Firefall vs Planetside 2: Character Progression

Tatwi · 2012-10-05, 01:59 PM

Red5 put up a nice blog detailing the character progression in Firefall,

http://www.firefallthegame.com/2012/...n-in-firefall/

and I thought it was interesting how different it is from Planetside 2, given how both are "modern FPS" games that will be release around the same time as each other. I was wondering what other people thought of the level-less design?

Personally, for years I have felt that levels in MMOs only serve to make "lower level content" obsolete and underused (like so many of the great dungeons in WoW that just go unused, because most people are max level and those dungeons no longer grant new things for their characters). But I have also felt that levels, or at least a lot of levels (more than 20), also serve as a barrier to entry for new players or "casual players".

I remember thinking one night, as I ran around a WoW starting zone leveling up alt # 5 million, how I would remake WoW and one of the first things that came to my mind is that I would completely do away with the concept of levels and leveling. Instead, I would make it so that each region or theme had its own gear and ability progression, such as Outland would progress players through the story line and dungeons but the super uber gear earned there would only translate into modest gear in another theme, like Blackwing Lair. This way players could progress sideways into whatever content happened to interest them (and their friends) without feeling like they are doing irrelevant content.

I figured that for PvP in my remake of WoW, there would only be one "level" and there would not be a huge gap in power between new players and seasoned ones. The point would be to have fun fighting and trying to win and for the serious folks, it would be to achieve higher ratings and to play against other highly rated people. Prestige, rather than a gear treadmill, would be the driving force for the competitive people. More battlegrounds, rated battlegrounds, and a return to places like the original, objectives based, Alterac Valley were some of the things I felt would be fun to experience on a level playing field.

Anyhow, in spirit that's essentially what Red5 has done with Firefall, which is pretty neat. A person can hop into the game for the first time and take part in whatever they like without being at a severe (or impossible to overcome) handicap. Yet the game allows players to progress and diversify their characters and it does this without removing more and more "lower level content" from the player as he plays.

In comparison, Planetside 2 has both a level system and a secondary advancement system. However, in PS2 players NEVER level their characters to a point where there is content that is meaningless to them. That's awesome for players (and a great use of SOE's resources I might add). So with that in mind, even though PS2 has levels and what could be called "skill based progression" through certs and purchases, it does not have those issues I mentioned that plague traditional level based MMOs, which makes PS2's character progression similar in philosophy to Firefall's.

That said, Red5 had this to say about why they chose to do away with traditional levels,

Let me answer the most obvious question first: There were a number of reasons why we felt that our character progression system needed a change. One of the most prevalent was that we simply weren’t happy with the time that elapsed between different rewards during progression that the classic leveling system allowed, and we wanted to increase the number of choices that were available to players within their progression.

It's here that I feel the character progressions of PS2 and Firefall diverge.

Smed has stated that to get anywhere deep into Planetside 2 people are going to have to "put in a lot of time" and that doesn't sit well with me for a number of reasons:

It's a game, not an occupation or lifestyle.
As we've observed, all the content is accessible to a new player.
In many cases, the progression offered in PS2 are quality of life improvements rather than game play changing or fun abilities.
By making progression a huge time sink, but selling shortcuts potions, SOE wants to make a lot of money by selling us our own time rather than actual products/items.

Why take this approach? Especially in a game where 100% of the content is other people, players are granted access to all classes and vehicles upon character creation, and none of the locations or activities are gated in any way. It doesn't even make sense to take this approach, because SOE's giving away all of the important things at character creation...

When one boils it down, the fundamental difference between the character development in PS2 and Firefall is that Firefall respects people's time and PS2 does not. Firefall's character development system offers real game play changing personalization, where as PS2's is mostly fluff, because SOE already gave everyone almost everything at character creation.

I look forward to the next round of changes to the cert trees and hope that SOE takes an objective look at what people are really getting for their time. PS2 should be a game where people play to have fun playing a game with their friends and get some cool rewards along the way. PS2 should not be a game where people do everything they can to "game the system" to get as much XP/min as possible, because not doing so is a brutal waste of their time.

Honestly, I think SOE is giving way too much away at character creation and that character development suffers for it. What's left to build upon is too fluffy. This might seem contrary to "respecting people's time", but it's not, because I am not saying, "lock all the classes etc. behind a huge grind". I am saying, "maybe locking the classes and vehicles behind a reasonable, enjoyable amount of actual, normal game play might enhance the sense of character development".

Ps. This was a "pre-coffee" ramble.

psijaka · 2012-10-05, 02:21 PM

As an avid Firefall player who has a lot of respect for Red5, I read your comparison between Firefall and PS2 progression with interest.

Red5 certainly have taken a bold approach in doing away with traditional levels, and it is possible to hop into Firefall and (after very little time) compete on level terms with experienced players in Tier 1.

However, once you get past Tier 1 into Tier 2, more time is needed to gather the XP required to climb through the progression tree, and unlock new abilities and tier 3 battleframes (coming soon). And the signs are that Tier 3 could well become a bit of a grind. And a downside of the progression tree is that you have to unlock items/abilities that you may well have no interest in, to reach the next tier, or some desirable bit of gear. Exactly the same as in a traditional ranking system; many of the unlocks are of little interest. The Firefall system does at least offer some degree of choice.

But at the end of the day, it will require a lot of time to progress to the higher ranks/tiers in either game, and Red5 are already selling time savers like XP boosts (I'm fine with this; they have to make money somehow, as do SOE).

Tatwi · 2012-10-05, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by psijaka

As an avid Firefall player who has a lot of respect for Red5, I read your comparison between Firefall and PS2 progression with interest.

Red5 certainly have taken a bold approach in doing away with traditional levels, and it is possible to hop into Firefall and (after very little time) compete on level terms with experienced players in Tier 1.

However, once you get past Tier 1 into Tier 2, more time is needed to gather the XP required to climb through the progression tree, and unlock new abilities and tier 3 battleframes (coming soon). And the signs are that Tier 3 could well become a bit of a grind. And a downside of the progression tree is that you have to unlock items/abilities that you may well have no interest in, to reach the next tier, or some desirable bit of gear. Exactly the same as in a traditional ranking system; many of the unlocks are of little interest. The Firefall system does at least offer some degree of choice.

But at the end of the day, it will require a lot of time to progress to the higher ranks/tiers in either game, and Red5 are already selling time savers like XP boosts (I'm fine with this; they have to make money somehow, as do SOE).

Hey thanks for that, that's awesome! I did not get an invitation to Firefall's beta so I can't speak about it from experience.

I guess with what you said in mind, they really aren't much different at all.

Now, if you do the unspeakable and compare the character development systems in PS2 and PS1 it's pretty neat. In PS1 you basically start off as an ANT driving foot soldier, but after not really a whole lot of game play time (a few hours or so) you open up your options to maybe playing as a MAX unit or driving a tank or using a medic tool or an engineer tool. In PS2 you get all that stuff at character creation and if you want to customize any of it you're looking at hours upon hours of XP grinding to get access to the dumbest little things. Personally, I would rather start off as Joe Soldier and have the PS1 route of expanding my options rather than the PS2 Swiss Army Knife Character route.

psijaka · 2012-10-05, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Tatwi

Hey thanks for that, that's awesome! I did not get an invitation to Firefall's beta so I can't speak about it from experience.

It just so happens that I have a spare Firefall Beta invite available. Would you like to give the game a try?

Conq · 2012-10-05, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Tatwi

Smed has stated that to get anywhere deep into Planetside 2 people are going to have to "put in a lot of time" and that doesn't sit well with me for a number of reasons:

It's a game, not an occupation or lifestyle.

Well stated! I wish more people thought that way, games would be far more enjoyable for normal people. Unfortunately many "mmo" gamers don't have occupations or lives and appreciate grinds because they provide entertainment around the clock and a sense of accomplishment.

Luckily "putting in a lot of time" in PS2 won't necessarily require you being there, with subscription enhanced passive certs and the market you can skip straight into the enjoyment without wasting valuable time.

psijaka · 2012-10-05, 02:51 PM

I never allow a game to become a grind, and don't really understand why some people allow themselves to be sucked into grinding.

If I think that things are getting a bit stale, then I'll switch class, adopt a different playstyle, try my hand at flying, exploring, whatever. And if that doesn't work, it's time to switch game - just what is the point in playing if it isn't an enjoyable experience?

Luckily there is so much scope in both Firefall and PS2 to vary gameplay style that I think that it will be a long time before things go stale. Being in a beta helps too; interesting to see games develop before your eyes, and new continents on the horizon in both games

Rat · 2012-10-05, 03:02 PM

I dont know that grinding is a term that can be used in PS2, sure you may be saving Auraxium to buy that sexy looking BFG, but lets face it. the game is going to be played the same after getting the BFG...when I hear the term "grinding" I think about doing useless daily quests or running the same instance over and over in WOW just to get gear so the next instance can be run.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-10-06, 12:21 PM

Planetside 2 is not about "character development or progression". It is about large combined arms battles. You play the game to play the game, not to become "Lord Azeroth Highguard". The grind to achieve trinkets and largely irrelevant weapons is just a side track that you can completely skip if you wish to.

psijaka · 2012-10-08, 02:03 AM

Posted in error - oops too hasty

zzzornbringer · 2012-10-08, 03:21 AM

the levels in firefall have been renamed to tiers. they still have a "normal" power progression achieved by grinding, grinding and grinding. you earn XP and you spend XP to unlock certain stuff. there's not even room for much customization within the progression tiers. you are even fixed to certain routes or you cannot progress to the next tier. which basicly is just another tier and not the "next" tier.

i've followed the development process very closely and was very active in their community. but over months and months, nothing really happened. and in the last couple of months the shit really went down in their forums.

i think this game is done. at the end of this year, it's vaporware and a lot of wasted time and money.

Maarvy · 2012-10-08, 04:11 AM

Leveling got old years ago , its about time game makers realised it .

All the time spent balancing skill / exp gains could be spent creating more engaging content . So many 3 month wonder games these days barely keep players entertained though the leveling process and once thats done the game is over .

As mentioned in the op leveling is often a barrier for new players especialy in PvP orientated games . As far as mmos and shooters go I would love to see just a balanced class system with solid options make your char and play a game that revolves around something other than your exp bar / char progression .

GuyFawkes · 2012-10-08, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

Planetside 2 is not about "character development or progression". It is about large combined arms battles. You play the game to play the game, not to become "Lord Azeroth Highguard". The grind to achieve trinkets and largely irrelevant weapons is just a side track that you can completely skip if you wish to.

This ^^

Since the OP was using wow as an example, I just thought I would throw Warhammer Online into the fray. Not the realm v realm stuff, but the lvl 1 to 10 scenario play. You didnt have much gear at that lvl, a basic set of rudimentary abilities, but it was simplistic great fun.
Now I know it was instanced, and set number v set number, but at its essence it encompassed what a great pvp needs to be. The zenith of that game was the first 10 lvls.
When ps1 first came out, it had the same elements, a simple cert system, limited levels, everyone had same types of armor to choose from. You just had more to choose from at later levels.
A good game needs to be like chess: any side has the same restrictions, each part of your side operates within pre defined parameters. Its purely down to the player and using those tools as to the outcome.
A br1 player should be like a pawn, limited but still capable of taking down the king. A br20 player had pawns, rooks, knights, bishop, queen and king to choose from, but only one at a time.
In ps2 the br1 player has pawns, rooks, knight, bishop,queen and king from the get go.
Maybe thats not a bad thing, or else chess would never have lasted as long as it has done if all you started with was one pawn, and had to work your way up to gain more pieces.
On the flip side of that is that with chess you have 2 generals facing off against each other. In planetside2 , you have a new player, and you are throwing them into the game as a general and expecting them to act as such. That level of knowledge needs to be earned, and progression is the key to that.
If you put a 4 year old in charge of an army, they will go press the big flashing red button thing. They want to see big tanks and bombers.

I think my point is that if you give everything in one go at br1, unless the game and opposition give almost endless challenge and surprise and fun to play, it removes the incentive to keep playing. If you try to delude people that some sort of sideways progression will keep them playing, it wont. They have no affinity to that character because they got all the basic stuff when they first logged on. The only thing that will keep them playing is the game itself.

Just look any type of sport, say baseball or football. People dont suddenly get to put lazer sights on the bat, or extend the length of their football boots. The addiction is purely about the opposition and overcoming them.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-10-09, 01:11 PM

Levels and level progression systems are not a bad thing in itself. There is a right way and a wrong way of doing it, like with everything else in game design.
Done right, level progression systems reward players for playing the game and investing time in it. That good feeling when you hear that satisfying ding and know your investment of time in the game payed off in the form of more power and options is a pretty powerful incentive to keep playing.
Done wrong, leveling becomes a pointless grind to reach ever diminishing or uninteresting returns.

Reaching a new level should mean something in the long run, it should be gratifying and reward the player with added depth and more choice or customisability in terms of what they can do in the game. It most definately should not be a long, boring grind.

The pitfall is that the further down the rabbit hole you go, the less meaningful each reward tier, each level, will feel. Reaching lvl 30 isn't as exciting when you know you have 70 more levels to go through before you get to the "good stuff." the further up the ladder goes, th more watered down th whole experience becomes. WoW has reached this stage, IMO, where the entire point of leveling is to go through lots of intermediary stages to get to the real game, the end game content.

Tatwi · 2012-10-09, 02:39 PM

That's some great discussion, GuyFawkes and EisenKreutzer! I have played chess since 4th grade, so I can relate to what you're saying and you're right that it's a really good pvp game, by design. I agree that character development is important for building the emotional bond between the player and the game. However, like EisenKreutzer said, progression does not need be at the expense of fun or time. PS1 had a pretty good feeling to it's progression system; it was kind of like the pre-cu Star Wars Galaxies level of customization, only without all the grinding.

jelias · 2012-10-09, 04:37 PM

PS2 is not an RPG (AFAIK). I not a fan of progression in FPSs,(You have to be lvl 9001 to use this gun). If a game is fun I'll play it, not because I need to unlock something. My favorite FPS is CS 1.6 and there your only limitation on what you can get is how much currency you happen to have.