go in multiplayer matches with people of around the same level, thereby improving the challenge you face and rewarding the player at the same time. Level-scaling, I guess.
Basically, I could only see it working in single player or multiplayer if the handicap is something players turn on of their own volition.
Really, it would work better if improving in level meant you could only go in multiplayer matches with people of around the same level, thereby improving the challenge you face and rewarding the player at the same time. Level-scaling, I guess.
Basically, I could only see it working in single player or multiplayer if the handicap is something players turn on of their own volition.
No. It eliminates any sense of progress. It destroys the sense of exploration and action for rewards. It specifically takes everything that gaming is and beats it to death with its own spine. It's genuinely just a horrible idea, and Yahtzee was probably intoxicated when he came up with it. Just saying.
Metal gear online did this kind of a thing.. kind of.. they had "Newb" status on new players and they couldn't die from 1 shot kills and some minor stuff like that.
In a multiplayer setting especially, leveling down is going to discourage a lot of people from playing right off the bat. Nobody likes to get permanently weaker the more they play, especially next to other players. If you lose stats, noobs start ganking you. If you lose powers, then a lot of the variety of the game has been taken away and it becomes stale really fast. If you Have half the stats of a newly generated character, it can act as a good handicap if implemented correctly; if you have half as many abilities, they means they can do more different things than you, meaning things you can't possibly defend against even with skill. Putting them together is even worse.
This can work in single player games if implemented correctly, however. I would use WC3 The Frozen Throne as an example. SPOILERS!
The alternate solution is to make the enemies exponentially harder as you go, but this takes a delicate hand to put together. An increase in stats is mostly a linear increase in strength, while the addition of new powers means new mechanics, and this means anywhere from no increase in the case of weak powers, to massive, MASSIVE increases if they are good. And this must work in the proper ratio to enemies gaining in strength and powers. So you end up with a situation in which you have to balance four or more different growth rates to achieve the proper difficulty curve.
Sorry if I got a little off topic, but I hate half explaining something.
This can work in single player games if implemented correctly, however. I would use WC3 The Frozen Throne as an example. SPOILERS!
In the scourge campaign, Arthas is constantly weakening because the frozen throne was damage by Illidan's spell. As he marches back to Icecrown to defend the Lich King, he meets constant resistance from the Naga, Blood Elves, Dwarves, living Nerubians, faceless ones, and forgotten ones. The situation seemed more and more dire as you went along, not just because you were getting weaker, but because your enemies were getting stronger, and getting closer to achieving their goal. When he finally reaches the glacier, the Lich King uses what little power he can spare to restore yours, just in time for what I feel is the most dramatic battle in the game. In the end, you were given your powers back as a reward for trudging through countless perils, and you needed every single one of them to win.
The alternate solution is to make the enemies exponentially harder as you go, but this takes a delicate hand to put together. An increase in stats is mostly a linear increase in strength, while the addition of new powers means new mechanics, and this means anywhere from no increase in the case of weak powers, to massive, MASSIVE increases if they are good. And this must work in the proper ratio to enemies gaining in strength and powers. So you end up with a situation in which you have to balance four or more different growth rates to achieve the proper difficulty curve.
Sorry if I got a little off topic, but I hate half explaining something.
Someone should just make a fucking matchmaking system that actually works instead. I hate how FPS's are being dumbed down, you can practically play COD with your feet now it's so easy. I realise this idea (the OP's) would make it difficult for someone who can actually play, but it shouldn't be like that anyway. New players shouldn't be allowed welfare weaponry because they're shit, they should just learn through playing. I don't know about anyone else, but that makes the game far more fun. I just bought Motorstorm, I kinda suck because I've never played another Motorstorm online, but I'm learning. I'd rather be doing that than be decked out in a car that flies through buildings and farts unicorn missiles at anyone that approaches within a 10 yard radius.
But yeah, I don't really like the idea. Make multiplayer games harder, give them more mechanics so that there are more variables to a situation, and thus more variables to defend yourself against, not just aim in general direction > press zoom > shoot > repeat. You could probably fit a flow chart of modern day FPS's on half a page of A4.
But yeah, I don't really like the idea. Make multiplayer games harder, give them more mechanics so that there are more variables to a situation, and thus more variables to defend yourself against, not just aim in general direction > press zoom > shoot > repeat. You could probably fit a flow chart of modern day FPS's on half a page of A4.
Worst idea I've ever heard of.
There would be absolutely no point in playing the game if you keep losing all of your weapons.
There would be absolutely no point in playing the game if you keep losing all of your weapons.
No, reverse leveling is a terrible idea, mainly because it punishes players for actually playing the damn game. If you also give the player all the skills and weapon choices at the start, you're also inundating the player with all the games rules and playstyles, effectively suffocating them before they can even get into the game. It also ends up adding unnecessary challenge to the game--enemies get stronger as you get weaker by losing skills and access to weapons. Plus, what skills do you end up losing? It makes more sense to have the player build up his character to fit his playstyle than it does to arbitrarily take away skills to make the player's character feel "old" and "wizened."
I can see it being a problem in FPS games, too, mainly through griefers intentionally gimping themselves or resetting their scores so they can get the "uber" weapons and perks. Plus it ends up doing the same thing to new players--having access to everything at once is suffocating, and it's not a good way to introduce people to the mechanics of the game.
It's an interesting thought experiment, certainly, but in the end that's all it's good for. If you're not giving the player some sort of forward progression with the game, you're not making it challenging. You're punishing players for no reason.
I can see it being a problem in FPS games, too, mainly through griefers intentionally gimping themselves or resetting their scores so they can get the "uber" weapons and perks. Plus it ends up doing the same thing to new players--having access to everything at once is suffocating, and it's not a good way to introduce people to the mechanics of the game.
It's an interesting thought experiment, certainly, but in the end that's all it's good for. If you're not giving the player some sort of forward progression with the game, you're not making it challenging. You're punishing players for no reason.