Looking around at the other posts people have made on the subject of adding levels and xp to Minecraft, I notice a lot of ideas going around about classes and stat. points to spend. I would propose a more natural system of character progression; you get better at doing things by doing them.
To start, there would be a variety of skill levels, each linked directly to a task. Eg. woodcutting for harvesting tree blocks, woodcarving for crafting items that use wood, etc. Each skill would also have a rank, which would be limited to a range of zero to five, or similar. By doing a task, you would gradually increase your skill rank in that task, increasing your effectiveness at it. Eg. woodcutting would increase the speed at which you chop down trees and/or the number of wood blocks you get from a log block on average, woodcarving would increase the average quality of items you create that involve wood.
The rate at which players can progress through the ranks should increase greatly as they reach higher ranks (Eg. 100xp for rank 1, 300xp for rank 2, 700xp for rank 3, 1500xp for rank 4, 3100xp for rank 5). These values could be modified by a set of server variables, so that each server owner can tweak it to their own preferences. The general idea is to balance the stats to allow players to reach competency in most skills, but master only a few, excepting for exceptional effort.
Now, one problem that arises when we consider a multiplayer version of survival mode is what cost there should be for death. Currently, in singleplayer, when you die you need to load an old save, or start a new game. Obviously this would not be workable in multiplayer, but taking away permadeath without adding other penalties would make the game far too easy. Making the player drop all their carried items on death is a logical first step, but with a stat system, another penalty can be added to make death adequately unfavourable. Losing a chunk of xp from every skill would be that penalty, though care would have to be taken in how much can be lost from a single death.
Consider if PvP was added to the game, and wars between teams became popular on several servers. If more xp was lost from the combat skills than can be gained killing a single enemy, then there would likely be frequent pauses in the fighting to regain lost xp by hunting monsters, or training on equipment like dummies (if such things are added). Whether these pauses are desirable or not will differ from person to person. Losing a large chunk of xp from the non-combat skills on death would quickly deter crafters and gatherers from joining in on combat, and likely spending all their time inside fortifications. Again, whether this is desirable or not will depend on who you ask.
Just from those two examples, it is clear that the xp loss on death should be tweakable on a per-server basis. A distinction could also be made between PvP and PvE deaths. And for the sake of keeping the number of variables to a minimum, the skills could be handled in groups: combat, gathering, crafting, etc.
That's all that I've thought through for now, so I'll leave this for you guys to read while I work on some more, relevant suggestions.
We here at Minecorp believe that pure skill and knowledge are what propel minecrafters through their game.
NOT imaginary boundaries that make no sense at all.
It's like the huge scope wandering in games like CoD MW2. It wouldn't be like that in real life in the arms of a marine or trained sniper. There would be very minor float in fact. It's an artificial boundary.
If levels are added, artificial boundaries will need to be added too. Subtracting from the fun.
EDIT: As an addition, this would only separate 'casual' from 'hardcore' or noobs from pros. The only thing that should separate players is their mindset, how fast they can turn their mouse, and their computer lag.
Other things just won't fit for Minecraft.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is always nice to have a sense of improbability in Littlebigplanet. FROGMORTON. Heh, you didn't expect that now did you?"
-Stephen Fry
The whole point of this system is that it wouldn't have artificial boundaries. It would simply make those who do a lot of one thing do it a lot better than others, the only con. being that it would give them a bit of momentum to staying with that task more. I myself am /very/ against artificial boundaries, and I have no idea where in my post you found mention of such a thing.
As for the hardcore/casual thing, note that these skills would be stored per-server; they would not persist across multiple games. And with the penalties for death balanced right, there would be little difference between hardcore and casual players, assuming that hardcore players would be out fighting (and getting killed) more often.
Yes but this means that people who first came to the server have a lot better skills than those who just arrived.
This gives newer players less chance to survive, as most people may have their attack skills leveled up.
Seriously, if you want to be able to defeat the toughest most powerful minecrafter on the server, you should be able to, with your own clicking skill and not the skills preset by some machine leveling system. It also leads to grinding, might I add.
The only way I'd ever agree to levelling if it had no tangible benefits and just bragging rights.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is always nice to have a sense of improbability in Littlebigplanet. FROGMORTON. Heh, you didn't expect that now did you?"
-Stephen Fry
Completly agree with you kholhouse. On Strtegic battle MMORPGs maybe, but minecraft isn't a strategic turn based game, its a real time dynamicly generated ball cube of fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember that even old echoes can create new harmonies.
Who sits down and writes maniacle laughter?
"Yes but this means that people who first came to the server have a lot better skills than those who just arrived.
This gives newer players less chance to survive, as most people may have their attack skills leveled up."
That is a problem solvable by the server admins, if it indeed gets that bad. In practice, only a few people would have max rank skills at any given time, and the top 10 would be constantly changing, especially on hell maps.
"Seriously, if you want to be able to defeat the toughest most powerful minecrafter on the server, you should be able to, with your own clicking skill and not the skills preset by some machine leveling system."
I did not get into the specifics of how much of a boost each rank would get for a reason, that reason being that such specifics should not be decided at this point. The intent with the system is not to make someone with max rank in combat unstoppable, but to give them an advantage for their persistence. I would not consider the system balanced unless it would be possible for someone with combat rank 0 to defeat a combat max rank with skill alone.
"It also leads to grinding, might I add."
Don't even get me started on this. Grinding happens when you are forced to do something you don't want to do to get something you do. Adding levels does not magically add grinding, and it's not like Minecraft doesn't already have quite a bit of potential for grind-fests as it is. I've spent dozens of hours in Creative mode, grinding placing blocks to build a massive castle of opblock. The skill system would be balanced to avoid grinding situations by 1) not having artificial level restrictions, and 2) not having the rewards or the xp needed to get them great enough to motivate grinding.
"The only way I'd ever agree to levelling if it had no tangible benefits and just bragging rights."
Then I don't see how your advice on this topic could be very useful if you are simply against non-cosmetic level systems. You seem to be assuming a lot of things that I did not cover in the original post, such as that it would include artificial boundaries and would be balanced such as to cause a large hardcore/casual split. I'd appreciate if you could comment on what I actually have said, and not spout off more complaints about level systems that I haven't yet covered.
The thing is, survival mode is about survival. Maybe some Role Playing mode can be about role playing, and creative mode is about creating, and some fight mode can be about fighting. Don't worry so much about adding things to the game, Minecraft has the ability to be many great things.
Oh and Moddington, On your statement 'Levels do not magically add grinding';
Yes it does. Through a little system called dependency. People will grow dependent on the fact that they can become better at things through leveling up so therefore they become set on the fiction that is 'Levels = Power'.
On 0 rank vs max rank;
You say you haven't worked out the specifics because they should not be decided at this point. That's just weak. At least you could put some substance out there to argue against and discuss, instead you hide behind your inability to stick out your neck. Advantages mean imbalance, If there are advantages, there should also be disadvantages.
i.e. Wearing plate armor gives you resistance, sure, but it should also give somewhat of a slow-down.
On Skill superiority;
You have me there, but it shouldn't be the server admin's job to deal with a game flaw. I return to my talk of dependency. When people gain power, they never want to lose it. People with no power care not about it. Thus, The 'Top 10' would be much more cautious and venture out of their hidey holes less, with inventories stocked full of food and healing items, including the BEST armor. So it would most certainly not be changing constantly, maybe a minor shift in power here or there when a creeper blows someone up or someone gets pushed into lava by a trap or other means. To conclude this, Many people will want, Many people will get, Many people will have.
On bragging rights levels;
That's just my opinion, I just like to brag about how long I've survived. I'm like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is always nice to have a sense of improbability in Littlebigplanet. FROGMORTON. Heh, you didn't expect that now did you?"
-Stephen Fry
"You say you haven't worked out the specifics because they should not be decided at this point. That's just weak. At least you could put some substance out there to argue against and discuss, instead you hide behind your inability to stick out your neck."
And pulling numbers out of my ass is better? When it comes to the specific amounts, you can't decide on them without constant playtesting, or at least some serious number-crunching while knowing every applicable value already in the game (eg. block destruction times). If you want some ballpark numbers, then fine, how about 2% increased efficiency per rank, and there are five ranks? That gives a max of 10% increased efficiency at max rank.
In multiplayer survival mode, players will likely favour team play, either one team trying to build a town safe from monsters, or multiple teams building their own towns and trying to destroy the others. If a skill system is added, it should not have a profound effect of the capabilities of the players, but instead gently settle players into the tasks that they do the most. This will give a feeling of purpose to players, eg. someone who likes to mine a lot is a bit better at it. Not enough for it to ever be necessary to grind to rank 5, but enough that if you had to choose someone for a mining job between someone who likes to mine and someone who likes to farm, there would also be an in-game reason for picking the guy who likes to mine.
The idea is that levels would be gained and lost quickly, in different ways. They would be gained quickly just through normal tasks, and lost quickly in the case of dying. And the ultimate point behind this specific level system is to differentiate people through what they do, not by how much they play.
I can agree with those numbers, actually, even if they are ripped from your ass. Plus it allows the discussion to continue! Now 10% is a nice little bonus to have. But let's keep skills/ranks off player-player interactions such as combat, shall we? I think this system works out quite well actually, now that I have some foundation to think upon. Sorry for calling you weak earlier, just getting into heat of debate.
Now, since Notch said no levels/ranks/xp, should we continue?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is always nice to have a sense of improbability in Littlebigplanet. FROGMORTON. Heh, you didn't expect that now did you?"
-Stephen Fry
"But let's keep skills/ranks off player-player interactions such as combat, shall we?"
I can partly agree with that. My suggestion for combat would be to have the skill increase swinging speed, though playtests would be needed to see if a combat stat would be favourable to the game.
"Now, since Notch said no levels/ranks/xp, should we continue?"
I'm not quite sure what you mean to say here, could you explain?
Well Notch posted earlier today in his blog that he would definitely not be adding levels or XP to Minecraft, due to alot of people posting their strong willed opinions and points.
I was just wondering if we should continue discussing in this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is always nice to have a sense of improbability in Littlebigplanet. FROGMORTON. Heh, you didn't expect that now did you?"
-Stephen Fry
I think that most of those strong responses of 'no' were prompted largely in part by the vagueness of Notch's proposal, and fears that Minecraft would suddenly change into the MMOs and RPGs people abandoned to play it. I'd like to see more opinions on this specific skill system, and see how the community takes it.
But before any more is discussed on it, just one thing for everyone to note: if this skill system was implemented, it would be optional, as a server setting, and possibly as a singleplayer option (since most of the point of this skill system is to enhance the team-play in multiplayer).
To start, there would be a variety of skill levels, each linked directly to a task. Eg. woodcutting for harvesting tree blocks, woodcarving for crafting items that use wood, etc. Each skill would also have a rank, which would be limited to a range of zero to five, or similar. By doing a task, you would gradually increase your skill rank in that task, increasing your effectiveness at it. Eg. woodcutting would increase the speed at which you chop down trees and/or the number of wood blocks you get from a log block on average, woodcarving would increase the average quality of items you create that involve wood.
The rate at which players can progress through the ranks should increase greatly as they reach higher ranks (Eg. 100xp for rank 1, 300xp for rank 2, 700xp for rank 3, 1500xp for rank 4, 3100xp for rank 5). These values could be modified by a set of server variables, so that each server owner can tweak it to their own preferences. The general idea is to balance the stats to allow players to reach competency in most skills, but master only a few, excepting for exceptional effort.
Now, one problem that arises when we consider a multiplayer version of survival mode is what cost there should be for death. Currently, in singleplayer, when you die you need to load an old save, or start a new game. Obviously this would not be workable in multiplayer, but taking away permadeath without adding other penalties would make the game far too easy. Making the player drop all their carried items on death is a logical first step, but with a stat system, another penalty can be added to make death adequately unfavourable. Losing a chunk of xp from every skill would be that penalty, though care would have to be taken in how much can be lost from a single death.
Consider if PvP was added to the game, and wars between teams became popular on several servers. If more xp was lost from the combat skills than can be gained killing a single enemy, then there would likely be frequent pauses in the fighting to regain lost xp by hunting monsters, or training on equipment like dummies (if such things are added). Whether these pauses are desirable or not will differ from person to person. Losing a large chunk of xp from the non-combat skills on death would quickly deter crafters and gatherers from joining in on combat, and likely spending all their time inside fortifications. Again, whether this is desirable or not will depend on who you ask.
Just from those two examples, it is clear that the xp loss on death should be tweakable on a per-server basis. A distinction could also be made between PvP and PvE deaths. And for the sake of keeping the number of variables to a minimum, the skills could be handled in groups: combat, gathering, crafting, etc.
That's all that I've thought through for now, so I'll leave this for you guys to read while I work on some more, relevant suggestions.
We here at Minecorp believe that pure skill and knowledge are what propel minecrafters through their game.
NOT imaginary boundaries that make no sense at all.
It's like the huge scope wandering in games like CoD MW2. It wouldn't be like that in real life in the arms of a marine or trained sniper. There would be very minor float in fact. It's an artificial boundary.
If levels are added, artificial boundaries will need to be added too. Subtracting from the fun.
EDIT: As an addition, this would only separate 'casual' from 'hardcore' or noobs from pros. The only thing that should separate players is their mindset, how fast they can turn their mouse, and their computer lag.
Other things just won't fit for Minecraft.
-Stephen Fry
As for the hardcore/casual thing, note that these skills would be stored per-server; they would not persist across multiple games. And with the penalties for death balanced right, there would be little difference between hardcore and casual players, assuming that hardcore players would be out fighting (and getting killed) more often.
This gives newer players less chance to survive, as most people may have their attack skills leveled up.
Seriously, if you want to be able to defeat the toughest most powerful minecrafter on the server, you should be able to, with your own clicking skill and not the skills preset by some machine leveling system. It also leads to grinding, might I add.
The only way I'd ever agree to levelling if it had no tangible benefits and just bragging rights.
-Stephen Fry
cube of fun.Who sits down and writes maniacle laughter?
This gives newer players less chance to survive, as most people may have their attack skills leveled up."
That is a problem solvable by the server admins, if it indeed gets that bad. In practice, only a few people would have max rank skills at any given time, and the top 10 would be constantly changing, especially on hell maps.
"Seriously, if you want to be able to defeat the toughest most powerful minecrafter on the server, you should be able to, with your own clicking skill and not the skills preset by some machine leveling system."
I did not get into the specifics of how much of a boost each rank would get for a reason, that reason being that such specifics should not be decided at this point. The intent with the system is not to make someone with max rank in combat unstoppable, but to give them an advantage for their persistence. I would not consider the system balanced unless it would be possible for someone with combat rank 0 to defeat a combat max rank with skill alone.
"It also leads to grinding, might I add."
Don't even get me started on this. Grinding happens when you are forced to do something you don't want to do to get something you do. Adding levels does not magically add grinding, and it's not like Minecraft doesn't already have quite a bit of potential for grind-fests as it is. I've spent dozens of hours in Creative mode, grinding placing blocks to build a massive castle of opblock. The skill system would be balanced to avoid grinding situations by 1) not having artificial level restrictions, and 2) not having the rewards or the xp needed to get them great enough to motivate grinding.
"The only way I'd ever agree to levelling if it had no tangible benefits and just bragging rights."
Then I don't see how your advice on this topic could be very useful if you are simply against non-cosmetic level systems. You seem to be assuming a lot of things that I did not cover in the original post, such as that it would include artificial boundaries and would be balanced such as to cause a large hardcore/casual split. I'd appreciate if you could comment on what I actually have said, and not spout off more complaints about level systems that I haven't yet covered.
Oh and Moddington, On your statement 'Levels do not magically add grinding';
Yes it does. Through a little system called dependency. People will grow dependent on the fact that they can become better at things through leveling up so therefore they become set on the fiction that is 'Levels = Power'.
On 0 rank vs max rank;
You say you haven't worked out the specifics because they should not be decided at this point. That's just weak. At least you could put some substance out there to argue against and discuss, instead you hide behind your inability to stick out your neck. Advantages mean imbalance, If there are advantages, there should also be disadvantages.
i.e. Wearing plate armor gives you resistance, sure, but it should also give somewhat of a slow-down.
On Skill superiority;
You have me there, but it shouldn't be the server admin's job to deal with a game flaw. I return to my talk of dependency. When people gain power, they never want to lose it. People with no power care not about it. Thus, The 'Top 10' would be much more cautious and venture out of their hidey holes less, with inventories stocked full of food and healing items, including the BEST armor. So it would most certainly not be changing constantly, maybe a minor shift in power here or there when a creeper blows someone up or someone gets pushed into lava by a trap or other means. To conclude this, Many people will want, Many people will get, Many people will have.
On bragging rights levels;
That's just my opinion, I just like to brag about how long I've survived. I'm like that.
-Stephen Fry
And pulling numbers out of my ass is better? When it comes to the specific amounts, you can't decide on them without constant playtesting, or at least some serious number-crunching while knowing every applicable value already in the game (eg. block destruction times). If you want some ballpark numbers, then fine, how about 2% increased efficiency per rank, and there are five ranks? That gives a max of 10% increased efficiency at max rank.
In multiplayer survival mode, players will likely favour team play, either one team trying to build a town safe from monsters, or multiple teams building their own towns and trying to destroy the others. If a skill system is added, it should not have a profound effect of the capabilities of the players, but instead gently settle players into the tasks that they do the most. This will give a feeling of purpose to players, eg. someone who likes to mine a lot is a bit better at it. Not enough for it to ever be necessary to grind to rank 5, but enough that if you had to choose someone for a mining job between someone who likes to mine and someone who likes to farm, there would also be an in-game reason for picking the guy who likes to mine.
The idea is that levels would be gained and lost quickly, in different ways. They would be gained quickly just through normal tasks, and lost quickly in the case of dying. And the ultimate point behind this specific level system is to differentiate people through what they do, not by how much they play.
Now, since Notch said no levels/ranks/xp, should we continue?
-Stephen Fry
I can partly agree with that. My suggestion for combat would be to have the skill increase swinging speed, though playtests would be needed to see if a combat stat would be favourable to the game.
"Now, since Notch said no levels/ranks/xp, should we continue?"
I'm not quite sure what you mean to say here, could you explain?
I was just wondering if we should continue discussing in this thread.
-Stephen Fry
But before any more is discussed on it, just one thing for everyone to note: if this skill system was implemented, it would be optional, as a server setting, and possibly as a singleplayer option (since most of the point of this skill system is to enhance the team-play in multiplayer).
Notch never really gave us testing substance, did he?
hopefully this doesn't turn into a wild goose chase.
-Stephen Fry