I know that the idea of getting rid of levels in MMO has been disputed over for years, probably as long as MMOs have been around, yet no one ever found a clear answer.

The thing is that levels and other game resources work, thy just weren't made with MMOs in mind.

The question is how do we adjust them to fit MMOs better.

I am hoping that we can use this tread to scrape together our ideas and create some kind of Frankenstein's monster like ideas for testing.

So what are the problems MMOs face today?

When a player reaches the level cap thy no longer need xp, the MMO loses one of it's key gameplay features usually combat or grinding.

Breading and Tactics MMOs allow for a endless cycle of Levels, there is Legacy from ToR that attempt to do the same.

Some games change xp for items, one of my first rpg's used this, it doesn't work it's the same thing.

MMOs are games intended on keeping players for as long as thy can, this means you can't normally have a level cap.

Leveling up usually has no real effect in the game other than forcing players to move on to other places where thy can gain xp again.

We often forget what Leveling up first meant in games, it means we have reached a new point where we had access to new contend and harder challenges. Think of how old games leveled up like pacman.

If a level system for MMOs increases the challenge or difficulty it will have to be capped, or it will reach a point where no player can pass.

MMOs who don't add challenge or difficulty at each level needs to fill the void with contend, this means that developers are forced to add more and more to the game if there is no cap. This is the system that works best at this moment, however as the game gains new players it needs more artist and devs to fill the void, more content means players stay a new ones join this causes a black-hole like effect.

League of Legends is one of the best example of this, yet thy have successfully retarded the black-hole growth by appealing less to long time players and more to new players. Still have you seen the new champions?

XP, Stats, Gold and most other resources are gained by playing, this means that players who play more almost always wins in PvP.

When it's PvP we need balance.

Games reward you for playing this means you play more, unfortunately in MMO's no two players have the same amount of time to play, and most of the time it is your paying customers who have the least amount of time to play as thy have to work.

This means that your player-base changes to younger players who have more time and parents to pay for them, this works if your game appeals to that age.

A solution that works is is the 2Xp items that can be bought, although many players abuses this or get addicted and burns through the game fast.

I have studied many energy systems in hope of finding a answer, the one that always fails is the "limited play time" one.

Either the game is poor and players notes because thy have energy and noting to do, or the game is good and players feel forced to buy time so thy don't get left behind.

This is just a few of my concerns, post your own concerns, answers, doubts, rants, ideas and arguments.

I am over thinking this and I would like more to think about.

I spent some time pondering levelless MMOs a few years ago; I don't actually consider the question important any more because I realized I prefer MMOs which have no PvP, or which have a PvP system which has different combat than the game's main PvE combat. For example, PvP might be a CCG system while the main combat is action or spellbar/cooldown. Or PvP and PvE might both be based on using bred pets as units, but PvP would have 'preconstructed decks' of pets that new players could use if they wanted to go right into PvP without playing the PvE portions of the game to create their own pets. I was just playing Card Hunter the other day and the first thing they give you when they introduce you to dueling with other players is a preconstructed team of adventurers (your tactical units which each have their own card deck) which are three times the level of your single player campaign team at that point. Pox Nora does a similar thing - they have two types of duels, one of which is preconstructed only, and the singleplayer rewards for the first part of the game are unlocking the various preconstructed decks by using each one to defeat an easy AI opponent. Yet another possibility is a game with multiple PvP minigames, such as mount racing, poker, checkers, pong, and some arcade-like combat game unrelated to the PvE combat system.

But anyway, I personally like crafting-focused MMOs, and so I like a 'level' system which is about which branches of the tech tree you have unlocked rather than being about combat; combat is just one method of gathering crafting resources, not the main 'career' of the game characters. A Tale In The Desert is an interesting, if not perfect, example of crafting-based leveling. There are 7 professions in the game, and your level shows your highest two profession ranks. Or at least that's how it worked the last time I actually played ATitD, which was a few years ago.

I've always wondered why MMOs didn't adopt an open ended leveling mechanic where there was no level cap. However...XP required for the next level would increase exponentially. Levels would be harder and harder to attain so you'd need more and more xp to gain the next level and not just a fixed amount.

E.g.: from 1 to 2 you need 100 xp, from 2 to 3 you need 200 xp, from 3 to 4 you need 400, and by the time you're trying to hit 20 you need over 26 million.

I take it back...there WOULD be a cap in this type of system: time. But instead of artificially restricting progress you're leaving it up to the player how much time they want to invest to level up. As a developer I don't this would pose MUCH change in the way you design "end game" challenges. You'd have to consider what the mean player level would probably be, and what the max level on average would probably be.

I dunno'...just always hated artificial barriers to progress. Invisible walls, level caps, etc.

Having a commonality of parameter acquisition is the key here. Pardon me if I'm just rambling on about the obvious, but players need a common access point into 'character development' so that they can acquire the end goal/result of their 'work'. Their investment is met with sucess and the leveling model is the most tried and true- in MMOs it implies the need for a protracted experience of 'leveling' up, grinding, in order to make the world big enough so that the variety and girth fits the needs of doing the leveling, and then post grind stuff.

So basically, chronological development is motivated by an internal game structure of reward for doing a set activity that remains the same through time. Sorry, just blabbing for my own sake.

Things one conceivably could do:

With Regards to Altering Character Development in the Game (EXP)

A Give-Take exp system in which getting exp somewhere lowers it somewhere else. There might be an underlying 'base' level that improves but perhaps they are few and far between or sport a more fluid development paradigm, but improving certain stats or skills would force the player to underprioritize the other. Actually 'grounded' in modern MMO design because improvement is more predictable (the player has a 'goal' to work towards).

A Use system in which skills are always in flux, and playing the game means that actively working with one will gradually allow others to fall to the wayside or what-not. This makes the skills used more 'instinctive' with natural progression. Perhaps there would be 'points' in the progression where the skill would either slow down its decay or simply cease to decay. You could conceivably sketch a ton of variables and ancillary systems around this- to make it compelling would be a challenge and it would necessitate some degree of redesign in other mmo mechanics.

World Structure Redesigns

The plaint leveled at MMOs here is that the world in marrying itself to the system of levels-rewards system, so how could one conceivably alter the way one 'explores'?

Class-Related Design? Perhaps certain classes could explore regions whereas not others. For example, I need an ice mage in my party in order to do X- so we'll get one for that purpose. Marry classes to regional progress. Perhaps have some classes 'thrive' in an area but the potential rewards aren't quite as exciting. Take them out of their element and put them somewhere else where they may not be as 'useful' but when handy they really help. Just an idea.

Tiered Map System: Perhaps you could have two intersecting world map ideas: For example, imagine having an underworld and an overworld in a game (Terranigma?) Then throw in varied levels or difficulties into either. For example, in one difficult region on the overworld you'd have an easier one below-grounds and vice versa. This is a very basic concept that would require intelligent designing in order not to be utterly stupid. I mention it just out of curiosity. I certainly couldn't make something feasible out of it. Perhaps you could have characters that specialize in one 'domain' over the other or something.

Just my 2 cents. Fun to think of though!

So much great replies from everyone.

I spent some time pondering levelless MMOs a few years ago; I don't actually consider the question important any more because I realized I prefer MMOs which have no PvP, or which have a PvP system which has different combat than the game's main PvE combat. For example, PvP might be a CCG system while the main combat is action or spellbar/cooldown. Or PvP and PvE might both be based on using bred pets as units, but PvP would have 'preconstructed decks' of pets that new players could use if they wanted to go right into PvP without playing the PvE portions of the game to create their own pets.

This is a good idea that is proven to work, except in RPG games.

Where giving players starter packs in CCG games allows them a good starting point. In time thy can add to it make it there own and still have a deck that could standup to good players if thy are skilled with the game, means that thy all stand on the same level and it's there own skill that determines where thy stand.

Giving players a starting party in a RPG makes the player feel like you are forcing them in one direction, allowing them to add new characters means those characters start at a low level or is a pre-made character. Also fighting players who have higher level characters means that thy would always stand above you.

Now you could level the playing field by lowering the highest level player down to the lowest players level. however the player who was at the higher level has a party who is made to use the advantages of higher levels, and now thy will either lose some attacks or those attacks are replaced with weaker ones that thy are not familiar with.

In reverse rising a player to a higher level means that there party will not take full advantage of the new level, like the other players party.

Then there is the score or rank system, now players with similar score or rank can battle each other but not those higher or lower.

This system is liked by newcomers, it gives them time to get used to the game without being bullied by players and game mechanics. however it divides your players from each other.

The worst thing you can do in a MMO is prevent players from interacting with each other, its the whole reason thy play MMOs.

If you allow for some option where advance players can challenge higher scored players, you will have to rise or lowers there levels. a Level 20 can't beat a level 100.

You could always add social thing and other ways for players to interact, but it means most players will then avoid battles as it is one of the weaker features:

I don't actually consider the question important any more because I realized I prefer MMOs which have no PvP

Did you check Destiny mechanics?

Yes, I have. I feel that FPS games don't depend on stats like RPG and so you could easily getaway with things like removing levels and stats, mostly because it's the players skill that determine who wins not there level.

Shooters that heavily rely on levels like Borderlands and Mass effect, is grouped under RPG for this dissection.

Removing Xp systems isn't always a good thing in FPS multiplayer games, I would hate it if thy removed Xp from Call of Duty games. The Xp system in these games are a lot different in these type of games than in RPGs.

I've always wondered why MMOs didn't adopt an open ended leveling mechanic where there was no level cap. However...XP required for the next level would increase exponentially. Levels would be harder and harder to attain so you'd need more and more xp to gain the next level and not just a fixed amount.

I think the reason this is avoided in MMOs is because it fails even in single player RPGs, eventually the player reaches a point where there is no point in leveling up and monsters die in one hit.

You could level the monsters with the player, but it gets boring fighting the same thing over and over, even if there color changes, so you fill the need for challenge but not content.

I take it back...there WOULD be a cap in this type of system: time. But instead of artificially restricting progress you're leaving it up to the player how much time they want to invest to level up. As a developer I don't this would pose MUCH change in the way you design "end game" challenges. You'd have to consider what the mean player level would probably be, and what the max level on average would probably be.

You are right, there is a cap. This can best be seen in games that have a rank system like CCGs, there is always some score level that no one has passed.

A Give-Take exp system in which getting exp somewhere lowers it somewhere else. There might be an underlying 'base' level that improves but perhaps they are few and far between or sport a more fluid development paradigm, but improving certain stats or skills would force the player to underprioritize the other. Actually 'grounded' in modern MMO design because improvement is more predictable (the player has a 'goal' to work towards).

I have been thinking about something like this, where training a player in a stat like strength costs a stat of speed.

This would be a Tier system, where a Tier 1 character has 10 stats to move around and a Tier 5(highest) has 100 stats.

So if a Tier 1 fights a Tier 5 thy multiply by there stats by 10, now attacks should be affected by stats and have no stats of there own.

This is similar to Pokémon games, except thy use levels not tiers although evolution can be seen as tiers. Thy overcome the power difference in evolution by allowing a lower evolution to learn new skills faster, but even so high level players will always have a better chance of wining.

A Use system in which skills are always in flux

Never should you make a game where players lose power over time, unless it is a casual game.

Fallout 3 is a good example. Each time you fired a gun it would lose some of it's condition and a percent of its stats.

This meant that you would never do the same amount of damage to a enemy as in the first shot.

In Fallout new vegas, thy fixed this with a extra bit where the weapon was always at a 100% condition

Class-Related Design? Perhaps certain classes could explore regions whereas not others. For example, I need an ice mage in my party in order to do X- so we'll get one for that purpose. Marry classes to regional progress. Perhaps have some classes 'thrive' in an area but the potential rewards aren't quite as exciting. Take them out of their element and put them somewhere else where they may not be as 'useful' but when handy they really help. Just an idea.

Tiered Map System: Perhaps you could have two intersecting world map ideas: For example, imagine having an underworld and an overworld in a game (Terranigma?) Then throw in varied levels or difficulties into either. For example, in one difficult region on the overworld you'd have an easier one below-grounds and vice versa. This is a very basic concept that would require intelligent designing in order not to be utterly stupid. I mention it just out of curiosity. I certainly couldn't make something feasible out of it. Perhaps you could have characters that specialize in one 'domain' over the other or something.

This again divides players from each other.

Challenges that need X type or you can only enter if X, do add to the game if the player can change to X if thy want or if there are alternative ways to do those missions when you don't have X.

Players who play games with leveling systems enjoy progress and solving problems, this means there should never really be only one definitive answer to a problem for them.

Final fantasy 13 as a example, has a set of attacks that work best on each monster. This meant that most of the time the attacks the player chose was the same as what the auto battle chose.

This meant that the game didn't appeal to players who viewed each battle as a problem that thy needed to solve, like having puzzles where the only way of solving them was to think like the creator of that puzzle.

Thanks for all your great replies, I still have a lot that I would like to write about.

I think that the reason CCG, MOBA and Monster Breading games do so well in MMOs is because thy where made for PvP, but why do RTS games fail at MMO?

RTS are made with players battling each other in mind, yet thy are one of the most unsuccessful genres at MMOs.

edit: Spelling and other, I am not native English.

The problem with the average MMORTS is that it tries to make the strategic battles happen in the persistent world. That's pretty much impossible to balance so that players aren't getting knocked off the map or left permanently out of the competition. RTS works great as a non-persistent game where the two or more players start even each battle, and it can work great for a singleplayer persistent world, but it's just terrible for a multiplayer persistent world.

BTW the reason I personally prefer games with no PvP is that PvP is incompatible with story and I crave story. Aside from that I'm not happy losing as often as 50% of the time or worse, which is an inherent part of PvP. I'm not very competitive by nature either. I don't think I've personally been put off by experience with poor PvP systems.

I also thought I'd point out that there are two MMOs I've played which almost don't have a level cap, in that fewer than 20% of the players ever get there: Ryzom and Dofus. Both of these games are in the class "French grinder" which is a bit different from the more common "Korean grinder/Asian grinder". These two games have different combat types: Dofus is one of the few tactical turn-based MMOs, while Ryzom has a spellbar/cooldown system plus a built-in macro system where you build your own attacks and crafting actions out of basic elements and add-ons with various costs. Dofus has (or had, last I looked at it) a very active PvP community because of several factors:

1. There are 2 NPC factions and a quest chain encouraging everyone to join one, with a reward of cool wings above your character corresponding to your rank. There are PvP-flagged NPC guards, so PvP has PvE elements blended in to ease PvE players into trying the PvP.

2. You control whether you are PvP flagged, so if you don't want to PvP you just don't flag yourself.

3. There are also no significant penalties for PvP death. Gear cannot be stolen, neither XP nor money are lost. Again this reassures player that they can play around trying to duel someone higher level and it doesn't matter if they lose; it's not an expensive gamble, it can be done playfully.

4. There is a team-PvP territorial game which gets players to PvP at the same time in a social way. The effects of victory or loss are mild for those who choose not to participate; to an extent the function like the political version of a weather system, encouraging PvEers to fight in different areas on different days. Though this does provide a bit of a problem to PvE groups of mixed alignment.

Ryzom on the other hand is all but dead as a game, due to its repetitive combat, frustrating crafting-leveling system, confusing NPC city design, and the extreme difficulty of traveling between the game's 4 racial home cities.

The problem with the average MMORTS is that it tries to make the strategic battles happen in the persistent world. That's pretty much impossible to balance so that players aren't getting knocked off the map or left permanently out of the competition. RTS works great as a non-persistent game where the two or more players start even each battle, and it can work great for a singleplayer persistent world, but it's just terrible for a multiplayer persistent world.

From what I have seen it does in fact look like it's world persistence, again the resource over time.

Players who play each day have huge amount of units, buildings, gold and other resources so thy simply wipe the floor with other players.

There seems to be two basic solutions, one in PvP battles players can only take a few resources with them and second each player gains resources only once a day.

How would you limit the player resources for battle and still make it feel like thy need to harvest more, this I don't know.

For the once a day gathering, players would assign workers to a resource or receive a amount based on what territory thy own at 12:00.

This means thy have the whole day to plan and battle, but only a small fixed amount of resources.

Players who miss a day will only miss the battles and still gain resources based on workers and territory. This means thy can use there now ample supplies to catch up.

Aside from that I'm not happy losing as often as 50% of the time or worse, which is an inherent part of PvP. I'm not very competitive by nature either.

I like MMOs that make little fuss about losing, unfortunately making a scoring system where players don't lose score will be difficult.

When two players battle there will always be a winner, the only way I can see a way around this is if the two players have different goals.

One player needs to KO two enemy characters, the other needs to harvest a item that can only be gained in combat. Now both players can win at the same time.

Ryzom and Dofus. Both of these games are in the class "French grinder" which is a bit different from the more common "Korean grinder/Asian grinder".

Never played Ryzom so I will look into it there should be a black box somewhere, I avoid Dofus and Wakfu because I feel that thy are breaking the first law of turn based combat.

NEVER should you use turn based combat when it is a player with one character facing a NPC, even chess gives you sixteen.

I know Dofus and Wakfu have companions and pets, these over very little in battle. Pets don't even fight.

2. You control whether you are PvP flagged, so if you don't want to PvP you just don't flag yourself.

This is a must-have for all MMOs I believe.

I believe MMOs merge the two best part of games. PvP when you wan't a challenge and mindless grinding when you just wan't to relax.

The problem with the average MMORTS is that it tries to make the strategic battles happen in the persistent world. That's pretty much impossible to balance so that players aren't getting knocked off the map or left permanently out of the competition. RTS works great as a non-persistent game where the two or more players start even each battle, and it can work great for a singleplayer persistent world, but it's just terrible for a multiplayer persistent world.

From what I have seen it does in fact look like it's world persistence, again the resource over time.
Players who play each day have huge amount of units, buildings, gold and other resources so thy simply wipe the floor with other players.

There seems to be two basic solutions, one in PvP battles players can only take a few resources with them and second each player gains resources only once a day.
How would you limit the player resources for battle and still make it feel like thy need to harvest more, this I don't know.

For the once a day gathering, players would assign workers to a resource or receive a amount based on what territory thy own at 12:00.
This means thy have the whole day to plan and battle, but only a small fixed amount of resources.

Players who miss a day will only miss the battles and still gain resources based on workers and territory. This means thy can use there now ample supplies to catch up.

I don't think a 'daily income' is a solution at all, and I particularly dislike games with that functionality. I was quite disgusted yesterday when reading that this is how Pathfinder Online was going to work. Instead, I think the problem is that you, along with many other designers, are looking at the economy backwards. Players should not be able to take resources into combat at all, they should only take resources out of combat to spend in the non-combat part of the game. Basically, combat is a minigame, and should be treated like any other multiplayer minigame.

Aside from that I'm not happy losing as often as 50% of the time or worse, which is an inherent part of PvP. I'm not very competitive by nature either.

I like MMOs that make little fuss about losing, unfortunately making a scoring system where players don't lose score will be difficult.

When two players battle there will always be a winner, the only way I can see a way around this is if the two players have different goals.
One player needs to KO two enemy characters, the other needs to harvest a item that can only be gained in combat. Now both players can win at the same time.

Well, I have no objection to the usual kind of PvP arena ranking system. The people who love PvP like it because of the losing and winning involved, because they are competitive people. But I could see if the players were given additional challenge goals; for example, surviving for N rounds or minutes, or not using some type of unit or ability, or building X structures, or traveling a total of Y distance... Then, if one player meets their goal, and the other defeats the first one, both won something. I'm not sure how popular that would be with PvPers. But this is actually one of the more interesting things Dofus does, and one of the great design opportunities of instanced combat.

Ryzom and Dofus. Both of these games are in the class "French grinder" which is a bit different from the more common "Korean grinder/Asian grinder".

Never played Ryzom so I will look into it there should be a black box somewhere, I avoid Dofus and Wakfu because I feel that thy are breaking the first law of turn based combat.

NEVER should you use turn based combat when it is a player with one character facing a NPC, even chess gives you sixteen.
I know Dofus and Wakfu have companions and pets, these over very little in battle. Pets don't even fight.

Well my main character's class when I played Dofus was Osamodas, and they are the pet summoner class, whose pets do fight. For single player play I'd definitely prefer to be able to control each pet, but having them AI controlled is interesting in that you have to guess what they will do, and react when they do something unexpected. But yeah several of the classes where you don't have summons are just too simple to be worth playing, partly because you only have one unit. The Sram class, that's the trap users with invisibility, was rather interesting. Overall Dofus has too many classes and too few abilities per level per class. If they merged almost any 2 classes together they'd have a more interesting class to play.