Progressing someone else

The one thing that online RPGs have going for them (and I assume that your game is online, given the mechanic) is the rewards for you grinding out your time. The only way that this works for both players is if they both play roughly the same amount-- otherwise your own time is basically wasted.

If you play 40 hrs/week and I play 10 hrs/week, then regardless of safeguards you put on distributing XP you will get less out of your play time (nothing, really). Further, once it's clear that I'm only playing 1/4 as much as you do, you have little incentive to log on and play, since you'll see next to no benefit. And whatever benefit does accrue (the benefits that flow entirely to me) will be constantly reduced as the increasingly paltry XP you can contribute to me does less to power me up. It may be balance-able to the extent that my play time becomes more productive of XP (since I'm doing higher level stuff), but then you're still looking at development that occurs on my timetable, so it will come when it comes with no relation to your play time or actions in game.

If you have an active link-switching mechanic in place, that would help with the above, but it would undercut cooperation in all other areas. I'm not going to give you my rare equipment just to have your play time dip and see it benefit other characters and never myself. So what you're left with is a game that plays the same as any other MMO, but where you can't progress by investing your time-- only if some other person does.

I personally wouldn't want to work solely to enrich someone else who may or may not return the favor. If I'm taking on a role, I want to be the driving force for my character, not some other guy. There's definitely stuff to be explored in cooperative gameplay, but as it stands this just sounds like a much more convoluted way to achieve the same results as standard play while managing to make my own investment of time and energy largely worthless to me.

I enjoy the idea and concept, and though I wouldn't want every game to implement it, it'd be fun for one or two games to do so.

However, I have to agree with Khaily: this would not work well with a ORPG style game. It could work very well for a cooperative (online or splitscreen) RPG game, though. Or even with 4 or 5 player coop, contributing to a common pool of experience that is then divided evenly between everyone except the one who contributed the exp.

I think you could achieve what you want with a more practical system.

Maybe this has been done, maybe this hasn't, I don't play a lot of RPGs. But imagine a system in which you accrued level-up points that you could either apply to yourself, to your party, or potentially even sell. This would work fine for an ORPG.

You could also have the concept of a party that gains experience which is evenly divided among all members of the party. Membership in a party would be voluntary. If one person was slacking, obviously it would benefit the others to kick that person out.

[color="#1C2837"]The one thing that online RPGs have going for them (and I assume that your game is online, given the mechanic) is the rewards for you grinding out your time. [/quote]

[color="#1C2837"]However, I have to agree with Khaily: this would not work well with a ORPG style game.[/quote]

Would it not work because of the nature of being an online RPG or because of the perception that people have of what an ORPG should be? I don't know if I would criticize the idea for not having typical grinding, after all that's the point of the idea, changing the premise of progression.

What I would be curious about is the mentality that the players would have. If someone helps me out then I typically feel compelled to help them in return. When someone helps me out it's a lot more significant to me than when I help myself out. I would be interested in how this would motivate people, because I think a lot of people would be more interested in helping other people progress than themselves. Just look at the presence of support classes in games, those people would rather help the group and get the indirect benefit (they don't kill the creatures that give the exp after all).

Granted the design adds risk of investment for the players and a requirement for a larger degree of trust and dependence, but I wouldn't consider those things flaws in the design.

Asheron's Call had an Allegiance system where players could swear fealty to another. I can't remember the specifics of how many people you could have following you, but it worked kind of like a pyramid scheme: You received a small portion of the experience from everyone following you and your followers. The idea was that lower level characters could prop up a higher level character, who (should) take care of them with money, items and assistance in exchange for reducing the amount of grinding they needed to level up.

Not sure if that really fits what were looking for, but it is an interesting system for progressing someone else. I'm sure there were problems with it but it may have worked for others.

Balance is key though, especially in an online game where many people want more for less. You can't penalize the people doing more work by making it too easy to avoid reciprocating.

[color=#1C2837][size=2]You can't penalize the people doing more work by making it too easy to avoid reciprocating.[/quote]


I agree. I think I have an idea how to address the problem. The experience that you have invested into a player is only permanently theirs once they can match it. Until they match it, it is only theirs so long as the connection stays intact. The surplus on either side would be taken if the link is disbanded and given to the new player that is linked to.

What I would be curious about is the mentality that the players would have. If someone helps me out then I typically feel compelled to help them in return. When someone helps me out it's a lot more significant to me than when I help myself out. I would be interested in how this would motivate people, because I think a lot of people would be more interested in helping other people progress than themselves. Just look at the presence of support classes in games, those people would rather help the group and get the indirect benefit (they don't kill the creatures that give the exp after all).

Granted the design adds risk of investment for the players and a requirement for a larger degree of trust and dependence, but I wouldn't consider those things flaws in the design.

I don't think playing a support class in a more typical orpg has any real relation to your system. Support class provides an alternate gameplay but you still reap the same rewards as the person you're helping.

I think a better support class perspective would be what if experience, money and gear you get from a mob is distributed based on damage dealt to the target. In that scenario, I think a lot fewer people would want to play the "tank", the "healer" and the support roles even if they happened to find that gameplay more appealing.

I, too, would be curious about the way this would affect a player base mentally.

This reminds me of a game idea I had a while back. There'd be a Knight (Sir Wilhelm) and a Page (Phillip). You'd play as the Knight, and go on adventures with the Page. You goal is then to level up the Page, who you do not directly control. You can give orders and you can participate, but anything you do is a missed opportunity for his growth.

Then, if he can't perform well enough at the end of the game, you get the guillotine.

[color="#1C2837"]I don't think playing a support class in a more typical orpg has any real relation to your system. Support class provides an alternate gameplay but you still reap the same rewards as the person you're helping.[/quote]


A true (full) support player very rarely gets his or her own experience when on the field because progression in many multiplayer RPGs (for better or for worse) is given for the kills made and not for the skills used. I almost always play support classes, and in many games, excluding the experience given for questing, I would get a share of experience indirectly from partying and the kills made by other players. I would indirectly get myself more experience by helping the other players to defeat more rewarding content.

That last point is more of the association I was referring to, that players already show that indirect progression is acceptable. It's a lot less extreme than the topic of the post, especially since all players know that there will be balanced compensation (which leaves the difference to be mostly nominal), but it's still related.

Would it not work because of the nature of being an online RPG or because of the perception that people have of what an ORPG should be? I don't know if I would criticize the idea for not having typical grinding, after all that's the point of the idea, changing the premise of progression.

It's not about the grinding - It's about the cooperation. In most online games, the majority of the players do not cooperate well, even when it directly benefits them. Yes, you can almost always find groups of people who do cooperate within that game, but most of the game's population do not.

The reason why it'll instantly work in a cooperative RPG, is because you go into the game with the understanding that you are expected to cooperate.

What I would be curious about is the mentality that the players would have. If someone helps me out then I typically feel compelled to help them in return.[/quote]
Yes, but that is not true about the majority of online players. Certainly, you can have an online game where you deleberitely cater to the type of players that meet your own profile, but in general it won't work well with your average player.

Granted the design adds risk of investment for the players and a requirement for a larger degree of trust and dependence, but I wouldn't consider those things flaws in the design.[/quote]
Well, we're talking about one feature in isolation. Certainly if you made a game around the feature, you could probably find a way to 'make it work', by adding counter-balances and pulleys to prod players in that direction. It'd be a cool one-off game, but for we aren't talking about a game, we are talking about a game feature. So without having a picture of what the rest of the game would be, we have to put the feature into the games that already exist.
I suppose we should have said, "It wouldn't work if you dragged and dropped it into most common ORPGs".

You guys apparently haven't been pay attention to MMORPGs...

City of Heroes has this in a few different ways...
Sidekicking/mentoring allows players to raise/lower the level of their character to their partner's and their xp gets adjusted to the actual level of the characters
Super sidekick (or something i actually forget the name of it) if you are below level 5 you can link your character with another character below level 5 and any xp one gets is divided between the 2 characters.

Other MMORPGs have implemented this type of system since then as they have found it to help with the various population level problems.

[color=#1C2837][size=2]Sidekicking/mentoring allows players to raise/lower the level of their character to their partner's and their xp gets adjusted to the actual level of the characters
Super sidekick (or something i actually forget the name of it) if you are below level 5 you can link your character with another character below level 5 and any xp one gets is divided between the 2 characters.[/quote]



Guild Wars 2 is supposed to have a similar system as well.


One of the main differences is that the intention of the system described here isn't to mentor or "carry" a lower level player. In theory both players would be about the same level when they group up, remain within a similar level range, and be the entire source of experience for the other (not ration part of it to assist the other). The implementation you mentioned is to help players of different levels group and advance together, not to change the core focus of progression.

[color="#1C2837"]Sidekicking/mentoring allows players to raise/lower the level of their character to their partner's and their xp gets adjusted to the actual level of the characters
Super sidekick (or something i actually forget the name of it) if you are below level 5 you can link your character with another character below level 5 and any xp one gets is divided between the 2 characters.

Guild Wars 2 is supposed to have a similar system as well.


One of the main differences is that the intention of the system described here isn't to mentor or "carry" a lower level player. In theory both players would be about the same level when they group up, remain within a similar level range, and be the entire source of experience for the other (not ration part of it to assist the other). The implementation you mentioned is to help players of different levels group and advance together, not to change the core focus of progression.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that in CoH it is possible to turn off you getting xp and all the xp goes to the other player when in one of those partner links.

Gestalt is right - Although I haven't played CoH, I do play Champions Online, which seems to have similar features. The sidekick system is great as it allows me (who can't play that much) and my brother (who is on vacation with lots of free time) have an enyojable experience despite him playing 24/7 and having a high level character. I am not sure other random people would actually do it for another player -- thinking in those mysterious, anonymous ways, what do I get from lowering my level which I grinded for such a long time? Unless I like the player I am working with, I would rather not help out unless I am utterly bored. No reward unless someone is a really good person that feels compelled to help out new players adapt.

The system described by the OP has its pros and cons.

+ Encouraging teamplay. Most MMOs allow a single player to manage on his own, making parties a good thing to form mostly for boss mosnters
+ Encouraging trust. Something that in MMOs is absent most of the time due to being anonymous and not caring much about others in general.
+ Allows greater challenges. The gameplay might be beefed overall because players will need to group anyway.
+ Something new that might draw players just for the "how it feels"

- Greater scammer activity. Players will just stick around with others to rack up free EXP with no effort whatsoever.
- Might not work out at all. The selfish nature of the majority of the ORPG community might prevent this feature from working, unless enchanced by other gameplay elemens and the players proded towards it, as mentioned above.
- Thriving RL trading. By this I mean selling EXP/chars online for real money. I count this as bad, as generally this kind of defeats the purpose of playing.
- Doesn't really make much of a difference in gamplay. It would only force people to work in 2 player pairs, which might not click for some hardcore lone wolves that loathe others.
- Noob flaming. When my progression is dependant on another, I might feel REALLY upset if my "significant other" doesn't perform as well as me, and vice versa.


Some of the points above negate each other out - I guess it depends on how an individual player acts in ORPGs. As already mentioned, one would have to see how it plays to judge. As with anything, there will be those that will worship the system for it's immersion and emphasis on cooperation, and those that will flame it for slow gameplay and reliance on a total stranger

Gestalt is right - Although I haven't played CoH, I do play Champions Online, which seems to have similar features. The sidekick system is great as it allows me (who can't play that much) and my brother (who is on vacation with lots of free time) have an enyojable experience despite him playing 24/7 and having a high level character. I am not sure other random people would actually do it for another player -- thinking in those mysterious, anonymous ways, what do I get from lowering my level which I grinded for such a long time? Unless I like the player I am working with, I would rather not help out unless I am utterly bored. No reward unless someone is a really good person that feels compelled to help out new players adapt.

There are a number of reasons to sidekick... like doing task forces, doing missions you missed, just to help out, just for the fun of it...
It's used a lot for various reasons like if there is a lvl 40 team that needs a tank a lvl 5 tank can join the team and tank for them ^,^
It used to be a bit problematic with a tether for regular sidekick/mentoring and xp gain problems, but that has improved greatly.

I see. Still, given the example of level 5 tank beefed to 40, I noticed that items he wears and skills he has stay the same. So, in the end, he is a rather last resort tank. The other way round, however, is more desirable -- a level 40 player can delevel to level 5 and retain all his items, skills and game knowledge to even further benefit the low level team.

I didn't consider the thing about doing task forces/raids on a different level with a sidekicked character -- guess I'm still old fashioned in the belief that a high level can significantly push the low level raid, while a low level wouldn't be much help (given the best scenario). Taking into account my previous paragraph, this is awkward to me all the same. But I guess we derailed here just a bit.

The idea of progressing someone else is a big dream, but to reliable on trust. As long as our culture as it is (you wouldn't trust a stranger to have him withdraw some money vya ATM for you, would you? Why? He didn't give you any reason to doubt his good intentions) such games would remain very low populated and plauged by those thinking they are smart and exploit the remainder of human kindness. Not that the world is all evil - it just likes to think of itself that way

I see. Still, given the example of level 5 tank beefed to 40, I noticed that items he wears and skills he has stay the same. So, in the end, he is a rather last resort tank. The other way round, however, is more desirable -- a level 40 player can delevel to level 5 and retain all his items, skills and game knowledge to even further benefit the low level team.

I didn't consider the thing about doing task forces/raids on a different level with a sidekicked character -- guess I'm still old fashioned in the belief that a high level can significantly push the low level raid, while a low level wouldn't be much help (given the best scenario). Taking into account my previous paragraph, this is awkward to me all the same. But I guess we derailed here just a bit.

The idea of progressing someone else is a big dream, but to reliable on trust. As long as our culture as it is (you wouldn't trust a stranger to have him withdraw some money vya ATM for you, would you? Why? He didn't give you any reason to doubt his good intentions) such games would remain very low populated and plauged by those thinking they are smart and exploit the remainder of human kindness. Not that the world is all evil - it just likes to think of itself that way

It's very funny to see the level thing in action because there are skill issues, but it is possible and does work depending on how well the player is able to cope
Xp though in CoH isn't really an issue so it helps that whole stigma..they even put in a feature so you can turn off getting XP ^.^

I actually think progressing via other peoples' work is dumb for the most part I bought the game to play it...not for someone else to play it for me. Its the same argument that i have against power levelers and auto battle systems that are tooo automatic. It's no longer a game... it's me watch someone or something else do something.

It's very funny to see the level thing in action because there are skill issues, but it is possible and does work depending on how well the player is able to cope
Xp though in CoH isn't really an issue so it helps that whole stigma..they even put in a feature so you can turn off getting XP ^.^

I actually think progressing via other peoples' work is dumb for the most part I bought the game to play it...not for someone else to play it for me. Its the same argument that i have against power levelers and auto battle systems that are tooo automatic. It's no longer a game... it's me watch someone or something else do something.

At least I am not the only one against power leveling Yes, it does defeat one of the things that makes a game fun -- progression and sense of achievement. People rush just to get to that one feature they wish (raiding, battlegrounds) and miss the whole story/plot/point of the game. But do admit that in some RPGs being able to auto battle boring random encounters during a loooooong road can be a big save for the game.

[color=#1C2837][size=2]I actually think progressing via other peoples' work is dumb for the most part I bought the game to play it...not for someone else to play it for me. Its the same argument that i have against power levelers and auto battle systems that are tooo automatic. It's no longer a game... it's me watch someone or something else do something. [/quote]



Not quite, keep in mind you would still be doing things, it's just those efforts wouldn't pay off for you directly. Instead your efforts would have the potential to pay off for you. You would definitely be helping someone else, but you could still be playing for yourself in a sense, just with less certainty. You would need to invest in people you feel would help you back, and learn to trust people.

I think you are relating this too closely to it's implementation in CoH. In a mentoring type system or a system in which you lower your level in order to do content with a lower-level player, the effort is one-sided. While you may get the sidekick experience, does the sidekick get you experience, and is there a balance between the efforts? The system in this post isn't simply about progressing someone else, it's more accurately about switching the focus of two people's progression so that the direct benefit is for another player and the indirect is for themselves.

As far as problems with players trying to grief the system, I think the issue can be handled by the edit I made:

"[color=#1C2837][size=2][color=#1C2837][size=2]The experience that you have invested into a player is only permanently theirs once they can match it. Until they match it, it is only theirs so long as the connection stays intact. The surplus on either side would be taken if the link is disbanded and given to the new player that is linked to."