• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Discussion on Heroes/Leveling Cont

VariousNames

Grizzled Veteran
Aug 6, 2009
1,226
521
This thread is a matter of courtesy to the TC of the "Idea for Heroes" thread where this discussion originated, found here.

This thread's purpose is ostensibly to continue the argument that began there, although anything related to leveling systems could be discussed here.

Once again, you're not "souring your experience" for the first 40 hours grinding through a level system because you're HAVING FUN PLAYING THE GAME THAT IS AVAILABLE TO YOU. What don't you understand about this? Where are you getting the idea that RO2's leveling system will turn the game into a bare-bones shooter where you have to gain XP to unlock 80% of the games content?

That is a tremendous strawman.

Riddle me this, what about this leveling system makes the game more fun to play? In fact, what about leveling is fun?

If you can't grant me an answer, then I submit that leveling is superfluous and pointless at best, and that's if you can manage to debunk the issues I raise below.

Age of Empires is a competitive game. And I could list more. In what way does the weapon purchasing system hurt gameplay? As I said, there is a reason why these features exist. In CS, the purpose is clearly to limit access to more powerful weapons to select players, rather than allowing all players to instantly select the best weapons, or alternatively, to have all weapons perfectly balanced against each other (boring).
Well this one is easy.

Giving the players who perform the best the best weapons and giving the worst players the worst weapons (e.g. CSS) means:

A) you make the game more difficult for new players and people who just join the server

B) you give the best players an obscene and totally unnecessary advantage they clearly didn't need by the fact that they had to dominate in order to unlock the AWP, etc

In a nutshell, it is one of the most nonsensical, evidently intentionally imbalanced systems in competitive games and should be killed with fire.

By "limited to select players," you literally mean the best players, who have an advantage already in that they are already the most skilled players. The advantage is unnecessary and compounds the problem of skill gaps even further. Competitive games should be based on skill, and tactics can be explored by offering different, but balanced weapons, to all players.

Again, I'm talking about competitive games not limited by this "historical authenticity aspect" like RO, so these arguments do not extend to RO.

How would a waiting period solve this problem? Player replacement votes/votekicks can be abused, and voting of any kind rarely works.

[Bold], ergo it will not be abused. I've not seen a voting system of any kind abused in 5 years.

I was playing a game of Warsow the other day and it took 5 minutes of continuous kick votes being drawn before we could get a voice chat spammer out of the game.
A training requirement per class would not work, because it does not solve the issue of which players have preference over others.
[Bold] is not an issue, ergo you have no point here. Describe to me how it's an issue and maybe I'll follow along.

In fact, I've raised the issue that better players having preference over others creates gameplay imbalance, and thus is undesirable and pointless in a competitive game.

Suppose in a running competition, last year's gold medalist had access to all running shoes, whereas newcomers did not. That is absurd and anti-competitive. The point of a running competition is running. It is finding out the best runner, not finding out who is the best runner with the best shoes. The best way to do this is to control for all variables, namely shoes, clothing, position, track, start and end times so that the competition best reflects genuine gaps in ability instead of artifice.
AA has an honour system that is more or less exactly what the devs have described RO2's leveling system will be, in which you accumulate XP to gain bonuses like first choice of weapons and access to new weapons and addons.

This does not support your point at all. I don't care whether AA has a leveling system, that is irrelevant. I obviously have the same issues with it that I have with any leveling system and I think it should be scrapped.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Snuffeldjuret
Mehhhh.... I stopped worrying about the leveling system. Most, if not all the unlockables are probably going to be minor things intended for fine tuning play styles, ie. select fire, different scopes, drums instead of belts, etc.

I doubt any of the 'upgrades' are going to be major game-changers. It's not like a leveled-up rifleman is going to pwn noob rifleman just cus he's removed his sight hood or something like that. You start the game with all the weapons necessary to kill any enemy in one or two shots, so it makes little difference.

The only upgrades that I can think of that could result in slightly different gameplay are the sniper and MG, and those are very limited classes, so its not like you're gonna get pwned by 10 l337 snipers every round
 
Upvote 0
as far as I know the original purpose of the leveling system was to keep newbies out of posistions like commander / Mg / etc. Also to keep those positions restricted from 'spawntillery'.

Along the design line it was probably decided to expand on that very basic leveling system and add a bit to it to make it more attractive and 'fun'. I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of a leveling system, but I think they've done a good job with this one so far. Players who do good for a round can get a field promotion, so those new players arent necessarily stuck with their lower weapons until they level (slower then getting field promo). Also unlike other shooters, the weapons are in many ways equal, a rifleman who is quick with his rifle and gets off the first shot can easily kill SMG'ers; unlike other FPS's where each levels unlocks are significantly better then the last. Also afaik the leveling will only hold players back from a few special positions ( commander / Hero / MG ), assault / semi riflemen / riflemen will all be open to any player.
 
Upvote 0
For some people it's the journey, not the destination.

Asking where the fun is in leveling is just as stupid as saying that's the fun part in the first place. Opinions are neat that way.

My money's on there being servers with ranking enabled/disabled like most other games which have similar systems, and if it gets your panties in a bunch you can just play without.

Will that lead to a less "complete" experience? Maybe.

Is that fair? I think it is.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
For some people it's the journey, not the destination.

Suppose for me it's the game that holds the magic. There's an extraordinary level of depth in Red Orchestra, totally unexploited, even for clan players. Tactics, eye hand coordination, reaction time, compensating for trajectory and recoil, positioning....there's the real struggle. Consider Chess...Chess is a simple game but the level of enjoyment a person gets out of it is proportionate to how much of it he attempts to uncover.

To muddy this with an arbitrary bunch of "experience points" so you can play digital accountant seems to me superfluous at best. It's linear, it's pointless, it's a way for people to pretend they're successful when they're not. It has nothing to do with the game, and yet it's keeping me from exploring it fully. The hours I've spent grinding for levelups and +1 stat gains I will never get back.

I'll settle for the fact that it's damaging to the integrity of the gameplay. Or at least...my pubbing experience.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Suppose for me it's the game that holds the magic. There's an extraordinary level of depth in Red Orchestra, totally unexploited, even for clan players. Tactics, eye hand coordination, reaction time, compensating for trajectory and recoil, positioning....there's the real struggle. Consider Chess...Chess is a simple game but the level of enjoyment a person gets out of it is proportionate to how much of it he attempts to uncover.

To muddy this with an arbitrary bunch of "experience points" so you can play digital accountant seems to me superfluous at best. It's linear, it's pointless, it's a way for people to pretend they're successful when they're not. It has nothing to do with the game, and yet it's keeping me from exploring it fully. The hours I've spent grinding for levelups and +1 stat gains I will never get back.

I'll settle for the fact that it's damaging to the integrity of the gameplay. Or at least...my pubbing experience.

Fully agreed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schreq
Upvote 0
I'm slightly curious if the game punishes for sticking with a standard rifleman\SMG while having hero status or is it up to other players to notice and spend 10-15 minutes organising a kickvote about "wasted" hero in hypothetical scenario on standard public server.

Not that the first part would actually make any sense but anyway.
 
Upvote 0
I would like the idea better if status was awarded more on overall number of kills with a certain gun and hours played. Lets say you kill 500 enemies with a machine gun, maybe let that player have more ammo whenever he enters as a machine gunner, and give him a medal, like the knights crosss (in the case of so many men) or the soivet equivalent which he can wear on his uniform in battle. -Now that would be cool-as to the way it sounds it will be, I do not support the idea.
 
Upvote 0
Its not so much that leveling is lame, which it is. It is more about creatively representing WW2 combat in a new way that will encourage outstanding play.

You see, leveling has been done. Big deal.

What about a new way of actually representing the altered state that a hero may enter when performing heroic action?

See my thread "On Heroes and Deeds" for a new idea of a hero experience.

Leveling paradigms in game are self-fulfilling prophecies of fail because once the levels are reached, the drive to play is greatly diminished, or more likely, the leveler will turn to a new leveling game.

Leveling in a WW2 game (especially one with the history of RO) seems to be a-contextual on the face of it. Heroes aren't grinders. They're doers and usually diers. What was that experience like, the moment of combatic euphoria during the commission of super-human deeds? Was it a slow inevitable process that led to superhuman powers, or a sudden burst of energy and momentary fanatic invincibility? For a gamer, which one is a lasting memory, and which one is simply a milestone?

I'll tell you, I can't remember what it was like to hit level 40 in Everquest, but I still remember the first time I got through an active fire lane, was ripped to shreds, but still managed to get my demo charge on target.

Leveling completely dulls the experience of getting the job done through skill and deeds. In fact, by definition, leveling removes the need for developing skills that benefit gaming, and replaces it with a grinder's mentality. From a company resource standpoint, it requires constant leveling upgrades to maintain player interest.

Take the resources committed to leveling and create something original, and lasting. Leveling... been there, done that, got old real fast... rolling "snake eyes" on my morale check and experiencing the rush of violent outburst in a different way each time...wow...





PS. The response of the dev team member to the subject is disappointing in the dogmatic tone. I wonder what the WaW guys were thinking.
 
Upvote 0
Well that assumes Heroes will be a limited team asset.

TBH it would be silly to let people rank up yet deny them the benefits (whatever those may be) that they earned because of team makeup.

Since the heroes system was announced it was stated that the hero would be a limited class, with a very low number (1-2?) per team/squad. How it is limited (first come first serve?) hasn't been confirmed afaik. But a limited asset none-the-less.

Wow VariousNames you started another thread on the levelling system...3rd one now?
 
Upvote 0