WoW in particular is not really an RPG, despite calling itself an MMORPG. It was RPG-lite when it released in vanilla, and most of the RPG has been streamlined away in favor of mass acceptance. Most non RPG games today have more RPG features than WoW does. So WoW isn't really a great game to use for comparison, but one thing WoW does have is numerical progression, but in WoW power has more to do with your gear than your character
.
The main problem with the progression in WoW isn't only that it is exponential but the real problem is how fast it increases. You can get 10 levels in several hours, and gear doesn't take long either. WoW no longer relies on players getting attached to their characters(not that you have time, the race to max is blur and you have very little time to get attached, meet people or have good memories etc..) so much as they rely on a system of frequent and repeated stimulation through fast and easy "carrots" they give the player, hoping the player will stay on the treadmill as long as you keep giving them more crack. This IMHO is so far removed from what an RPG is about that it no longer really deserves to be included in the genre. I'm not saying it isn't a fun game, I'm simply saying it isn't really an RPG anymore.
Personally, I think a game without any kind of character progression is not enjoyable over long periods of time. I like short bouts of other game types, but for me it is my attachment to the character that brings me back. I think this is very hard to do without character progression and growth, and without some form of system that lets me guide that growth. RPGs that focus more on the story than the character are great too, but when the story is done(or is no longer interesting) so am I.
The other thing that keeps players coming back is the community, but maintaining a good community is tricky for any game, and if can't get the hook into players in the first place you aren't going to keep players long enough to build a community in the first place.
The main problem with non-exponential growth is that fixed growth feels great early on but the higher you get in levels the growth no longer is perceivable. For example if you have 5hp at level 1 and if you get 5hp every time you level up, at level 2 you just doubled your hp and the difference is noticeable, at level 20 you went from 95 to 100 and the change is barely noticeable. That isn't to say it can't be done. Personally I don't mind slow and steady growth as long as there is stuff to experience along the way and you don't feel like your progress has stagnated.
I don't think that it can't be done, but I do think by doing so you immediately limit the audience. As much as I dislike what WoW has become, they have a good idea of what the players want, and that is fast easy growth that they can feel(so exponential). If an MMORPG came out in the old school flavor of Icewind Dale 2(D&D 3.5) for RPG systems and a story with quality like Baldur's Gate 1&2 or Planescape Torment, I would be all over it. But honestly I doubt that it would ever have the kind of mass market appeal of WoW. But then again maybe I'm just cynical.
Your Next: Shall I Compare Thee?
If we're going to compare ourselves no matter what, why not make the most of it?
As much as we like to complain about the treadmill, character progression is one of the things that makes RPGs of all kinds special. Applying this idea to an MMO carries with it some unique challenges, especially when working to a business model that relies on the same people paying every month. What’s that? Why yes, I am still playing World of Warcraft, why do you ask?
An MMO needs ways to hook players in; these aren’t games intended to be played for a month before moving on, we need to be motivated to stick around. This has been achieved with great success in the past by attaching systems of exponential numerical power growth, with the downside that the increase in power needs to feel significant and satisfying, always.
Of course, like almost all game design, it’s just a psychological trick, but this particular trick has proven so successful that some people consider it a mandatory feature. We know it’s flawed, sometimes it make us angry for offering ourselves as tribute, but then we shrug and ask ‘How else are you going to keep players interested?’.
This stance leads to some uncomfortable questions about our motivations for playing these games, but we’ll skip those for once in favor of posing a question:
If there is no numerical power-based progression, what motivation can there be for players to repeatedly engage over a relatively long timeframe?
Honestly, when you pose the question like that, it looks a bit silly. How many games can we all name that large numbers of players enjoy for hundreds of hours without needing this kind of progression? Even if we limit ourselves to videogames there are loads, including the most popular and most played videogames currently available.
When I’ve made this point before, people have pointed out that the games I reference don’t lead people to camp a spawn point for 18 hours straight. To which I am forced to reply: Good, great, even more reason to get rid of it. We can call it a difference of opinion, but to me that’s not a behavior that should be celebrated or encouraged.
While the question seems fallacious to me, it’s often asked in earnest about EverQuest Next and Landmark, so let’s have a bash at addressing the concern.
One psychological trick that’s becoming increasingly fashionable is allowing players to compare their ability and progress to other players. It’s a technique that’s been used to great effect in multiplayer shooters, and in integrating social elements into console platforms and Steam. We humans like to compare ourselves to other humans, as long as we feel the comparison is fair and relevant.
This talk by Jamie Madigan is a wonderful introduction to this idea, and relates the experience directly to videogames. For those who may be unaware, Jamie Madigan has a PhD in Psychology and writes the excellent blog The Psychology of Video Games. There's a great piece on there about immersion that I highly recommend reading before using that word on a forum or anywhere I might see it (This is one of my pet hates, for some reason. Anything that co-opts a useful word to mean ‘a thing I don’t like’ stings, like ‘casual’ or ‘SJW’).
One early criticism of Landmark was that the game was somehow being built around the needs of an ‘elite’, or that the fact some people were better at using the game for artistic expression meant the game was unfair in some way. I suppose people having varying levels of talent is inherently unfair, but I’m not sure what SOE can do to fix that. Perhaps Sony has a cloning division somewhere... I don’t really remember the argument, to be honest, all I remember is the sound of my head hitting my desk.
While I (obviously) disagree with the specific point, the feeling of not being good enough to even engage is something that could become a serious problem for Landmark in the future, and I believe that our natural inclination to compare ourselves is the cause.
In a deliciously ironic twist, it could be that the strength of the Landmark community directly contributed to the issue. We like to compare ourselves to people in our social circles when we judge our own performance, and when our social circles include the top 1% it’s unlikely we’re going to come out looking all that proficient. If I directly compared my ability as a tank in WoW to Treckie from Method I would probably feel like switching to DPS. If I were to solo-mid against Arteezy I probably would rate my chances of finding a place on a decent Dota 2 team. Finding myself being hunted around De_Dust by Fnatic might make me consider playingCall of Duty instead of Counter Strike.
None of these examples are going to happen, but in Landmark I could attempt to make roof tiles next to Bryde, or work on interior design in the La Forge guild build, before going back to my own claim to scratch my head and wonder where to even start.
It’s a difficult situation for Landmark to be in, and however supportive and welcoming the community are it won’t change how people feel about this (if anything it could make it worse). Fortunately for me, I’m nothing if not relentlessly optimistic, so I’ll have to ask you to forgive me as I hold judgement on this. The development team have been consistent in their message about adding more ways to win, and as the game shifts from rewarding individual skill to cooperation the comparisons will hopefully feel much less personal.
My hope for EQN is that they embrace this human propensity for comparison in the core design of the social systems; there are so many examples of it done right in multiplayer games that it will become standard issue over the next few years, and it’s an area in which MMOs are lacking. (I’d even go so far as to say the medium has gone backwards in this regard, remember when some things were rare?)
I suppose the takeaway from all this is that a lack of an exponential numerical power curve should not be cause for alarm, there are plenty of ways to implement progression and reward systems, and ways to motivate players that make much more sense for a persistent multiplayer game.
What’s really important is that changes to the fundamentals like this are seen as opportunities to be embraced rather than gimmicks; don’t take us all the way to the Indian restaurant just to order us fries.
LockSixTime