Should traditional levels be abolished with Tamriel One?

Blo0dstorm

Yes and here is why

You could start getting champion points as soon as you begin playing your character and get attributes points each time you get 5 CP (I didn't make any calculations).
That wouldn't make end game easier in any way.

petraeus1

Yes and here is why

With One Tamriel, leveling will lose its purpose of giving the pace for content and quests to be done. It will no longer help new players determine whether they're on the right track, will no longer categorize parts of the world and quests.

What purpose is left for levels? A sense of progression, an extra economy gate? Flat stat increases are the most uninteresting way to do progression, and keeping the economy stable by recurring gear cap raises is equally lame as allowing players to skip part of that ladder.

I don't think they will remove levels. I do hope they'll find more ways of horizontal progression and take a new way of looking at questing. Many of the side quests in vanilla are literally just bags of XP - hardly interesting lorewise, mechanics wise, story wise. 'Something is wrong in that cave: go in and press E at five points, don't mind the trash mobs.' With One Tamriel, there's less of a need for XP bag quests, instead I hope we'll see quests that actually require player skill, similar to RuneScape, similar to the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood in a way: have us levitate our accomplishments to fulfill quests. Less 'quest items', more player involvement.

starkerealm

Other and here is why

logosloki wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

logosloki wrote: »

AD&D had: Asymmetrical leveling (some classes leveled up faster than other classes), Race locked classes, Race locked multi-classes, maximum levels in classes based on race, almost all races other than human couldn't level up to 20 anyway and all other such oddities.

I'm fully aware. I've lived through the tyranny of THAC0 at 3am. Again, I was giving someone flak for citing WoW as the origin of character levels and classes.

If I'm honest, I'm kinda depressed how many people missed the sarcasm entirely, even with an emote..

To be honest, I was just having one of those arguments with someone else about AD&D and pen&paper in general and my emotions spilled out onto this board as well. Completely missed the emote.

No worries. We've all been there at one time or another.

starkerealm

Other and here is why

lordrichter wrote: »

Kalifas wrote: »

One Tamriel is happening whether we like it or not.

At least we won't have to PAY for it.

MasterSpatula wrote: »

Morrowind, in many ways the best of the series and the template for the latter games, wasn't like this at all. Sure, the world was open, but if you went to Solthsheim or the Grazelands at level 1, you were going to die a quick and horrible death. Likewise, if you went to the cave outside of Seyda Need at level 20, you were going to obliterate those smugglers.

You could go wherever you wanted, but there were places it was stupid to go because you simply weren't ready. This was a good thing.

And... this is how One Tamriel should be. I do not think they have this in mind.

"We have a lot of players who will play for two or three weeks because they want to get through a zone and then stop. Then they come back two months later for another month, because there’s no pressure to play all of it at once."

This tells me that they want to make a game where players who come and go can easily consume the content while they are here. I call them vacation players because ESO is not their main game and they are just passing through. For that type of player, you don't want to have to grind because you are not around long enough to do it. Of course, ZOS knows there will be long term players in here grinding, but the vacation players don't want to have to do this.

One Tamriel means they can just wander the game doing whatever quests they want, playing with other vacation players who might be at different levels, and never have to worry about bars that prevent them from accessing content. The upside is that the make the grind easier for the longer term players, too.

They want to remove the barriers that prevent players from accessing all of the content. I think that is what One Tamriel means to ZOS game designers.

The process for doing this will be to make sure that, no matter what level you are, no matter how far your character has progressed, the world is always precisely and exactly the right difficulty, with the right rewards, and the right resources, for you. A vacation player's paradise.

You sure you don't want to call them, "carebears?" Throw in some more pejoratives just for fun?

The difference in content expectations between a game like Morrowind, and ESO, should be obvious. But, in case you missed it somehow...

In Morrowind, it doesn't matter if you don't finish it. It doesn't matter if you get frustrated and wander off 20 hours in. You'll be back for Oblivion, Skyrim, and TES6. And, the fact that you're familiar with Skyrim after Oblivion screwed the pooch illustrates that.

If you have a game that catches people's attention, it doesn't matter how many of them are still playing next week.

MMOs are fundamentally different in this regard. You need to keep players involved in the game, playing, and paying, or there is no game.

Ever wonder why, MMOs as a whole, are so much easier than single player games? Ever wonder why when content is actually gating players from advancing, particularly when there's ******** difficulty involved, it gets patched out?

Now, you can get irked by the way people actually play the game. But, quite frankly, it's none of your business. Hard gate the return, and instead of your "vacation players" coming back, they'll simply leave, the game will die. And you can crow about how hardcore the game is while the servers get switched off.

lordrichter wrote: »

MasterSpatula wrote: »

Then along came Oblivion. I don't know what they were thinking, but I suspect it was something like, "We've got the RPG fans hooked. Time to increase our sales by totally pandering to action game fans by scaling everything to your level. Nothing will ever be too hard or too easy. We'll make a mint."

And perhaps they did, but it was utterly deplored by long-term TES fans. There's a reason why the single most popular variety of Oblivion mods were mods to adjust or hide the level scaling. Bethesda may have made their mint, but they did so by making a lesser game. It was a bad thing.

You need to be able to measure your progress by being able to beat enemies you couldn't beat before. If you don't have that, you don't have an RPG. You have an arcade game. Arcade games are fine, but not what I'm here for. There is a joy in beating an enemy you couldn't beat before. Losing that joy is a bad thing.

Bethesda learned some of their lesson from Oblivion and at least Skyrim didn't scale everything up to the character. It was still right at your level when you arrived, though.

Fallout 4 follows the Skyrim model, I guess. I stopped playing regularly. No matter where you go, the world is just the way it should be when you first arrive.

I think that some game designer has written some sort of Game Design Law that stipulates that the player should always be greeted with level appropriate challenges. To do otherwise makes your game too hard or too easy. The Goldilocks Principle of Game Design.

If Fallout 4 is too easy for you, just keep going south.

The problem with Morrowind was, it did a terrible job of signposting what you were walking into. For a lot of gamers, that was a good thing. You were expected to figure out how dangerous the area you were in was. You needed to be cautious... or in my case, you walked across the entirety of Vvardenfell holding down the control key.

Apparently that was actually an issue for a lot of players, so many that when it came time for Bethesda to design Oblivion, they sanded that out, so that players wouldn't get randomly smeared by a golden saint that spawns at level 1. Of course, Oblivion still threw Clanfears at you at level 2, and the game was hilariously unforgiving at times if you played as intended, something that people have forgotten as the years went on.

Elsonso

starkerealm wrote: »

If Fallout 4 is too easy for you, just keep going south.

Eventually, you hit the Capital Wasteland. Not sure that is much harder.

starkerealm wrote: »

The problem with Morrowind was, it did a terrible job of signposting what you were walking into. For a lot of gamers, that was a good thing. You were expected to figure out how dangerous the area you were in was. You needed to be cautious... or in my case, you walked across the entirety of Vvardenfell holding down the control key. Apparently that was actually an issue for a lot of players, so many that when it came time for Bethesda to design Oblivion, they sanded that out, so that players wouldn't get randomly smeared by a golden saint that spawns at level 1. Of course, Oblivion still threw Clanfears at you at level 2, and the game was hilariously unforgiving at times if you played as intended, something that people have forgotten as the years went on.

Usually, the big clue was getting your helmet handed to you.

In Oblivion, one played without sleep because the level scaling was such that when you were at the bottom of the range the monsters were hard, and at the top of the range, they were easy. The very next level up, if you crossed that line, suddenly they were hard again. This merely meant that there were a handful of levels where the game was easy, and a handful where the game was a challenge. I doubt most people knew that.

starkerealm wrote: »

You sure you don't want to call them, "carebears?" Throw in some more pejoratives just for fun?

I don't use the term "carebear" because the term does not apply to them. The phrase "vacation player" is not pejorative, it is the description of a player archetype. They are here on vacation. They come for a while, play the game, then leave. They like the game, so, after a while, they come back, play the game, then leave. The term vacation clearly separates them from the players who hang around here on a consistent basis and probably plays the game weekly, the resident players.

I find the term works well as a profile when thinking about how systems like One Tamriel can help them, and bring them back to the game. If they are an important customer demographic, then ZOS is looking at them, too. The real question is what is the mix between residents and vacationers. Whatever ZOS does with the actual design of One Tamriel will reflect upon this ratio, and it is this information that is invaluable for refining an understanding of what ZOS will be doing with the game in the future.

idk

No and here is why

And I don't see the need to explain since abolishing leveled would require a major rework for the game, obviously and pointless waste of resources.

Kalifas

Yes and here is why

lordrichter wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

If Fallout 4 is too easy for you, just keep going south.

Eventually, you hit the Capital Wasteland. Not sure that is much harder.

starkerealm wrote: »

The problem with Morrowind was, it did a terrible job of signposting what you were walking into. For a lot of gamers, that was a good thing. You were expected to figure out how dangerous the area you were in was. You needed to be cautious... or in my case, you walked across the entirety of Vvardenfell holding down the control key. Apparently that was actually an issue for a lot of players, so many that when it came time for Bethesda to design Oblivion, they sanded that out, so that players wouldn't get randomly smeared by a golden saint that spawns at level 1. Of course, Oblivion still threw Clanfears at you at level 2, and the game was hilariously unforgiving at times if you played as intended, something that people have forgotten as the years went on.

Usually, the big clue was getting your helmet handed to you.

In Oblivion, one played without sleep because the level scaling was such that when you were at the bottom of the range the monsters were hard, and at the top of the range, they were easy. The very next level up, if you crossed that line, suddenly they were hard again. This merely meant that there were a handful of levels where the game was easy, and a handful where the game was a challenge. I doubt most people knew that.

starkerealm wrote: »

You sure you don't want to call them, "carebears?" Throw in some more pejoratives just for fun?

I don't use the term "carebear" because the term does not apply to them. The phrase "vacation player" is not pejorative, it is the description of a player archetype. They are here on vacation. They come for a while, play the game, then leave. They like the game, so, after a while, they come back, play the game, then leave. The term vacation clearly separates them from the players who hang around here on a consistent basis and probably plays the game weekly, the resident players.

I find the term works well as a profile when thinking about how systems like One Tamriel can help them, and bring them back to the game. If they are an important customer demographic, then ZOS is looking at them, too. The real question is what is the mix between residents and vacationers. Whatever ZOS does with the actual design of One Tamriel will reflect upon this ratio, and it is this information that is invaluable for refining an understanding of what ZOS will be doing with the game in the future.

I am guessing most are vacationers since that is how Matt Firor described the playerbase. The archetype description is funny but at the same a truth.

Generally when a person seeks permanent residency. They seek a good location, a safe location, somewhere close to things that align with their life values, and most of all a good community.

Generally when a person seeks a vacation. They seek a location with tons of attractions or events, sometimes it is safe and sometimes it is not, it is usually to go someplace they cannot afford day in or day out, and it is to escape your current community.

nimander99

No and here is why

Because.

DHale

No and here is why

If it was up to me there would still be vet levels. Ppl ask to do dungeons with 501 cp and still run with minimal dps even hybrid builds making the game more brainless is not a good thing.

starkerealm

Other and here is why

lordrichter wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

If Fallout 4 is too easy for you, just keep going south.

Eventually, you hit the Capital Wasteland. Not sure that is much harder.

You'll actually get walled off long before you can reach Maryland. But, seriously, the game scales difficulty the further south east you go. South of Boston the game will beat you senseless with level 40+ enemies, regardless of your current level.

lordrichter wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

The problem with Morrowind was, it did a terrible job of signposting what you were walking into. For a lot of gamers, that was a good thing. You were expected to figure out how dangerous the area you were in was. You needed to be cautious... or in my case, you walked across the entirety of Vvardenfell holding down the control key. Apparently that was actually an issue for a lot of players, so many that when it came time for Bethesda to design Oblivion, they sanded that out, so that players wouldn't get randomly smeared by a golden saint that spawns at level 1. Of course, Oblivion still threw Clanfears at you at level 2, and the game was hilariously unforgiving at times if you played as intended, something that people have forgotten as the years went on.

Usually, the big clue was getting your helmet handed to you.

In Oblivion, one played without sleep because the level scaling was such that when you were at the bottom of the range the monsters were hard, and at the top of the range, they were easy. The very next level up, if you crossed that line, suddenly they were hard again. This merely meant that there were a handful of levels where the game was easy, and a handful where the game was a challenge. I doubt most people knew that.

Notice what I actually said?

starkerealm wrote: »

Of course, Oblivion still threw Clanfears at you at level 2, and the game was hilariously unforgiving at times if you played as intended, something that people have forgotten as the years went on.

And, I actually stand by that. All of this, BS about Oblivion's level scaling being too easy is really an early game conceit. It would go easy on you at first, and then ruthlessly kick your teeth in for the next 35 levels, until it got confused and forgot what you were doing. Hilariously, thinking back to the actual forum threads from 10 years ago, I remember a lot of people complaining about how, by late game, every single wolf would turn into an epic battle as you tried to get anywhere in Cyrodiil.

lordrichter wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

You sure you don't want to call them, "carebears?" Throw in some more pejoratives just for fun?

I don't use the term "carebear" because the term does not apply to them. The phrase "vacation player" is not pejorative, it is the description of a player archetype. They are here on vacation. They come for a while, play the game, then leave. They like the game, so, after a while, they come back, play the game, then leave. The term vacation clearly separates them from the players who hang around here on a consistent basis and probably plays the game weekly, the resident players.

I find the term works well as a profile when thinking about how systems like One Tamriel can help them, and bring them back to the game. If they are an important customer demographic, then ZOS is looking at them, too. The real question is what is the mix between residents and vacationers. Whatever ZOS does with the actual design of One Tamriel will reflect upon this ratio, and it is this information that is invaluable for refining an understanding of what ZOS will be doing with the game in the future.

It certainly seems to be getting thrown around as a pejorative. Mostly in comparing vaction players with casuals, and then all of the old, "casuals ruining the game," crap seeping back up. But, if that wasn't your intention, mybad.

Dubhliam

No and here is why

No, simply because removing levels would serve no purpose.

On the other hand, multiple in game systems are tied to levels, and removing them would be much harder than you think.
And for what?

KingYogi415

No and here is why

Lets just replace all attacks with hugs, and all weapons with pillows!

Kalifas

Yes and here is why

Dubhliam wrote: »

No, simply because removing levels would serve no purpose.

On the other hand, multiple in game systems are tied to levels, and removing them would be much harder than you think.
And for what?

No purpose? People say that max level and CP, the game becomes too easy. And you get attributes leveling pre 50 which raises the ceiling on your damage. This idea also applies to Champion points and how I think the passive amounts are too open this early in the game. Things that cap at 100 points give 25% boons when it should be 10%. And allowing players to put 400 into one constellation is too early in this game. It should be:

No levels= Extra attributes gone
176 Cp per constellation= No Jack of all trades or early power creep
10% passive cap= Not insane differences between a low CP player and a high CP player

Shadesofkin

No and here is why

KingYogi415 wrote: »

Lets just replace all attacks with hugs, and all weapons with pillows!

And instead of experience points and gear, we all learn the value of Friendship!

NewBlacksmurf

No and here is why

Cryptical wrote: »

It's this universal battle leveling that deeply disturbs me.

Ann is a level 49 breton templar. Bob is a level 3 breton templar. Identical race, identical class.
Battle leveling bumps Bob's amount of magicka and stamina and health up. Ann's hard work leveling her character is worthless, because the system just hands out the same increases.
My opinion: Someone who has leveled up SHOULD have that effort plainly visible when comparing attributes to an otherwise identical lower level.

Both wear level-appropriate light armor, no traits or glyphs or sets, so there is no disparity between their own level and their clothing level.
Level scaling bumps Bob's stats up. Ann's hard work farming level-appropriate clothing is worthless, because the system just scaled Bob's comparative jute rags up to match her farmed ebon thread robes.
Opinion: Higher level material should ALWAYS outmatch lower level material.

Both Ann and Bob hold swords. Ann, at level 49, wields a sword that matches her level, made of ebon ingots. Bob, fresh off the boat at level 3, also swings a sword that matches his level that is made of plain iron. But Bob is battle leveled up, so the system hands Bob all the oomph that comes from swinging an ebony sword without any of the work. Ann, once again, is seeing all of her effort be counted as so much worthless button mashing.
Opinion: Higher level material should ALWAYS outmatch lower level material.

Yes, the argument has been made that Ann would kick Bob's arse because Ann has skill points invested in various abilities and passives, but that misses my point. My point is that Ann's character should be able to laugh off ANY attack that Bob throws at her. Ann's higher level armor should be reflected in an ability to stand there and shrug off Bob's attack. Ann's higher level health should be reflected in an ability to recover health for any scratch he manages to inflict almost before he can swing his sword again. But this universal battle leveling appears to be just one half-step short of making all character stats equal.

Well if your idea took, how would we play with others for PvE?
The lesser has to get more of a boost to be viable because they have far less tools.

I think there should be two distinctly different situations.

PVE should be scaled while PvP should not. PvP should exist only on level ranged campaigns or soon to talk about battle zones.

Amdar_Godkiller

Kalifas wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

No, simply because removing levels would serve no purpose.

On the other hand, multiple in game systems are tied to levels, and removing them would be much harder than you think.
And for what?

No purpose? People say that max level and CP, the game becomes too easy. And you get attributes leveling pre 50 which raises the ceiling on your damage. This idea also applies to Champion points and how I think the passive amounts are too open this early in the game. Things that cap at 100 points give 25% boons when it should be 10%. And allowing players to put 400 into one constellation is too early in this game. It should be:

No levels= Extra attributes gone
176 Cp per constellation= No Jack of all trades or early power creep
10% passive cap= Not insane differences between a low CP player and a high CP player

I've yet to meet any Vet Maw of Lorkaj soloists, so the game doesn't suddenly get easy at max level. The stuff
you did at CP100 gets easy, but as long as new challenges are regularly added, leveling is still very much necessary.

There's no issue with CP granting too many bonuses. The issue is simpy that racial passives shouldn't give bonuses
to regen or max resources. Take that out and all problems are solved. 

Also you can only put 167 CP per constellation currently. or are you for more? I'm confused by that line.

Elsonso

starkerealm wrote: »

It certainly seems to be getting thrown around as a pejorative. Mostly in comparing vaction players with casuals, and then all of the old, "casuals ruining the game," crap seeping back up. But, if that wasn't your intention, mybad.

Well, you seem to be looking for offense, but no, vacation does not mean casual. It does not mean carebear. It does not mean that they are not serious about the game when they play it. It does not mean anything bad. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a vacation player. A lot of the people I interact with in the game, and probably many in the forum, are exactly this sort of player.

I agree with you that the "casuals are ruining the game" stuff is hooey. ZOS is not some slave to the whims of different demographics. They have minds and can make decisions all by themselves, and l suspect you feel the same way.

No matter what ZOS does with One Tamriel, they will not be ruining the game. I actually can't see how it can fail. That does not mean that I will be happy with what they change. Creative differences in direction. @lordrichter vs @ZOS_RichLambert ... he always wins, dang it.

And, yes, going all the way back to the top.. if they make One Tamriel uniformly challenging where a Level 1 faces the same challenge as a Level 49, then I think they can get rid of character levels and no one would miss them. Not really.

BlackguardBob

Other and here is why

We just got rid of 16 levels of VRs and look how long that took to do with all the commentary about it (for and against) over the past two years.

To all intents and purposes, ESO has become a L50 game now for any place you can go outwith your original faction.

Getting to L50 seems like drudgery, like a long tutorial and then there is no meaningful progression thereafter.

I would have liked to have seen this game have infinite levels so that progression was transparent and a sense of personal accomplishment was achieved. Perhaps attaining L50 could have caused your character to advance in a specialised way by branching off into another career for a choice of say, one from three.

Going from one area to another should have remained level based so that the players would have a valid reason to play there and want to progress with a sense of wonderment and anticipation. Exploring a new area that is conditional on certain criteria being present on the character should be exciting, self-fulfilling and rewarding.

An entire map could have been made for vampires and/or werewolves and everybody else being the hunters of said monsters having attained an appropriate character level to keep it challenging but fair to all participants. At the moment you have two L50 characters side by side and CP depending, they could be vastly different in make up and yet still L50!

There is far too much emphasis on gear imo. It is overwhelmingly time consuming to create and there is always the concern ever present that ZoS will raise the bar so that we will have to create an entirely new set of gear all over again just to be in the same place as before!

STEVIL

No and here is why

I am not in favor of removing levels 3-50...

But i gotta say it feels like a lot of the naysay here is eerily similar to some of the pre-vet-removal.

To the point though, the REPLACEMENT of vet levels with CP ranks had a major and deliberate measurable impact due to the account-wide change with CP. I can see the gains and improvements in my gameplay and expectations and am playing more of my alts than before.

There doesnt seem to be a measurable significant difference between "levels 3-50" and "whatever it changes to" that justifies the effort.

Saying "we dont need them" isnt the same as saying "if we do this then we improve these other things BIGLY!!"

starkerealm

Other and here is why

lordrichter wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

It certainly seems to be getting thrown around as a pejorative. Mostly in comparing vaction players with casuals, and then all of the old, "casuals ruining the game," crap seeping back up. But, if that wasn't your intention, mybad.

Well, you seem to be looking for offense...

Mostly, I'm just fighting off a cold and being miserable. So, no, I'm not; or at least not intentionally.

lordrichter wrote: »

...but no, vacation does not mean casual. It does not mean carebear. It does not mean that they are not serious about the game when they play it. It does not mean anything bad. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a vacation player. A lot of the people I interact with in the game, and probably many in the forum, are exactly this sort of player.

I agree with you that the "casuals are ruining the game" stuff is hooey. ZOS is not some slave to the whims of different demographics. They have minds and can make decisions all by themselves, and l suspect you feel the same way.

No matter what ZOS does with One Tamriel, they will not be ruining the game. I actually can't see how it can fail. That does not mean that I will be happy with what they change. Creative differences in direction. @lordrichter vs @ZOS_RichLambert ... he always wins, dang it.

Suddenly, his cunning plan to be a dev all makes sense.

lordrichter wrote: »

And, yes, going all the way back to the top.. if they make One Tamriel uniformly challenging where a Level 1 faces the same challenge as a Level 49, then I think they can get rid of character levels and no one would miss them. Not really.

Yeah. Honestly, it's a difficult thing. You need early game content to be easier so newbies can acclimate... but the obvious way to do that is to make them statistically more powerful than endgame players... so the whole thing turns into a hilarious mess.

The best solution would be a complete overhaul of how levels and content function in the game. So that you're on a much flatter progression curve. So that endgame characters feel more powerful than newbies, but are statistically close enough that you can roam out of your weight class to some degree.

We'll see, though.