PDA

View Full Version : WoR leveling system?



Scotland
10-21-2015, 04:20 PM
(I know this question has probably already been answered but I can't find it on the search bar.)

Will WoR have a levelling system? Or will it be like M&B: Warband's multiplayer?

I'd prefer a M&B: Warband system. ;3

Szotu
10-21-2015, 04:42 PM
There should be some lvls - Its nice, but lvls should be nothing but just number. Or few bonuses like voices, skins etc. It will be good to know that ur commader is good or piece of shit. And next 1lvl general would be amm... not cool? ;D

Leifr
10-21-2015, 05:06 PM
As with the scoreboard and the discussion involving player kills, the inclusion of a 'leveling' system in any format tends to enforce a certain behaviour and/or play style. Usually, this is an entirely negative effect.

Scotland
10-21-2015, 05:09 PM
Agreed, it creates a more hostile-competitive atmosphere.

A. P. Hill
10-21-2015, 06:25 PM
World of Warcraft, or Everquest, or Dungeons and Dragons this is not, therefore I cannot and do not see a need for a leveling system.

That said, I would think it would be up to each company, regiment, brigade, division, or corps organization to keep track of and promote from within the best way they know how.

Sorta
10-21-2015, 06:30 PM
Maybe have a leveling system similar to Red Orchestra 2, where higher levels get slightly faster reload speeds, are less prone to go "PTSD mode" (vision blurs and goes black and white) when under artillery fire, and less beat up looking weapons, to reflect battle experience. As long as leveling doesn't give any real significant advantages (new weapons, more health), it could be cool. Though, I'd like the Warband style MP as well.

AgentNZ
10-22-2015, 01:11 AM
As with the scoreboard and the discussion involving player kills, the inclusion of a 'leveling' system in any format tends to enforce a certain behavior and/or play style. Usually, this is an entirely negative effect.

Well you need to remember that an online FPS, or any online shooter, without a leveling system hardly gives it's players any incentive to play long term. Yes this game is made towards a certain crowd but without the possibility to reach out to other crowds this game can't grow to it's fullest potential. A tactical shooter without a leveling system would be the equivalent to an RPG without the role playing; your taking out the one thing that drives players to play. Yes you might not enjoy seeing a fancy image saying you are " This said rank." but many people do and many people use these sort of small thing's to drive them to play more and gain more skill in-game.

When players play a shooter they need a force to drive them to be better at that said game, you can make the claim you only motivate yourself but stop being egotistical. A leveling system, even in it's most basic form, is needed so it gives players a drive to reach another level of skill. Yes it can promote a harsh environment where players are pitted against each other in a social class in which some strive to out achieve others but this is War . More over this is a War inside of a video game.

We need a basic way to drive the players to keep playing in this tactical shooter and a basic leveling system is one of the important key ways to enforce this. Again I'm not saying we need some COD like system but we need some sort of basic system in which drives players, themselves alone, to achieve for higher status.

I don't think completely ruling out leveling would be smart; there needs to be a middle ground someplace.

A. P. Hill
10-22-2015, 02:55 AM
Well you need to remember that an online FPS, or any online shooter, without a leveling system hardly gives it's players any incentive to play long term. ...

It could be that the developers don't want that kind of player.
And as you rightly said this game will have its appeal to a certain player and that's fine.

I've played other games where players try to max their character as fast as they can, but to what end? It's those players who are unsatisfied with the game and bitch to the developers for more content.

The purpose of this endeavor is not in that vein. And I wouldn't necessarily call this a game proper, but I see it more as an electronic form of reenacting.

AgentNZ
10-22-2015, 03:20 AM
It could be that the developers don't want that kind of player.
And as you rightly said this game will have its appeal to a certain player and that's fine.

I've played other games where players try to max their character as fast as they can, but to what end? It's those players who are unsatisfied with the game and bitch to the developers for more content.

The purpose of this endeavor is not in that vein. And I wouldn't necessarily call this a game proper, but I see it more as an electronic form of reenacting.


What sort of players does the development team not want to play their game, because I think you are misunderstanding what I'm talking about?

Are you referring to the kind of players who strive to become better in what they enjoy? The kind of players who when faced with challenges do not see a wall but merely an obstacle to overcome? The kind of players when faced with nothing but hardships still strive to become the best they can? Those are the sort of players I'm speaking of and I see no reason to try and deter those sort of players.

Now, I have stated there needs to be middle ground. I do not believe we need some sort of amazing race to the end where we get fancy titles and nice hats to prove we are the best. I do believe we need a system that imposes an ever enduring challenge on the players and a basic leveling system in a tactical shooter is the easiest way to cure that problem.

Even if it's a system where players have to take months to even get a single rank how would that be detrimental to the growth of this game compared to a total lack of one? Even if it's a wall the size of the Eiffel Tower there still needs to be a wall for players to visibly see and be able to at least have the sense they can overcome it, again I'm talking long term here. They need a reason to play every day, they need a sense of in-completion in which only their skill and time in the game will complete.

Now, I do understand where you are coming from; I really do. I hate children in gaming, not just age related but personality related. I assume this is what you are referring to but you need to understand that is not what I am referring to.

This game with it's complete realism and forced approach to realism, in my own mind, would be enough to deter any sort of " Childish Gamer" and along with it's own population of mature people would easily be able to push away these sort of people.

Note games cannot survive, at least if I read the kick starter correct, with lack of population and donations.

Leifr
10-22-2015, 08:24 AM
Well you need to remember that an online FPS, or any online shooter, without a leveling system hardly gives it's players any incentive to play long term. Yes this game is made towards a certain crowd but without the possibility to reach out to other crowds this game can't grow to it's fullest potential. A tactical shooter without a leveling system would be the equivalent to an RPG without the role playing; your taking out the one thing that drives players to play. Yes you might not enjoy seeing a fancy image saying you are " This said rank." but many people do and many people use these sort of small thing's to drive them to play more and gain more skill in-game.

When players play a shooter they need a force to drive them to be better at that said game, you can make the claim you only motivate yourself but stop being egotistical. A leveling system, even in it's most basic form, is needed so it gives players a drive to reach another level of skill. Yes it can promote a harsh environment where players are pitted against each other in a social class in which some strive to out achieve others but this is War . More over this is a War inside of a video game.

We need a basic way to drive the players to keep playing in this tactical shooter and a basic leveling system is one of the important key ways to enforce this. Again I'm not saying we need some COD like system but we need some sort of basic system in which drives players, themselves alone, to achieve for higher status.

I don't think completely ruling out leveling would be smart; there needs to be a middle ground someplace.

I'm not sure how old you are pal but I'm suspecting quite young. I find your suggestion of CoD as an example humorous, largely indicative of your poor understanding and foresight.
There was a time when one could play FPS games without the inclusion or hint of a leveling system in any form. The original Call of Duty, United Offensive and Call of Duty 2, and the Medal of Honour series, the original Red Orchestra, Quake and Unreal - the list is endless. There's a common ground between all of these games (and more), one that was shared by millions of players whom enjoyed uncounted hours in multiplayer arenas - there was no leveling or 'perk' system present. :)

Perhaps a better alternative to look at; if players cannot focus or enjoy a game without a false and ultimately hollow progression of numbers, then it is they who are in the wrong endeavor and should seek a gaming kick elsewhere. Chasing stats and upgrades always promotes the anti-social behaviour, this would only be more detrimental in a game that so far appears to be rooted through and through in historical replication.

It's simply not needed.

Arkansan
10-22-2015, 08:30 AM
^^^United Offensive best CoD.

Levels would interfere with the way this game is meant to be played. Its a big NO from me.

A. P. Hill
10-22-2015, 01:43 PM
i'm not sure how old you are pal but i'm suspecting quite young. I find your suggestion of cod as an example humorous, largely indicative of your poor understanding and foresight.
There was a time when one could play fps games without the inclusion or hint of a leveling system in any form. The original call of duty, united offensive and call of duty 2, and the medal of honour series, the original red orchestra, quake and unreal - the list is endless. There's a common ground between all of these games (and more), one that was shared by millions of players whom enjoyed uncounted hours in multiplayer arenas - there was no leveling or 'perk' system present. :)

perhaps a better alternative to look at; if players cannot focus or enjoy a game without a false and ultimately hollow progression of numbers, then it is they who are in the wrong endeavor and should seek a gaming kick elsewhere. Chasing stats and upgrades always promotes the anti-social behaviour, this would only be more detrimental in a game that so far appears to be rooted through and through in historical replication.

It's simply not needed.

huzzah! Huzzah!

CybrSlydr
10-22-2015, 05:44 PM
What sort of players does the development team not want to play their game, because I think you are misunderstanding what I'm talking about?

Are you referring to the kind of players who strive to become better in what they enjoy? The kind of players who when faced with challenges do not see a wall but merely an obstacle to overcome? The kind of players when faced with nothing but hardships still strive to become the best they can? Those are the sort of players I'm speaking of and I see no reason to try and deter those sort of players.

Now, I have stated there needs to be middle ground. I do not believe we need some sort of amazing race to the end where we get fancy titles and nice hats to prove we are the best. I do believe we need a system that imposes an ever enduring challenge on the players and a basic leveling system in a tactical shooter is the easiest way to cure that problem.

Even if it's a system where players have to take months to even get a single rank how would that be detrimental to the growth of this game compared to a total lack of one? Even if it's a wall the size of the Eiffel Tower there still needs to be a wall for players to visibly see and be able to at least have the sense they can overcome it, again I'm talking long term here. They need a reason to play every day, they need a sense of in-completion in which only their skill and time in the game will complete.

Now, I do understand where you are coming from; I really do. I hate children in gaming, not just age related but personality related. I assume this is what you are referring to but you need to understand that is not what I am referring to.

This game with it's complete realism and forced approach to realism, in my own mind, would be enough to deter any sort of " Childish Gamer" and along with it's own population of mature people would easily be able to push away these sort of people.

Note games cannot survive, at least if I read the kick starter correct, with lack of population and donations.

Is not the game its-self the challenge? Are not the constantly changing enemy players challenge enough?

Aren't the fact that no two games will ever play the same not challenge enough?

The challenge should be in working as a team and achieving victory, not in reaching 500 kills, unlocking a fancy red Fedora, gold plating for your mustket or 5 bayonet kills in a row, etc.

I'm in agreement with leifer- the fact that people will have to wait as long as they do between reloads to fire, their guns will not always hit that at which they aim, they cannot bunny-hop or dolphin dive, and finally that they will be required to run around with others to have a chance at survival means the maturity/desire ceiling for this game will be quite high to begin with.

Attempting to lower it by granting ludicrous "perks" and award "killstreaks" so the konsole kiddies will play will only ruin the game.

Jonny Powers
10-22-2015, 06:26 PM
I feel like this discussion got a bit off-track here; I don't see how anybody expected there to be a leveling system, at least a numerical one. From what I know, there's supposed to be some sort of ranking as the trailer mentioned being able to move from a ground unit to a general directing troops - don't quote me on that though. Whether this is a battle-to-battle scenario like going as a commander in Red Orchestra, as I suspect, or if it somehow carries over from match to match, remains to be seen.

Personally, I feel that in a game like War of Rights a numbered leveling system is irrelevant, as many people have expressed here. I would like as little of a HUD as possible and including numbers along with names in the HUD (if a player's name will pop up when pointing in their direction will occur) will detract from the immersion. I was thinking that perhaps an ingame use of ranks in place of numbers would be a better solution, but that has the chance of detracting from Regimental immersion, which I believe is where we will see ranks implemented in some form.

What I think could be done really well is what I like to term an 'invisible' ranking system. This is a system in which no rankings are kept during ingame scenarios, perhaps only on a player's profile. Yet with playtime the player could gain either ingame "bonuses" like an increased stamina or a faster reload or other things along the lines of getting more "experience", or they could gain some purely cosmetic features, like better (or more rugged, if you're thinking in that direction) uniforms and equipment, like in the mold of Verdun - this is to go along with the degradation of weapons that they have already announced. Or they could just as easily do both!

Going off of Verdun, one factor I really like is the squad leveling system: the more you play with your friends, the greater your squad experience, and with that you gain better squad support features (artillery upgrades, etc). While Verdun is a much more squad-based game than War of Rights will be, I think similar concepts could be used on a Regimental and higher level.

Are there any other thoughts or ideas that could build off of or critique my own?

PGT Beauregard
10-24-2015, 08:05 AM
The last thing this project needs is leveling in any form or any form of political correctness. It should be based solely on the decisions you make for the better or worse. Combat is not subjective, it is what it is, brutal and unforgiving.

Triton
10-24-2015, 09:30 AM
Agreed This game should remain on its base trail that they have built for them selves not a copy & paste of every call of duty out there with a new twist, that would be the death of this game...

Arkansan
10-24-2015, 11:57 AM
The last thing this project needs is leveling in any form or any form of political correctness. It should be based solely on the decisions you make for the better or worse. Combat is not subjective, it is what it is, brutal and unforgiving.

^^^^^^^ I love you

Willie Fisterbottom
10-24-2015, 03:03 PM
Leveling generally makes people more serious about the game but not in a good way. If i play something like battlefield and die 20 times in a row im frustrated because i feel like i should be unlocking all the equipment and stuff. But take something like mount and blade Napoleonic wars, which is probably my favorite game of all time, i find that i have fun even when i die constantly.

CybrSlydr
10-24-2015, 03:59 PM
The last thing this project needs is leveling in any form or any form of political correctness. It should be based solely on the decisions you make for the better or worse. Combat is not subjective, it is what it is, brutal and unforgiving.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

A. P. Hill
10-24-2015, 04:35 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap:

We're short on emotes it appears. (Go copy an emote from a site you know that has that, then save it to your computer, you can insert gifs as images into your posts here. ;) )

1304
Like this little guy.

Bravescot
10-25-2015, 12:04 AM
The last thing this project needs is leveling in any form or any form of political correctness. It should be based solely on the decisions you make for the better or worse. Combat is not subjective, it is what it is, brutal and unforgiving.

My new favorite comment on this forum