Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Why MMORPG's Need Constant Progression

There are a number of posts on the persistence of MMORPG rewards in the blogopshere of late.

The Problem With Progression
The central problem driving all of these issues is the need for constant progression. Basically the entire genre to date is designed around the principle that time invested in a character results in a more powerful character. The specifics of "more powerful" are unimportant. Whether your players are gaining levels, gear, talents/AA's (Tipa's post claims that entry level EQ1 raiders are expected to have earned a staggering 3,000 AA points - merely clicking to spend that many points sounds like a pain), or even cosmetic rewards, you're creating an entry barrier for new players to overcome.

You cannot expect new customers to spend four years of gaming time to get to the point on the power curve where the four year veterans are. If the new players don't all quit on the spot and actually spend the requisite four years, they'll simply arrive to find that the veterans are another four years beyond them. The problem becomes even worse if the progression path requires players to find groups of other players in the same level range (and/or players willing to do low level content that offers them little to no benefit just to help newbies).

If you do not take any action to help new customers enter the game, you'll eventually run out of customers as your old ones leave. This means that every developer of every game has to take the kinds of actions we're talking about on the blogosphere - faster leveling, occasional gear resets, etc.

You don't necessarily need to raise the cap and reset gear every single expansion, nor is it absolutely essential to go with a Zubon's idea of a fixed /played time to the level cap. However, the longer you allow things to build off of a static base, the taller the mountain is going to get. (Even EVE's notorious real-time-based skill system has a limitation of sorts; a new player will never match the versatility of a veteran, but there are only so many ranks available for most combat skills, so there are limits to how far ahead veterans can get in any one specialized area.)

Why not leave the progression behind?
Progression may be the root of the problems with older content, but it's also a fundamental part of the genre and its business model. We have games that offer class-based tactical PVP combat and zero need to reset gear or worry about trivializing older content. They're called First Person Shooters. The thing is, FPS players are historically very hostile to any concept of persistent character progress - see Keen's comments on a recent failed attempt to add random gear drops to Team Fortress 2.

This leads to an issue of scope. Persistent worlds and characters add a tremendous amount of incentive for players to stick with a game. Valve isn't going to have a problem if I play TF2 for 10 hours, decide that there's nothing for me to work towards, and quit. I've already paid them all the money they're going to get for the game, and I might even pay them for the sequel if I had fun during the time I did spend playing.

Valve would have a problem if they wanted to create a massive world, like Azeroth, Norrath, or Middle Earth. That type of project would cost money that can only be recouped through truly massive sales (which no investor can count on) or the power of the monthly fee. Perhaps players will eventually be willing to pay the kind of money that MMORPG's require for games that offer fewer incentives for sticking around. At the moment, though, that's simply not where the market is.

In a very real sense, constant progression for everyone - not merely players who got into the raiding circuit years ago - is the price we pay for the ability to experience the game worlds we get to play with. That doesn't mean that it isn't disappointing when an expansion or patch diminishes our efforts. It certainly doesn't mean that we won't consider a probable impending gear reset in deciding whether it's worth grinding X repeatable quest Y hundred times for Z minor upgrade. Still, we all expect our games to make enough of a profit to remain open, to continue to add content, and to attract enough new players to fill the inevitable open spots in our groups as old players drift away.

Personally, it's a trade that I'm glad to make.


unwize said...

Yes, I absolutely agree. It must be possible for new players to catch up with veterans, and gear resets are as good a way as any to achieve this.

I like gear resets myself, because I love the idea of replacing all my boring old stuff with shiny new stuff, and all the decisions that that process entails.

With regards to LotRO's legendary item system, I have little problem with the idea of a regular reset, but when I wrote my post about it, I felt that it was failing as illusory progression because many players were simply choosing to opt-out instead of engage. The 'random setting' was dialled up a little too high.

Some of the things I suggested in my post are actually being introduced in Book 8, which is great, though I'm still disappointed that unique mainhand weapons, whether they are quest rewards or crafted, will remain redundant unless Turbine completely revamp the system.

Tesh said...

Note, "progression" need not be vertical progression. Players need a sense of ROI on their time and money invested under a sub model, but that doesn't mean that the DIKU model is the only valid progression path... or that the sub model is the only way to make an MMO.

Anjin said...

I appreciate you providing a voice of sanity among all the cries of frustration over gear progression. There are smarter and stupider to make gear obsolete. I hope MMOs continue to innovate and find ways to meet the conflicting demands.

Green Armadillo said...

@Unwize: Indeed, if I'd known what you were writing this morning, I would have linked that instead of your LI post (the best reference I could think of for LOTRO at the time). It does seem that the system could still use a bit of fine tuning if they expect anyone to use non-LI weapons.

@Tesh: Fair enough, but there are limits to how long players will feel that they're getting true ROI from horizontal progression. How many outfits do you really need? Mounts? Pets? Blizzard is now looking for legitimately different rewards, like a squire who can serve as a mobile bank, but how can they follow that act? A second mobile bank with a separate cooldown? As to the budget, there are certainly other revenue streams out there, I'm just saying that $15/month out of 300K users may be an easier approach than expecting to sell millions of copies of a $50 box.

@Anjin: Thanks. :) We have seen a generally greater tolerance for inflation than nerfs, and I will concede that this may be affecting the relative value of certain content. I still think it's the least of the available evils, but hopefully someone smarter than me has an even better idea for some game down the line.

Melf_Himself said...

The problem with games with constant vertical progression are numerous:

1) they segregate players from each other
2) they lead to "power creep", where areas between towns are packed with level 70 rats - i.e., the extra numbers gained become meaningless beyond a point
3) they necessarily give less and less progression the further into the game you get, transforming it from that nice happy warm fun feeling, to a hair-pulling, frustrating, omg-why-do-i-have-to-run-this-instance-again feeling

It sounds to me like you've been living and breathing MMO's for too long. Try taking a break and playing some well-designed single player games, and re-discover a love for actual gameplay and not for the random, plateau-like increase of some arbitrary number.

Peripher said...

There are other ways to make MMORPG fun though without having to do resets or any catching up. It all depends on the system.

They just have to create a great system that everyone can benefit from. That's all


Anonymous said...

Do You interesting how to [b]Buy Viagra per pill[/b]? You can find below...
[size=10]>>>[url=][b]Buy Viagra per pill[/b][/url]<<<[/size]

[b]Bonus Policy[/b]
Order 3 or more products and get free Regular Airmail shipping!
Free Regular Airmail shipping for orders starting with $200.00!

Free insurance (guaranteed reshipment if delivery failed) for orders starting with $300.00!

Generic Viagra (sildenafil citrate; brand names include: Aphrodil / Edegra / Erasmo / Penegra / Revatio / Supra / Zwagra) is an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction regardless of the cause or duration of the problem or the age of the patient.
Sildenafil Citrate is the active ingredient used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence) in men. It can help men who have erectile dysfunction get and sustain an erection when they are sexually excited.
Generic Viagra is manufactured in accordance with World Health Organization standards and guidelines (WHO-GMP). Also you can find on our sites.
Generic [url=]buy generic viagra online in canada[/url] is made with thorough reverse engineering for the sildenafil citrate molecule - a totally different process of making sildenafil and its reaction. That is why it takes effect in 15 minutes compared to other drugs which take 30-40 minutes to take effect.
[b]online ordering viagra
internet sales viagra
viagra to buy cheap
piadas viagra
Girl Takes Viagra
viagra without ed
Viagra Europe
Even in the most sexually liberated and self-satisfied of nations, many people still yearn to burn more, to feel ready for bedding no matter what the clock says and to desire their partner of 23 years as much as they did when their love was brand new.
The market is saturated with books on how to revive a flagging libido or spice up monotonous sex, and sex therapists say “lack of desire” is one of the most common complaints they hear from patients, particularly women.