very interesting, looking forward to the progression of this topic. :)

I think that the problem with levels is that every one should be equal from the start, the way too show a difference from someone who has played is too provide uniforms and items that someone just starting doesn't get. But someone just starting should be able to play anyone on-line.
Also I have seen this in some games, like Jedi Knighs Academy where they have no levels, that you can tell who is good and who isn't. You don't need levels to show this, I think people should be able to earn respect on there own, not because the game says you are a level 60. If someone is good at the game and they just start they should be able to join in anything the peopel who have played for 10 years, why have levels. A rookie in sports can come and do better than someone who has played for years. So why not have this in games.
That is why I like games like Rainbow Six, where there is no levels and a noob can come in and beat anyone in the room if they are good enough. I understand having levels in D&D because it gives you a feel of the characters, but I don't think levels are totally needed in all games.
I would like to see more unique ways to show if a player is good, having a ranking system, allow clans too rank there own members, give awards too better players, different skins to the better players or people who have played awhile. but allow someone who just picked up the game to be able to enjoy the game because they can play with everyone.
You can still create things where only someone with a certain amount of kills is allowed in certain points.

Been discussing this with a few people in a MUD setting, and we always end in the same question: where should the knowledge about the game world be located, in the character or in the player? If it is kept in the character, levels are necessary because it automatically lets everyone know the knowledge of the character (the higher the level, the more trials the character has endured and therefore the more mature he is). If the knowledge is kept in the player, though, then game levels are unnecessary. Everyone starts with the same skills, same statistics, and only the player experience differentiates characters.

I think the problem most *players* have with levels in most MMOs is that MMO designers abuse them, requiring a geometrically greater investment of time to attain each one.

At one point I developed a small experimental MMO mockup which used the max_integer and divided it up into as many small pieces as possible. A player could level up once every 2 minutes in that game and not hit the maximum level for 2.3 years. (Longer, if they took bathroom breaks.)

Nobody who played the game complained about there being "too many" levels, or the level-ups happening "too frequently." So why doesn't every MMO do this?

I think maybe the dirty little secret of MMO development is that developers use leveling as a crutch to spread the content more thinly.

At least, that's the way it used to be. Now that "Life Begins at Level 60," now that grinding eventually gets supplanted by strategic and social gaming after the maximum level has been reached, and now that players and developers largely accept this and expect it... I really don't see the point of artificially extending the later levels with an XP curve that does not match the rate at which the game dishes out XP.

Unless the business model actually require a certain percentage of noobs to get bored and quit playing around level 15, I don't see the point of the curve.

Then again, we've had XP requirement curves since Dragon Warrior, so there's probably a reason we have 'em... something to do with pacing and risk/reward as affected by player level VS mob level. I just think that if it takes you 15 minutes to get your first level up, why should later level-ups take weeks each level?

I suspect that's the main reason why players don't like levels. It's certainly the only downside to leveling that I can think of off the top of my head.

Pacing should allow and encourage progression through the game. It should not be a means of psychologically training the player to surrender more and more of their time to the game in order to get the same fix.

That's my opinion, anyway. If I'd administered an MMO as a business for three years instead of just developing a proof-of-concept, I'd probably have a different perspective on it.

I suppose the location of the knowledge would depend on the game. In an FPS it makes sense for the knowledge to be with the player, how well you can aim is something the player must cultivate over time. If the game is an RPG, and the player is dealing with softer, more intangible skills (Mercantile, Diplomacy) or world-specific (Magic Use, Warp Drive Enhancements), it would make sense to put the knowledge with the character, taking the onus off the player.

EVE Online and the Elderscrolls games have an interesting system that eschews the overarching idea of a "Level" which requires an amount of experience to reach. Instead, EVE and Elderscrolls go down to specific skills, and the use of those specific skills increases with time (in the case of EVE) and usage (in the case of Elderscrolls).

The Elder Scrolls system sounds like Final Fantasy II, where you don't have proper levels: skills and statistics upgrade as you use them (a warrior will earn strength at the end of the battle if he used his weapon, a mage would earn intellect if he casted a spell, etc). I don't like it very much, but it is another way of replacing levels.

Roland, the problem with "infinite" levels is that it is harsh on casual players. Someone who is able to play for 10 hours per day, every day of the week, will likely achieve such a level that no casual player will be able to match playing an hour per week. If the game includes PvP, it basically forces casual players to leave that part of the game.

The MUD I play used to have 9 mortal levels only for over 10 years. A good number of the population had reached the last stage ("champion" at the time), and player battles were fun because most of the combatants were already there. You may die, but you knew that if you dropped a mortal level, you could recover in a few weeks. It was common to see people die and coming back a few minutes later with a new set of equipment to continue battling. However, without a statistic cap (characters continued to grow in experience and statistics), there were "small champions" and "big champions", and the difference between each other were huge. A thumb of rule when engaging player fighting was that nobody should attack someone two or more mortal levels lower than him. But the huge difference between champions made the rule obsolete, as certain champions were twice the size of the smaller ones. So, four or five years ago the administration decided to solve this issue by adding more mortal levels, totaling 16. This effectively solved certain abuses (characters that were truly "legends" were attacking "experts"), however it brought a worse situation in: fear of dying. Before, everyone was "champion", no matter the real accumulated experience, and therefore would be willing to participate in battles against those big champions. However, now the difference in size was "visible", you were not a champion like your opponent, now you were an expert and he was a legend or myth (the two highest mortal titles). And people, instead of participating in player battles, preferred to concentrate on killing NPCs to gain experience and grow. Eventually, PvP became rare, while everyone worked their way upwards. Nowadays, out of the almost one thousand characters registered, only 30 or so reached the ultimate mortal level. Player fighting is still encouraged, and "more populated" mortal levels (two or three levels below the top one) regularly enjoy it. However, whenever one of those top 30 arrives, the battles usually end as smaller characters prefer to not face them. The latest game modifications (shorter recovery time upon death, bonuses for teams, etc) make it possible for smaller characters to battle bigger ones, but it is still not the same.

So, whatever solution you may come for the leveling issue, if your game isn't capping the maximum level (as World of Warcraft does), never create more if your game has already many players at the top level. It will only make the player base switch from player iteration to experience grinding.

I think maybe the dirty little secret of MMO development is that developers use leveling as a crutch to spread the content more thinly.

It's not exactly a secret, and not quite as dirty as you might think. Content is expensive, so being able to keep people occupied longer without increasing content is a big win for the MMO developer. MMO teams are already bigger and more expensive than traditional game development teams already.

I really didn't focus on the practical business side of things in this series of articles. Most MMOs make more money by keeping players in the game longer. If we really wanted to look at replacing levels, this really should be something to keep in mind.

Thanks for the comments, all! :)

If you imagine the concept of advancing through levels going UP a scale, a possible alternative would be going SIDEWAYS! Sideways you cry? How bizarre!?

When looking at team-based action FPS games, taking Call of Duty for an example. You can see that the developers essentially have the illusion of MMO-style 'levels' but actually avoid the whole "Level 2 grunt gets +1 shotgun damage" and actually just gives the player a shotgun, or a perk or some new equipment. This even has the benefit of adding recognition, just like coming across a character with epic level armour in WOW, coming across some swine with the last sniper rifle unlock in COD4 has the same effect of ... 'They could be trouble!'.

This actually works slightly better for the type and setting of the game, because the balancing of the weapons seem to be quite similar, but different enough to allow users to project an individualised style onto their avatars. So the M4 isn't greatly different from the AK, but different enough in the practical aesthetics, rate of fire, kickback, accuracy and even the noise.

So whilst maybe the concept of branching sideways isn't applicable to all genres or game types, but it's something I think developers should look into!

Hi Psychochild,

When you say 'levels', do you mean leveling up or does it have to do more with restricting access to certain areas until one gains a specific experience level? Either way I believe that the biggest problem with MMO's are their repetitive nature. MMO's, in my opinion might, have the biggest opportunity to make the gameplay more realistic and free wheeling, sorta speak. Because there are so many real people participating at once, makes it a perfect vehicle for a true open world experience. Now, I must say that I've no knowledge of the intricate workings of their development. Such as ; server capacities needed, acceptable map sizes, etc., as well as the other underlying technical aspects of creating this kind of game. I would like to be able to give some examples, but I am hoping to someday get involved in introducing a game that would change the market. I have 3 or 4 ideas that, if done the right way, could evolve gaming to the next "level". It's just, trying to get someone to listen to you without loosing your idea to a big company is tricky. Also, there are no opportunities for those with possibly viable ideas and good intentions to safely approach designers and/or up and coming development companies, not to mention the big ones. So in closing, I just think that the average MMO tends to get boring reasonably quick. At least to me.

I got off track a little. My blog is about the repetition of leveling and though I see how it paces the player, I think you just start all over, just at a higher level. But that's not how it feels.

Take a look at Ultima online. its been around for a long time and is a skill based system. There really isn't much in the way of questing, or story line content, so how does a game like that survive? I really enjoyed it because you earned your skill while also developing tactics. As a character I could take on just about anything with a average skill level, but I had to work hard, and things got easier later on. As you master a set of skills the game changes focus and ends up more like trophy gathering, and home decorating.

A Game like WoW really restricted you with a level system but had the ability to serve content on a controlled basis. This content control is best seen on there latest expansion, and I admit is was more fun to stop and take in the content then the previous levels. Skills and tactics had to be learned on the fly, and not gradually. A new level sometimes brought a new skill that could entirely change your characters play style.