We're Too Powerful.

[MJ12]

 

Here is another really good write up on the benefit of horizontal progression over vertical.

 

 "The problem of strong Vertical progression is that it’s not sustainable anymore in the “Social” era (2005+): IRL or online friends can’t play together based on gameplay and/or social skills, all previous content is quickly rendered obsolete leading to grinding the same 5% end-game content, for a given content the more the player progress vertically (through stats obesity) the less skillful he has to be. In fact all Vertical progression MMORPGs quickly lose players/subs soon after release those last years (leading to an “MMO 1.0 industry” in crisis).

 

GW2 PvE progression is also an Horizontal progression (not a Vertical one). Arenanet has simply been very clever to make it feel *individualy* Vertical (through the sidekick system) but when you come back to a previous zone you’ll have the same HP pool as the mobs or higher players there: it’s an horizontal of HP pools => roughly same number of shots to kill a mob or player whatever your level difference (as Damage is always scaled to the HP pool) BUT you’ll have more abilities to choose from, more possibilities to match your personal play style or situations, good looking gear/pets/titles/mounts/whatever (= Horizontal progression)

 

In this context it’s normal that Horizontal progressions will feel very weird/wrong for MMOs veterans during the transition. It will be much less of a concern for FPS players (they never saw an exponential increase of their HP in FPS campaigns) and they represent a much bigger pool of potential players who now appreciate the sense of progression and persistence a MMO can give while still being “fair-play” and “Social proof” (“good/skilled/social player search for” not “fat players search for other fat player”) . 

 

In the end we know that Horizontal progression is unavoidable but very young to MMOs and that it will take time and iteration for developers to find the best solutions (and also player feedback)"

 

EDIT:  Yes I know he is referencing MMO's mainly (that was from the Firefall forums).  But it very much applies here, and is the point I was trying to get across.  Creative Horizontal progression is the future.  Vertical progression is an easy out, and lazy, and will lead to failure.

 

 

So basically you take a quote from another forum by a guy who has no idea what he's talking about (the reason MMOs today are losing subscriptions is because of the free-to-play industry increasing competition in the MMO field, not because of 'vertical progression') and assume it must be the gospel truth? Seriously?

 

Meanwhile, looking at recent games, it actually seems like vertical progression is the future. Look at Blacklight Retribution for example, compared to old-school FPSes. A high-level character is objectively better in Blacklight, not just slightly more pimped, because there are tons of modifications which give slight benefits for no real drawbacks. Tribes: Ascend and Planetside 2 both have/had some level of vertical progression. Ghost Recon you brought up, and it has it to a minor extent. Dust 514 has it. These are PvP games, mind you, where vertical progression can create massive, hilarious problems in balancing. Yet they still do it.

 

Why? Because vertical progression is interesting in and of itself.

[Bakercompany86]

And you forget to talk about any of the problems of purely horizontal progression:

 

It means a player is incapable of compensating for low skill via patience or any other method.

 

Games that are largely skill-based with minimal vertical progression almost always have a Super-Easy difficulty mode specifically because of that.  Bayonetta could literally be played one-handed, it had a difficulty mode that was that easy. MGR:R on easy is pretty easy.

 

Furthermore, there's the other problem that creates, which is:

 

Balance becomes even more paramount, and the game must always err on the side of being 'easy' if it lacks a very large range of difficulty levels (which splits the playerbase).

 

In a game with vertical progression, a difficulty spike just means the player in question can overlevel themselves and beat the situation that way, compensating for it via some grinding. In a game with horizontal progression, what happens is that the player gets frustrated and quits.

 

Significant content is absolutely necessary for the game, content that could just as easily be implemented in a game with vertical progression.

 

Take a look at Far Cry, Crysis, or so on. At the endgame, you fight the same enemies with largely the same guns, in more or less the same way, as you did at the start. This gets repetitive in a game where you're expected to invest dozens to hundreds of hours in it. In a game with vertical progression, at least you can look forward to something coming out of it. Far Cry, Crysis, and so on manage because you'll spend maybe ten hours in the campaign. A game with solely horizontal progression needs tons of variety to keep it fresh, over hundreds of hours.

 

It is for this reason exactly that those games are almost always PvP competitive shooters.

 

Content becomes significantly harder to create

 

"Okay we need a new weapon. Let's make it like a previous weapon with a new model and slightly different behavior" (*cough* Cerberus Harrier *cough*) is far easier than "Okay we need a new weapon, exactly what niche did we not fill yet that needs filling, because we can't ever make a weapon that's too good or too weak?" This comes from the whole 'balance in a game without vertical progression is far more difficult' thing. In a game with vertical progression, a weapon that's too good means you tackle content that would normally be slightly above your level, a weapon that's too weak means you tackle content that would normally be slightly below it, in the end you're fine.

 

In a game with solely sidegrades a weapon that's too good lets you trivialize everything and a weapon that's too weak means you lose at everything forever.

 

Same with enemies. An enemy that creates a difficulty spike in a game with vertical progression (pre-nerf Scorpions, for example) just means you go back to lower-level content. If Warframe had no vertical progression, Scorpions would literally have rendered the Grineer unplayable for the period of time which they existed without their tracking nerfs.

 

Vertical progression does not invalidate horizontal progression. Removing it will not suddenly give the game more content.

 

I brought up Borderlands 2 because it's a game with vertical progression like whoa yet it has tons of variety in weapons, enemies, and possible builds. This is because vertical progression does not invalidate horizontal progression. If you took out all the vertical progression in Borderlands 2, you wouldn't suddenly get tons of new enemies and locations and things to do. You'd just... have the same stuff, except with less impetus to keep playing.

 

And finally, and this is the biggest thing:

 

Horizontal progression provides a much lower sense of reward. You don't see anything get bigger. You don't see anything become cooler. You just get slightly better at a pace you don't really notice. Do you understand the Skinner Box and how it works? Horizontal progression literally reduces game longevity.

 

 

So you're completely fine fighting the exact same things, as long as they gain more health and you can put out more damage?  But not if it requires a challenge?  So you want easy mode with gear checks...which is exactly what that sounds like.

 

You also make it sound like you have to start the game in max difficulty, crushing new players.  That's a lie!  You know damn well you can just start the AI off and the missions with basic mechanics and add more as the game progresses.  THAT is true horizontal progression.  Not just crushing a player from the start.

 

 

Meanwhile, it's perfectly okay to just be able to grind out a few mod upgrades until you can just blaze through a mission with no challenge, simply because you raised your stats enough?  Not because you are smarter, found your comfort zone with your equipment choices, and learned to play the game better?  Plus working as a team?

 

 

You're also missing the huge point I made about many different unit types.  Not fighting the exact same stuff over and over.  Especially the same garbage with just more health...that's lame and lazy.

 

 

You know what else about Borderlands?  People get bored with it, and quit.  Just like all games with Vertical progression like you mentioned.  It doesn't get more challenging.  You just need to build a bigger better gun, and grind grind grind to do so.

 

 

Boring, lazy gameplay.

[Bakercompany86]

So basically you take a quote from another forum by a guy who has no idea what he's talking about (the reason MMOs today are losing subscriptions is because of the free-to-play industry increasing competition in the MMO field, not because of 'vertical progression') and assume it must be the gospel truth? Seriously?

 

Meanwhile, looking at recent games, it actually seems like vertical progression is the future. Look at Blacklight Retribution for example, compared to old-school FPSes. A high-level character is objectively better in Blacklight, not just slightly more pimped, because there are tons of modifications which give slight benefits for no real drawbacks. Tribes: Ascend and Planetside 2 both have/had some level of vertical progression. Ghost Recon you brought up, and it has it to a minor extent. Dust 514 has it. These are PvP games, mind you, where vertical progression can create massive, hilarious problems in balancing. Yet they still do it.

 

Why? Because vertical progression is interesting in and of itself.

 

 

Planetside 2 has vertical progression?  Have you played that game?

 

 

There is no vertical progression.  You simply make choices on your kit dependent on your playstyle.  Yes you can boost your HP by 25%, but the other guy might have flak armor or whatever.  It has a TINY amount of vertical progression, followed by the largest horizontal progression in place today.  And if you've played planetside, you'd know it's amazing.  You'd also know that you can cause just as much damage to the enemy force with the starting weapons as any weapon you can unlock.

 

So yeah, this game could have something similar.  Where you can maybe boost your health by up to 25%.  Or maybe add in slightly faster regenerating shields.  That gives you a tiny edge in combat.

 

That is a farcry from what you seem to prefer, which is an endless slog of grinding to meet gearchecks...

 

 

 

EDIT:  By reading your last statement, I know that we just have completely polar opposite preferences.  If you think vertical progression is fun, then I guess that's your cup of tea.

While I personally like practicing, and getting better, smarter, and more accurate.  Not just increasing my health from 100% to 200%...

 

Also I linked what that gentleman had written because he brings up excellent points as to why horizontal progression is a good thing.  I said "here is a really good write up on horizontal progression"  not "this guy is the authority on video game progression".  Don't turn into a troll.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Bakercompany86

[Manly_McManface]

the AI in this game is far from decent. so far, the AI consists of:

 

1. shoot one thing constantly

2. sometimes seek cover

3. sometimes stand in one place and shoot

4. stick together in large meaty groups

5. see any enemy through walls if alarm is on

6. ignore everything and run for cover/melee target/panels

7. stand completely bonkers still while the death bringing enemy is coming right for you

8. zergrush the enemy even if you aren't suited for that

9. start jogging in circles because your pathfinding cant find a good route to the target right in front of you

10. occatuionally throw grenades at your feet

11. sometimes jump down into a pit

12. aim at enemies that are behind walls

13. walk past a tenno, only to 2 seconds later realize that fact and stand completely still, shooting that tenno as he chops you in half

 

I laughed pretty hard reading this... it's so true!!! I think a better AI is much needed. One that would intentionally increase difficulty by making them more aggressive. Not stupid and charging in, but they really don't shoot you as much as they should... When I see a heavy grineer, I either unload on it, or shoot in burts to save some ammo, but still quick and focussed. The enemies in this game tend to do burst firing every so often and thats it. The only enemy that really tries to shred you to death is the Heavy Gunners, but they have a wind up time on their gorgons, so its not that big of a deal if you find cover, kill it first, or have a shield mod and armor over 50. 

[RealityMachina]

You know what else about Borderlands?  People get bored with it, and quit.  Just like all games with Vertical progression like you mentioned.  It doesn't get more challenging.  You just need to build a bigger better gun, and grind grind grind to do so.

 

 

Boring, lazy gameplay.

So boring its sequel is currently at #10 on the most currently played games list on Steam.

Edited August 6, 2013 by RealityMachina

[Bakercompany86]

So boring its sequel is currently at #10 on the most currently played games list on Steam.

 

 

Well I got bored with it.

 

It's also less than a year old.  If it didn't survive at least a year then it's a pretty crappy game =\

 

And considering TF2 is #2...and that released in what, 2007?

 

 

Apples and Oranges really.  Hard to compare a PvP game against a PvE game.  But in my opinion, the principle is the same.

 

 

EDIT:  I guess the simple fact is, horizontal gameplay is by farm more repeatable than vertical gameplay.  

Horizontal you play content because you want to.

 

Vertical you play content because you have to.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Bakercompany86

[MJ12]

So you're completely fine fighting the exact same things, as long as they gain more health and you can put out more damage?  But not if it requires a challenge?  So you want easy mode with gear checks...which is exactly what that sounds like.

 

Man, that's not only a strawman, but it's an ad hominem as well. No, I'm not completely fine fighting the exact same things that gain more health and put out more damage. Except unlike you, I realize the difference isn't if vertical progression is eliminated, somehow DE will extract 5000% more content out of their butts. It means that instead of fighting the same enemies except they have more health and deal more damage, I'll be fighting... the exact same enemies.

 

You also make it sound like you have to start the game in max difficulty, crushing new players.  That's a lie!  You know damn well you can just start the AI off and the missions with basic mechanics and add more as the game progresses.  THAT is true horizontal progression.  Not just crushing a player from the start.

 

Irrelevant. At some point it is possible that a player will suffer from the required skill curve exceeding their skill. At this point, in a game with vertical progression they can over-level themselves and beat the enemy anyways. In a game without this ability they either lower the difficulty setting (impossible in a game without difficulty settings) or they get frustrated and potentially quit.

 

You know why Borderlands can sort of manage without a difficulty toggle while most FPSes can't? Because it lets you grind to reduce difficulty.

 

Meanwhile, it's perfectly okay to just be able to grind out a few mod upgrades until you can just blaze through a mission with no challenge, simply because you raised your stats enough?  Not because you are smarter, found your comfort zone with your equipment choices, and learned to play the game better?  Plus working as a team?

 

You're also missing the huge point I made about many different unit types.  Not fighting the exact same stuff over and over.  Especially the same garbage with just more health...that's lame and lazy.

 

You're acting like this is impossible in a game with vertical progression. Meanwhile, Borderlands 2 kind of proves you wrong, given how many viable builds and weapons there are even in a game with vertical progression like whoa. Hell, Diablo II has some of that. The only difference is that it also allows you to grind to reduce difficulty.

 

And again, the question given the current state of the game isn't "fighting the same garbage with just more health" versus "many different unit types". It's "fighting the same garbage with just more health" versus "fighting the same garbage". Removing vertical progression doesn't let DE pull more content out of its butt without spending money.

 

You know what else about Borderlands?  People get bored with it, and quit.  Just like all games with Vertical progression like you mentioned.  It doesn't get more challenging.  You just need to build a bigger better gun, and grind grind grind to do so.

 

Boring, lazy gameplay.

 

Yes, and if Borderlands didn't have vertical progression... they'd get bored with it and quit earlier. And it doesn't get more challenging? MAN WHAT. Holy crap, TVHM or UVHM are massive difficulty spikes, to say nothing about things like Threshers. "Boring, lazy gameplay" is hilarious when Borderlands has far more interesting enemies and weapons dynamics than games with no vertical progression whatsoever.

 

Neatly illustrating my point about how vertical progression is irrelevant to horizontal progression.

 

Planetside 2 has vertical progression?  Have you played that game?

 

Yes, I have. Are you saying that you don't have any abilities to increase your health or reduce incoming damage? Oh wait no. Are you saying that you can't upgrade a weapon with better accuracy and damage? Oh wait no.

 

There is no vertical progression.  You simply make choices on your kit dependent on your playstyle.  Yes you can boost your HP by 25%, but the other guy might have flak armor or whatever.  It has a TINY amount of vertical progression, followed by the largest horizontal progression in place today.  And if you've played planetside, you'd know it's amazing.  You'd also know that you can cause just as much damage to the enemy force with the starting weapons as any weapon you can unlock.

 

So yeah, this game could have something similar.  Where you can maybe boost your health by up to 25%.  Or maybe add in slightly faster regenerating shields.  That gives you a tiny edge in combat.

 

That is a farcry from what you seem to prefer, which is an endless slog of grinding to meet gearchecks...

 

You seem to fail to understand the point, which is that even in a game where slight imbalances in player health and damage can completely destroy game balance guys who know what they're doing with MMOs implement vertical progression in a genre (multiplayer FPSes) which traditionally lacks any sort of 'vertical progression'. Why? Because vertical progression is fun in and of itself.

 

EDIT:  By reading your last statement, I know that we just have completely polar opposite preferences.  If you think vertical progression is fun, then I guess that's your cup of tea.

While I personally like practicing, and getting better, smarter, and more accurate.  Not just increasing my health from 100% to 200%...

 

You're acting like this is a binary question instead of a non sequitur. Vertical progression doesn't change the existence or lack thereof of horizontal progression.

 

I think in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance you can double your damage output and health. I guess that means MGR:R is just an extended gearcheck. In Devil May Cry you could quadruple your health and super mode duration. Guess it was just a gear check with no challenge that you didn't need to practice for. Or Dark Souls. I hear that game has tons of vertical progression, it clearly has no skill-based challenge whatsoever.

[RealityMachina]

Well I got bored with it.

 

It's also less than a year old.  If it didn't survive at least a year then it's a pretty crappy game =\

Oh, yeah, a game that's planned to get even more content DLC beyond what the season pass was included for because the game makes Gearbox that much money is clearly a game that didn't survive and is crappy.

 

I mean this is before we get into the fact that games that can survive for a year in terms of a year is...well, pretty rare. I mean, S#&$, the industry itself expects only around 10% of its customers to actually finish a game's story they buy, much less actually keep playing it for a long time.

 

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/08/18/cnn-report-only-10-percent-of-players-finish-games.aspx

[Grommile]

You know what else about Borderlands?  People get bored with it, and quit.  Just like all games with Vertical progression like you mentioned.

The bolded sentence - at least with respect to video games - is six words too long.

[Bakercompany86]

Man, that's not only a strawman, but it's an ad hominem as well. No, I'm not completely fine fighting the exact same things that gain more health and put out more damage. Except unlike you, I realize the difference isn't if vertical progression is eliminated, somehow DE will extract 5000% more content out of their butts. It means that instead of fighting the same enemies except they have more health and deal more damage, I'll be fighting... the exact same enemies.

 

 

 

Irrelevant. At some point it is possible that a player will suffer from the required skill curve exceeding their skill. At this point, in a game with vertical progression they can over-level themselves and beat the enemy anyways. In a game without this ability they either lower the difficulty setting (impossible in a game without difficulty settings) or they get frustrated and potentially quit.

 

You know why Borderlands can sort of manage without a difficulty toggle while most FPSes can't? Because it lets you grind to reduce difficulty.

 

 

 

You're acting like this is impossible in a game with vertical progression. Meanwhile, Borderlands 2 kind of proves you wrong, given how many viable builds and weapons there are even in a game with vertical progression like whoa. Hell, Diablo II has some of that. The only difference is that it also allows you to grind to reduce difficulty.

 

And again, the question given the current state of the game isn't "fighting the same garbage with just more health" versus "many different unit types". It's "fighting the same garbage with just more health" versus "fighting the same garbage". Removing vertical progression doesn't let DE pull more content out of its butt without spending money.

 

 

 

Yes, and if Borderlands didn't have vertical progression... they'd get bored with it and quit earlier. And it doesn't get more challenging? MAN WHAT. Holy crap, TVHM or UVHM are massive difficulty spikes, to say nothing about things like Threshers. "Boring, lazy gameplay" is hilarious when Borderlands has far more interesting enemies and weapons dynamics than games with no vertical progression whatsoever.

 

Neatly illustrating my point about how vertical progression is irrelevant to horizontal progression.

 

 

Yes, I have. Are you saying that you don't have any abilities to increase your health or reduce incoming damage? Oh wait no. Are you saying that you can't upgrade a weapon with better accuracy and damage? Oh wait no.

 

 

 

You seem to fail to understand the point, which is that even in a game where slight imbalances in player health and damage can completely destroy game balance guys who know what they're doing with MMOs implement vertical progression in a genre (multiplayer FPSes) which traditionally lacks any sort of 'vertical progression'. Why? Because vertical progression is fun in and of itself.

 

 

 

You're acting like this is a binary question instead of a non sequitur. Vertical progression doesn't change the existence or lack thereof of horizontal progression.

 

I think in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance you can double your damage output and health. I guess that means MGR:R is just an extended gearcheck. In Devil May Cry you could quadruple your health and super mode duration. Guess it was just a gear check with no challenge that you didn't need to practice for. Or Dark Souls. I hear that game has tons of vertical progression, it clearly has no skill-based challenge whatsoever.

 

 

That's not an ad hominem attack....that would be if I called you a lazy moron, which I didn't.

 

 

So once again, here we are.

 

You're okay fighting the same crap, with little to no challenge simply because you were able to grind and grind and grind.

 

 

 

You're also very wrong about planetside.  You can upgrade your weapon damage?  Tell me...is that a straight vertical upgrade?  Or is there a tradeoff for that increased damage?  Like say....less blast radius?  Or say....slower projectiles?

 

 

And let me ask you this since you bring up Diablo II so much.  What was Diablo II endgame like?  Do you remember?  I do.  Tell me...what was it like?  Did players constantly play through the entire campaign?  Enjoying every last ounce of gameplay Blizzard put into the game?

 

Or was it literally players speed running the exact same part of the game over and over and over and over because it was the only thing to do?

 

 

Tell me.  In Borderlands, without expansions, what do players do?  Do they run through the entire campaign again?  Do they go to earlier content to farm old weapons that are useless?  How great did it feel to find that Iridium weapon that was useless in a handful of levels?

 

 

I don't like your idea of fun gameplay.  I might as well go back to World of Warcraft.....except I like challenge.  I like new things.  You keep saying "the game will crush the player" which makes you sound like you have very little skill at shooters.  If that's the case, why do you play shooters?

 

So if you can't beat something, you find it more fun to go grind the same level over and over and over until you've reached a high enough arbitrary number to beat your foe?  Man that sucks...I'm sorry.  But that is BORING.

 

I desire challenge.  i desire engaging gameplay.  I desire a game that makes me think of how I can accomplish my task, instead of "how many times do I need to farm this area before I can move to the next".

 

Your idea of good gameplay sucks, I'm sorry.  That's just my opinion.

[Bakercompany86]

The bolded sentence - at least with respect to video games - is six words too long.

 

 

Tell me, what are the #1 and #2 top played games on Steam?

 

 

 

EDIT:  In regards to the person who linked the article about 10% of players finishing games, where did they get these stats?  I refute their poll.  I worked for GameStop for years.  I'd say about 90% of the traded in games were completed (if that was a possibility, ruling out games like Madden etc).

Edited August 6, 2013 by Bakercompany86

[RealityMachina]

Tell me, what are the #1 and #2 top played games on Steam?

DOTA 2 and TF2.

 

Both of which are online multiplayer F2P games, so they don't quite work on the same rules as other games.

[Bakercompany86]

DOTA 2 and TF2.

 

Both of which are online multiplayer F2P games, so they don't quite work on the same rules as other games.

 

Well you indicated that all games eventually get boring and people quit.  Yes some people will always quit games because nothing can keep their attention.

 

My point is, certain types of gameplay can become timeless where people will play them forever.

 

The principles behind DOTA and TF2 date way back, and they hold up today.

 

The first DOTA came out when?  2002? 2003?  It's more popular today than ever.  It's even become it's own E-Sport.

 

Yes PvP and PvE games are vastly different.  PvP offers constantly changing opponents due to human nature.  But that's precisely my point.

 

If you leave things up to vertical progression, you're only tasking the players with bumping up their stats to appropriate levels.  They are distracting you with the shinies so you ignore the fact that you've been doing nothing but grinding for a month.

 

If you make something Horizontal (and the gameplay doesn't suck by default) you set up something that can be timeless like those games.

 

 

 

One thing is a fact.  Regardless of which progression you prefer, new diverse enemy types with increasing AI difficulty is the only way to constantly engage players.  Despite which progression method you prefer.

[Grommile]

Tell me, what are the #1 and #2 top played games on Steam?

At the moment? DotA 2 is the runaway #1 (and is a month old) and TF2 (which is, yes, much older) is #2.

 

Notably, both of them are competitive/confrontational multiplayer, rather than singleplayer or cooperative multiplayer, and the game in #3 (Civ 5) supports confrontational mulltiplayer in addition to singleplayer.

 

Edit: Oh, as for which type of progression I prefer? Embrace the power of AND.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Grommile

[Bakercompany86]

At the moment? DotA 2 is the runaway #1 (and is a month old) and TF2 (which is, yes, much older) is #2.

 

Notably, both of them are competitive/confrontational multiplayer, rather than singleplayer or cooperative multiplayer, and the game in #3 (Civ 5) supports confrontational mulltiplayer in addition to singleplayer.

 

Edit: Oh, as for which type of progression I prefer? Embrace the power of AND.

 

 

DOTA is much older than that.  Remember DOTA started in Warcraft 3, roughly 10 years ago.  That's a decade of almost the exact same thing holding up because it's so much fun.

 

 

I agree that PvP is much easier to make last than PvE.  But for me, the way to make PvE last is not by forcing players to grind and boost up stats.

 

 

As far as AND, what are you referring to?  Both types combined or binary AND gates?

 

 

EDIT: I wouldn't be opposed to a combination of the two theories.  But they would have to grossly tone down the stat progression for my tastes.  I'm talking like 10-25% increased stats over 10 levels.  Not 300% or more.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Bakercompany86

[MJ12]

That's not an ad hominem attack....that would be if I called you a lazy moron, which I didn't.

 

Going "you must be saying this because you're bad at shooters" is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. It's also a strawman.

 

Anyways, as it turns out, your argument is 'vertical progression baaaaaad' ignoring that vertical progression is literally the only thing that has kept Warframe alive until now and at this point you're basically postulating that the only reason DE doesn't scrap all vertical progression and replace it with horizontal progression is because they're lazy and everyone who understands how vertical progression benefits them is lazy instead of actually realizing that vertical progression is what's providing this game longevity, does not inherently contradict any other solution to repetitiveness (Again, BL2 shows you can easily have tons of variety and vertical progression), and is already there to begin with, thus removing it would require a massive core-level redesign of the game.

 

 

And let me ask you this since you bring up Diablo II so much.  What was Diablo II endgame like?  Do you remember?  I do.  Tell me...what was it like?  Did players constantly play through the entire campaign?  Enjoying every last ounce of gameplay Blizzard put into the game?

 

Or was it literally players speed running the exact same part of the game over and over and over and over because it was the only thing to do?

 

Tell me.  In Borderlands, without expansions, what do players do?  Do they run through the entire campaign again?  Do they go to earlier content to farm old weapons that are useless?  How great did it feel to find that Iridium weapon that was useless in a handful of levels?

 

You've finally figured it out. Except not quite. Diablo II endgame involved a ton of farming, and so did Borderlands. It's almost as if without that farming players would have quit far earlier. It's almost as if that's a textbook example of vertical progression adding to the game's longevity. That's why I keep bringing them up. Because they meant the games lasted far longer than their campaigns would have implied.

 

It's an excellent example of how vertical progression benefits games.

 

 

I don't like your idea of fun gameplay.  I might as well go back to World of Warcraft.....except I like challenge.  I like new things.  You keep saying "the game will crush the player" which makes you sound like you have very little skill at shooters.  If that's the case, why do you play shooters?

 

So the game won't crush the average player? Then it'll be trivially easy from the start for someone who's good. Whereas if there was vertical progression (there's that term again!) that player could advance much faster in terms of content and grind less, thus reaching challenging content faster. Vertical progression allows the player to balance the difficulty curve for themselves, unconsciously.

 

 

So if you can't beat something, you find it more fun to go grind the same level over and over and over until you've reached a high enough arbitrary number to beat your foe?  Man that sucks...I'm sorry.  But that is BORING.

 

You know what else is boring? If you can't beat something, having to redo the same level over and over and over and over until you've reached the arbitrarily-set skill level to beat your foe? Man that sucks...I'm sorry. But that is BORING. Even more boring than grinding other content for additional vertical progression, because at least that way you can see other things instead of a 'game over' screen.

 

 

I desire challenge.  i desire engaging gameplay.  I desire a game that makes me think of how I can accomplish my task, instead of "how many times do I need to farm this area before I can move to the next".

 

Your idea of good gameplay sucks, I'm sorry.  That's just my opinion.

 

Somehow, 'vertical progression' and 'challenge' and 'engaging gameplay' are not actually opposed to each other, which is a point you refuse to understand because you've made it your job to crusade against vertical progression in any form.

 

 

If you make something Horizontal (and the gameplay doesn't suck by default) you set up something that can be timeless like those games.

 

People still play Diablo 2 today, people no longer play a ton of games with no vertical progression and tons of vertical progression (like FEAR and its sequels). Your hypothesis falls flat on its face. Horizontal progression is neither necessary or beneficial for a 'timeless' game.

Edited August 6, 2013 by MJ12

[MJ12]

DOTA is much  older than that.  Remember DOTA started in Warcraft 3, roughly 10 years ago.  That's a decade of almost the exact same thing holding up because it's so much fun.

 

Yes, it's almost like if DOTA created a new and popular genre of game and is an exceptional example that really doesn't make any sense to hold up at all, especially when tons of games with no vertical progression and not-awful gameplay die off all the time.

 

I agree that PvP is much easier to make last than PvE.  But for me, the way to make PvE last is not by forcing players to grind and boost up stats.

 

Many MMOs: Extremely fast progression curves, minimal grinding, died.

 

WoW: Tons of grinding, not dead.

 

Your hypothesis, again, is contradicted by actual reality.

[Bakercompany86]

I guess we're just going to have to disagree at this point.

 

 

You bring up a game like Fear, where the multiplayer was a sideshow and compare it to a purely online game.  That's just silly.

 

 

Although I will say, F3AR has a game mode that should be duplicated within Warframe as a mission.

 

At this point I think we just have grossly different opinions of games, and I completely disagree with your philosophy. 

 

You would however, make an excellent CEO for a company like Activision.

[Bakercompany86]

Yes, it's almost like if DOTA created a new and popular genre of game and is an exceptional example that really doesn't make any sense to hold up at all, especially when tons of games with no vertical progression and not-awful gameplay die off all the time.

 

 

 

Many MMOs: Extremely fast progression curves, minimal grinding, died.

 

WoW: Tons of grinding, not dead.

 

Your hypothesis, again, is contradicted by actual reality.

 

 

I can PROMISE you WoW is not successful because of how much you're required to grind.  Grinds are implemented in those types of games to artificially increase the amount of time you're required to play.  I've never met a single gamer who said they ENJOY grinding.  It's just necessary because it's the only way to play the game.  Warframe doesn't have to be that way, but you sure enough want to keep it that way.

 

 

It was successful because it took example from the past, and perfected them.  You're also talking about Blizzard, one of the most high octane developers in the industry with incredible financial backing and some of the best story tellers on the planet.

 

 

Go ahead, compare the lore of Warcraft to Warframe.  There is no comparison.

 

 

It's like you're saying your fresh Prime Rib tastes better than the 4 day old chicken nugget I found on the ground. 

 

World of Warcraft was GROUNDBREAKING in the MMO industry.  It's also an MMO.  Grinding an MMO is a different experience than a game like Warframe.  Apples and Oranges, except you want the apple to taste like an orange, but still look like an apple...

 

YOUR hypothesis is contradicted in the fact that you're using the wrong material for your argument.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Bakercompany86

[Meatuchu]

Yes, let's make the game less fun for the sake of difficulty! It's not like the main thrust of the OP's argument was "the game is not fun because it's too easy, I'd like to make the game more challenging so it's more fun". Your changes would add a ton of bulls**t unfun difficulty for difficulty's sake, which is even less fun than a game that's too easy.

 

FYI: All of these changes, without compensatory changes to core mechanics, are awful.

 

(No regenerating health + shields not fully preventing damage = awful)

 

(No regenerating energy + unreliable energy regain encouraging hoarding = awful)

 

(Massive elemental damage nerf + enemies still retaining the same health/armor = awful)

 

Yes, the game's combat systems need a massive overhaul, but this is the worst way to go about it.

I admit that the transition would be INCREDIBLY jarring, but what it would offer is a much more limited range of expected damage outputs for weapons, which in turn would would make balance a heck of alot easier for DE to manage. Right now there are people with insane damage outputs who are crying make the game harder and then people with lighter modsets that can't survive in T3 environments.

P.S. At this point it's literally impossible to give challenge me with my Boltor that puts out a calculated 15328.44 Damage per clip vs Corpus Crewmen -_-

Edited August 6, 2013 by Meatuchu

[RealityMachina]

Whoa...can't believe I just now saw this....

"Yes, let's make the game less fun for the sake of difficulty! It's not like the main thrust of the OP's argument was "the game is not fun because it's too easy, I'd like to make the game more challenging so it's more fun". Your changes would add a ton of bulls**t unfun difficulty for difficulty's sake, which is even less fun than a game that's too easy."

So this guy wants an easy game, period.

I got it now. Done talking with you sir.

Well "his own" in this case, but either way wow that's like, not even close to any reasonable interpretation of his statement.

[Xylia]

Whoa...can't believe I just now saw this....


"Yes, let's make the game less fun for the sake of difficulty! It's not like the main thrust of the OP's argument was "the game is not fun because it's too easy, I'd like to make the game more challenging so it's more fun". Your changes would add a ton of bulls**t unfun difficulty for difficulty's sake, which is even less fun than a game that's too easy."

 

What's so wrong with that?

 

Other than the obvious sarcasm in the first sentence.

 

He makes sense -- why destroy the game for newbies/lowbies just for the sake of making the game "more enjoyable" for hardcore players who complain the game is too easy?

[Bakercompany86]

Yes I caught that, which is why I deleted the comment.

 

EDIT:  Nobody wants to destroy the game for lowbies/newbies.  I haven't read anyone say that they want stage 1 at max difficulty.

 

Everything I've spoken of is referencing endgame.  Every game needs its introduction period.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Bakercompany86

[Xylia]

And if anybody really really really wants to talk about WoW, lemme tell you something:

 

When was WoW at its highest point?

 

During Wrath of the Lich King.

 

What did Wrath of the Lich King do?

 

It added a ton of EASY dungeons that players could just waltz through.

 

What did they do in the very next expansion, Cataclysm?

 

They made the dungeons hard as freaking balls, to the point RAIDERS couldn't even complete them very much.

 

What happened?

 

Subs plummeted by the millions. The game went from 11mil subscribers down to ~8m.

 

Okay, Mists of Pandaria was announced with Easy Heroic Dungeons and more accessibility, easier to get gear, more casual content. BOOM. 8mil->10mil.

 

Now WoW back down to 9mil.

 

Why?

 

Part of the reason: Patch 5.3 added a new daily questing hub that is very unfriendly to Fresh-Lv90 players and many classes that lack an abundance of self-heals. New rares were added, and the newest Looking For Raid Tier, the Throne of Thunder, is 2-3x as hard as the previous one.

 

Gee, I couldn't guess why we suddenly lost 1mil+ subscribers, mmm?

 

Every time they make the game harder, subs plummet. Make the game easier, more people sub up.

 

Now what does that say?

[Xylia]

Yes I caught that, which is why I deleted the comment.

 

EDIT:  Nobody wants to destroy the game for lowbies/newbies.  I haven't read anyone say that they want stage 1 at max difficulty.

 

Everything I've spoken of is referencing endgame.  Every game needs its introduction period.

 

A lot of people advocating changes to make the game "harder" ends up impacting newbies too; what you do to a Lv90 mob, you end up doing to a Lv1 mob.

 

Like.......Sawmen and their Shields.

 

Sawmen are now harder to kill than Troopers and they do far more damage, too. Do they appear less? Oh no. They come out in packs of 2-4 on M Prime, the 2nd mission in the game!

 

What a nice way to introduce newbies than to bend them over and let the sawmen have their way with them with those cleavers, oh yes. Seriously, I swear those cleavers hit for 30-40 a pop. How long do you think a Newbie with 75 Shields and 75 Health is going to last?

Edited August 6, 2013 by Xylia