Actually it's the furthest thing from communism; it provides a more authentic free enterprise situation.

By no means am I saying there shouldn't be a progression system, just not one centered around stats that mean very little; being too relative in level and power rather than what I propose: stats being more absolute - therefore gauged more consistenly by the player, thus zones and creatures deliver a better, more accurate, representation of the content - mechanically.

The classical MMO template is much more communistic than a, static system. Marketers will probably tell you that demographics indicate people like bigger, relative numbers, and like to be led to and through content.

Hmmmm... if you prescribe that people should be led, that everyone likes progressively bigger numbers - that ignore an absolute ontic referent and that's just the way to have fun ... then what does that sound like? Authoritarianisitic Relativism - (coined myself and not really that appropriate but whatever)

GW2 did not have this.

lol sure felt like

Leveling is more or less a staple of MMORPG's because its the most widely understood and recognized form of character progression that most people can pick up pretty quickly. Your concept isn't flawed by any means but I just think that it would be harder for people to acclimatize to simply because leveling is a pillar of not only MMORPGs, but RPGs in general. I'm not even sure I fully understand what you are proposing but I know that personally I would be deterred if an RPG didn't have levels regardless of how clear the character progression was. I think for ESO to be successful and compete in the MMO market, it had to adhere to some of the stereotypes associated with games in its genre in order to allow players to transition into it easier.

Even if it is just an illusion, trick or a more complex game of rock paper scissors, I know that when I'm level 20 I can easily help my level 10 friend kill those level 10 wolves and that sort of familiarity and understanding made ESO something that I could enjoy straight up.

So, pointless then.

I agree that there should be some degree of a 'stereotypical mechanic', or common reference, that games should incorporate. However, saying that a level-less design would deter you, "regardless", is sort of being narrow minded, no offense.

I don't believe any grand scale, fantasy MMO has yet to incorporate a static attribute system in a world, and if it has (that I'm unaware of), it probably didn't gain momentum due to a lack of funding or some other bad development model.

IMO. competition among MMO companies retain a lot of the internal mechanics because they (Devs and grey hairs) view the template like a car, and only a car (it's the safe bet). So, their emphasis is primarily on the aesthetics of the car only - to attract customers, but the overall internal aspects remain the same with, with maybe some minor changes. This can only be capitalized so much before the market get's tired of 'ingenuity' and just wants something that's basic and works (longevity) - which is where we are mostly (and have been for some time) in MMO land. In essence, this apathy drives the consumer to seek longevity and convenience over ingenuity; becoming no longer about a game, but rather looking at a product like a utility when it's suppose to be a novelty.

The classical design in an MMO isn't so much about a new game style, flavor or mechanic, but rather a conglomeration of expected utilities, with add-ons being from new titles. At one time it was novel, and its popularity spread like wild fire, but the same template can't last with such a relative approach to the progression system.

One day, an MMO will get released that will fundamentally flip the paradigm, yet still remain on the surface a truly immersive fantasy rpg (or sci-fi, modern etc).

Please understand too, I don't mean too sound negative, just trying to be constructive.

simple answer is that they wanted to make the most people comfortable as possible. That means copying the standard mmorpg system. It is unfortunate, but I understand WHY they did it.

Yep

If being bouncing around a constructive idea or pointing out flaws is pointless, then yes, I guess so. /sarcasm