Rokuzachi said:In my mind, ideally the pace of leveling should be quite slow because the pace should also feel somewhat irrelevant due to the way the content and game is designed like old EQ. Maybe that's not the best way to phrase it...
I feel like, or at least hope, that every level has great adventures and interesting things to do. That interesting and useful items that might be usable for very long periods of time can be gotten from a wide variety of level ranges. This was one of my favorite things about EQ - that I didn't feel compelled to rush to level cap at release, because there was always money to be made or some interesting item to be sought during the journey. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if the journey is interesting enough, it won't feel like it matters that I've spent a week getting through level 33 because there was plenty to do and see there. In the end this boils down to "make the game just as much about the journey as the destination".
/agree and this resonantes with me as how I like to play in an open world sandbox type MMO. To me travelling and the mundane are part of it. if I have two hours to play a night on average, I might spend 2 weeks? at most? getting from one city to another going by whatever map route I can fathom from the boxtop of the game (well I think we go north?) hopefully with a group of like minded players who will become friends.
Then when in the town, maybe spend 2 hours just finding out where everything is (learning the maze) then the next day heading out and back in from the "newbie" area and learning how to get in and out. On top of the whole social dynamic aspect of having to make new friends in the area which could also take a while by getting PuG's and hopefully someone in the PuG knows somehting about the area or has a quest they are on- and I learn things. I could spend another 2 weeks in that new town before moving on but while adventuring and doing stuff, maybe even trades.
But what I think what Rokuzachi is trying to say, is to make the time/space between the "ding" important or meaningful or even satisfying on an achievement/accomplishment level. Important enough so that your attention is not soley on leveling or the "ding".
This is also why I was a little concerned with the idea of Pantheon not being as quest oriented. I took that to mean not having alot of quests. If there are not alot of quests how will that time between the ding become meaningful outside of "the grind"?
Regardless of how fast or slow anyone here wants the leveling time to take, some percentage of the population will always do it faster and some will always do it slower. While VR can try to design the game around an average expected timeframe to get from 1 to 50, their efforts will only really affect those players with very limited playtimes. Players who can put in more time and/or who play more efficiently and/or who can better turn theorycraft into application will always earn everything faster be that levels, loot or money. So don't get hung up on this topic and just accept that you will reach the max level at some point and that if you want to get there faster put in more time and effort.
Vandraad said:Regardless of how fast or slow anyone here wants the leveling time to take, some percentage of the population will always do it faster and some will always do it slower. While VR can try to design the game around an average expected timeframe to get from 1 to 50, their efforts will only really affect those players with very limited playtimes. Players who can put in more time and/or who play more efficiently and/or who can better turn theorycraft into application will always earn everything faster be that levels, loot or money. So don't get hung up on this topic and just accept that you will reach the max level at some point and that if you want to get there faster put in more time and effort.
Thing is, casual and hardcore had different meanings back in release EQ. What I would call casual, most modern MMO gamers today would claim is hardcore. Playing 20 hours+ a week was extremely casual for EQ. Playing 2-5 hours a night (8-12 on a weekend night) was very common for the casual player. Hardcore were essentially people who played the game as a fulltime job, at hours where most people were working, and were on call to log in at any moment to chase after the raid mobs.
So, even knowing this, the casual player still took a minimum of 6-8 months to reach max for release (lvl 49). I played 2-4 of hours a night, and sometimes 10-18 hours over the weekend. That at a mnimum is still around 20+ hours a weekend and I was only level 44 when Kunark was released a year later (to be fair I didn't start my monk until around a month or two after the game was released as I was trying out other classes and servers until I settled on Test with my monk).
Even then, it took over a year before people figured out how to power level a character to max in a week (and this was using excessive resources, playing the chracter by multiple people 24/7 and always in a group where mass pulls and exp hand off tricks were used).
While there were some who did make max level quickly (mostly druids and necros who kited Kaldim guards, the only mobs high enough to give exp to hit max level), quickly was really only 5 months or so. The point is, even for "hardcore" back then, it took months to reach max. Now granted, today's gamer is a bit more learned in how to use tricks to level fast (ie power level guilds/services and soloers who grind non-stop), so they will benefit from this knowledge, but... those people who level like that will be the minority and they will essentially kill the game for themselves. As long as VR does not cater to them, there is no issue.
I see the biggest problem in trying to get people to accept a leveling cycle that slow as most have forgotten how long it took to level in EQ and those who never experienced or going to be horrifed because they do not understand why this slow pace is important for the game play.
I hope that leveling is slow process, I remember back in the day you would shout to the whole zone when you leveled... woot woot. It meant something, and accomplishment that hours of grind paid off.
There will always be players who race to the top, to be the first to max lvl, first to kill a mob and just run by 90% of the game... hell they are already on here recruiting and saying that is their plan. I really hope the VR team looks at that as a slap in the face for ignoring all their hard work to create an entire world and ignores them, let them sit at max lvl for the next year or hopefully 2 before new content comes out.
It is hard to break out hours played vs levels..you can not account travel time to group, deaths, looking for group, find spots to hunt. A 4 hour play session does not mean you are gaining XP for 4 hours.
Ideally, a semi-casual player who plays on average 2 hours a night (more on some, less on others) should probably take about 2 years to reach the initial level cap in my opinion. That's assuming they're not grinding at near maximum efficiency and spend some time exploring, socializing and other good stuff.
Even if that means they haven't reached the cap yet when the first level cap increase arrives along with an expansion, that's not a problem at all. A good expansion should contain content for all level ranges to enjoy and also reuse existing zones. Meaning that even if you've not seen everything the original game world had to offer, you're nowhere close to getting left behind with nobody to play with.
Rokuzachi said:In my mind, ideally the pace of leveling should be quite slow because the pace should also feel somewhat irrelevant due to the way the content and game is designed like old EQ. Maybe that's not the best way to phrase it...
I feel like, or at least hope, that every level has great adventures and interesting things to do. That interesting and useful items that might be usable for very long periods of time can be gotten from a wide variety of level ranges. This was one of my favorite things about EQ - that I didn't feel compelled to rush to level cap at release, because there was always money to be made or some interesting item to be sought during the journey. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if the journey is interesting enough, it won't feel like it matters that I've spent a week getting through level 33 because there was plenty to do and see there. In the end this boils down to "make the game just as much about the journey as the destination".
Well said :)
SoWplz said:I hope that leveling is slow process, I remember back in the day you would shout to the whole zone when you leveled... woot woot. It meant something, and accomplishment that hours of grind paid off.
There will always be players who race to the top, to be the first to max lvl, first to kill a mob and just run by 90% of the game... hell they are already on here recruiting and saying that is their plan. I really hope the VR team looks at that as a slap in the face for ignoring all their hard work to create an entire world and ignores them, let them sit at max lvl for the next year or hopefully 2 before new content comes out.
It is hard to break out hours played vs levels..you can not account travel time to group, deaths, looking for group, find spots to hunt. A 4 hour play session does not mean you are gaining XP for 4 hours.
People play the games for different reasons. I myself, play the game for max level content. Leveling is just a chore, trade skills are just a chore... etc. My goal is to maximize my character in every possible way at max level.
It's not a slap in the face... game developers understand people partake in various aspects of the game. By your logic anyone that doesnt use trade skills, would be disrespecting the developers. That's just not the case.
As for leveling speed. As many people have said. It doesnt change anything, the only thing a slow leveling speed does is create a larger gap between casuals and hardcore. If it takes a casual 2 months to level and a hardcore 1. That's only 1 month, 4 weeks separating them. If a casual is 8 months and a hardcore is 4... well that's a much bigger difference.
Idc if it takes me 1 month or 4 months to hit max. I'll have years upon years to enjoy the game after that (hopefully).
I would like leveling to be a adventure. I would say a year if you do an hour a day of good exp grouping. I will be playing quite a bit so I will be ahead of the casuals, but I won't be an end game complainer for more content like some might be. In fact, I hope that Pantheon ignores the 20 hour a day people, and the 1-2 hour a day people. They should keep track of people that play at around 20 hours a week. Once they start getting up there and doing end game content is when you should look into adding more content. Other than that...screw the extremes. If you are too slow and play an hour or two a day and don't see everything...that's on you...if you play 20 hours a day and have done everything...then that's on you....focus on the 20 hour a week type of people and content will progress nicely.
Porygon said:People play the games for different reasons. I myself, play the game for max level content. Leveling is just a chore, trade skills are just a chore... etc. My goal is to maximize my character in every possible way at max level.
Same here. While I do enjoy getting there, my greatest satisfaction and enjoyment comes when my character is at its absolute peak power.
Tanix said:Malla said:I don't think a 24-man raid is going to be anywhere as epic. Not to mention if a 72-person raid lost 8 people ("have to get up early for work") it could often proceed. But if you lose 8 people to RL (which is always more important) responsibilites from a 24-man raid you are dead in the water.
It will be interesting to see how it all scales out, because if anyone can make it work, the designers at VR and the testing process through pre-alpha, alpha, and beta will surely be able to work it out.
I think it will be fine to be honest. LoTRO had 12 mans and there were times in the Rift where we lost a few people on the Balrog fight and still were able to handle it. Granted, the requirement for content deminishes, it is more difficult to handle it, but think about it, how many times did you do 6 man bosses with 3-4 by using clever tactics and methods? Even with lesser numbers, I think there will be a way, but this will depend on how much of a spread the provide in the skills and abilities of classes. If they force rubber stamped design, it will be more of an issue I think.
I do think VR can make the 24-man raid interesting and fun, but its really never going to approach the level of epic a 60-man did. Part of the "epic" nature was the demands on communication and Raid Leader skills, coordination, transportation, provisioning.
If they spread skills and abilities between classes more than EQ did, I'm not playing the game. I can play other games where that has been done, and dumbed down the game to where you don't even have to talk to anyone to get the job done.
Malla said:Tanix said:Malla said:I don't think a 24-man raid is going to be anywhere as epic. Not to mention if a 72-person raid lost 8 people ("have to get up early for work") it could often proceed. But if you lose 8 people to RL (which is always more important) responsibilites from a 24-man raid you are dead in the water.
It will be interesting to see how it all scales out, because if anyone can make it work, the designers at VR and the testing process through pre-alpha, alpha, and beta will surely be able to work it out.
I think it will be fine to be honest. LoTRO had 12 mans and there were times in the Rift where we lost a few people on the Balrog fight and still were able to handle it. Granted, the requirement for content deminishes, it is more difficult to handle it, but think about it, how many times did you do 6 man bosses with 3-4 by using clever tactics and methods? Even with lesser numbers, I think there will be a way, but this will depend on how much of a spread the provide in the skills and abilities of classes. If they force rubber stamped design, it will be more of an issue I think.
I do think VR can make the 24-man raid interesting and fun, but its really never going to approach the level of epic a 60-man did. Part of the "epic" nature was the demands on communication and Raid Leader skills, coordination, transportation, provisioning.
If they spread skills and abilities between classes more than EQ did, I'm not playing the game. I can play other games where that has been done, and dumbed down the game to where you don't even have to talk to anyone to get the job done.
I am not talking about class hemogenization where all classes have the same tools, nor am I talking about a skill based system where all skills are open to all classes. EQ had a range of utility skills among certain classes such as root, snare, pacify, fear, mez, stun, charm (which some classes shared), and numerous other types of utility spells that had various designs with pros/cons unique to the class. Not every spell a class had was the same, there were ups and downs, to them (some classes had lower level versions of a spell). Some classes excelled in certain spells/skills (enchanters with mezing/charming), while others were limited. The "ideal" class may be the Enchanter for crowd control (in most situations, but there were mobs that didn't mez well), but a bard, necro, druid, mage, or wizard could with various spells and abilities achieve a similar result (often termed as ghetto CC), This was the same for all the "Roles" we would term today.
The beneift of this design was that your groups were more flexible, you could still accomplish things without the "perfect" group design. This is why I say EQ's original design was superior to "Role" based class design today because if you design you classes too firm into that assignment, then you are required to have that role consistently in play. This does a couple of things, it forces you to limit the utilities a class is designed with as tools can cause a class to infringe on another classes role and it limits the flexability of the groups, as the group will then have to have certain key "roles" to succeed.
Basically it is like Keno was describing with WoW and how it was "possible" to substitue a role with a class that was not catagorized as such in some situations, but it was often extremely difficult and counter productive. So imagine how that will have an effect on a game that is designed to be group centric? Imagine how many problems will come from the need to have roles, and then you see the arguments some are making about how it is then important that there is an even balance of roles within the game so there is group availablity (a problem in modern MMO "role" design).
In EQ, people began to proclaim that the only viable group was with specific classes, you would find people calling out for a group, but then requiring it have the community acccepted roles *they sat around a lot on their behind complaining about how there were no groups). In EQ it was a non-issue because those who didn't buy into that forced assignment were out playing with less than socially accepted groups and still succeeding, yet if you design your game focus heavily on roles, disallowing any overlap in ablity, you will end up with that issue actuallly being legitimate as everyone sits around waiting for the "ideal" group because you can't effectively do content without those "roles".
With respect to what Tanix said about roles, there is a distinction between when a particular role is required - or most people *think* it is required, and when a particular class is required.
Traditionally for "true group" content at-level it is very difficult to do if you do not have a tank and a healer. Crowd control is often less essential as many classes have some form of crowd control and many encounters can just be handled without it - tank and spank. But other than for certain fights where you desperately need an ability that only one class has you can get by with any tank and any healer. Most groups doing anything but the most challenging content may insist on having the roles filled but will not insist on a specific class for the roles. And may well be able to get by with two off-healing classes or two off-tank classes in lieu of a main healer or main tank.
Get to whatever is considered particularly difficult and people become fussier - not irrationally. So if one tank class is considered the best as a tank (although other tank classes are decent tanks and add other abilities) and the group may wait around until that one class can be found. Ditto if one healing class is considered the best pure healer.
Since Pantheon will, we hope, make classes different and work in different ways even for the same role it is highly likely that for the most challenging content (and I am discussing content at any level, a level 10 dungeon can be just as hard at-level as a level 50 raid) will lead to requests for specific classes not just specific roles. Not every healing class will be as good at group healing as every other - even though this might be the goal. Never happens in any MMO. Pick a class that the consensus considers inferior as a healer for the most difficult content and you can gripe on the forums to try and get your class improved or other classes weakened - but everyone else will be doing the same thing so good luck. Barring class balance changes it will be harder for you to get in the fussiest groups unless you "roll" a new healer in the preferred class. That is life in a MMO and it may be better, actually, than constant balance changes resulting in flavour of the month syndrome.
I want leveling to take as long as possible. I want by the time new content is dropping, I just now looking at the "cap" for my level. I want a time sink like everquest was. I do not want 4-6 months from when I start, to be hitting the level cap and waiting another 6 months to a year for new content to be around the corner. I understand there are many out there that don't have that kinda of time, and don't want it. But a time sink, that a year from when you start you starting to get to the "cap" means longevity, to me.
A suggestion I had was to add in options a "XP scaling" bar. Where the player can side that bar by 25/50/75/100. Everyone starts at 100%, mean they gain normal experience, going to 75%, means you only gain 75% of the normal experience, and 25% is lost, rinse repeat to 25%. That way the player can decided how fast he/she wants to level. If i want a more slower pace leveling then I can adjust my experience to that. If i play longer than some friends, I can adjust that so I gain less experience, so I am not outleveling said friends.
dorotea said:
With respect to what Tanix said about roles, there is a distinction between when a particular role is required - or most people *think* it is required, and when a particular class is required.
Exactly, and that is an important point. What the "community" thinks is possible or required is irrelevant to that fact and I honestly don't care if group think relegates a class to a given role. I can always circumvent the issues of social mob behavior by playing with people who do not succumb to such group thought. The issue is if VR accepts this mode of thinking for then, those who have the power to force change can do so through nerfs and buffs, which is what WoW suffered from as the developers tried to attend to the erratic complaints of the mob. This is why it is a bit of a tricky issue here. In release EQ, roles were not defined, so... there was no legitimacy of social behavior beliefs. Though, when the game developers accepted such, they were then beholden to those design constraints and required by their own declarations that each class fall and stay within those designs. This only amplified the class vs class wars as it brought legitimacy to a complaint if a class was infringing or falling outside of its lawful designated role. The developer had to correct such or they would be guilty of special treatment or negligence in their word.
dorotea said:
Traditionally for "true group" content at-level it is very difficult to do if you do not have a tank and a healer. Crowd control is often less essential as many classes have some form of crowd control and many encounters can just be handled without it - tank and spank. But other than for certain fights where you desperately need an ability that only one class has you can get by with any tank and any healer. Most groups doing anything but the most challenging content may insist on having the roles filled but will not insist on a specific class for the roles. And may well be able to get by with two off-healing classes or two off-tank classes in lieu of a main healer or main tank.
In some situations, yes... a tanks steady mitigation of expected damage, large health pool and the healers ability to heal such efficiently with complete heals provided the optimal solution in those situations. Naturally, this is why warriors and like classes with similar mitigation and healing ability became the primary choice. Though, the idea that a tank needed to be one of the three plate classes was more of a raid requirement (until special encounters made other classes more viable such as the avoidance mitigation classes being better suited for rampage tanking mobs). Group content was less specific though and while there were times where certain specfic needs were required, group content allowed for more flexible design in who could achieve a primary role. This was often decided based on many factors such as player skill, ingenuity (ie what led to emergent play), and gear. The point is, group content was a toss up and depended more on the specifics of a given classes abilities rather than the basics of a role.
The fact is, roles are actually more of a dumbed down approach to game play. It is much more in depth to design classes and content by ability, rather than generic labels of what a given class is responsible for. Just think about how much more dynamic encounters become when you stop putting up walls on content according to roles, and then you design content according to specific abilities to solve it. It makes for a much more dynamic game play, essentially how original RPG gaming was created to be.
dorotea said:
Get to whatever is considered particularly difficult and people become fussier - not irrationally. So if one tank class is considered the best as a tank (although other tank classes are decent tanks and add other abilities) and the group may wait around until that one class can be found. Ditto if one healing class is considered the best pure healer.
Since Pantheon will, we hope, make classes different and work in different ways even for the same role it is highly likely that for the most challenging content (and I am discussing content at any level, a level 10 dungeon can be just as hard at-level as a level 50 raid) will lead to requests for specific classes not just specific roles. Not every healing class will be as good at group healing as every other - even though this might be the goal. Never happens in any MMO. Pick a class that the consensus considers inferior as a healer for the most difficult content and you can gripe on the forums to try and get your class improved or other classes weakened - but everyone else will be doing the same thing so good luck. Barring class balance changes it will be harder for you to get in the fussiest groups unless you "roll" a new healer in the preferred class. That is life in a MMO and it may be better, actually, than constant balance changes resulting in flavor of the month syndrome.
It is inevitable that people will require the "perfect" role for a given case. I am not even asking that content be designed where all classes in any configuration can accomplish it. What I am saying is that the game should not be developed in a manner where some class finds a means through emergent play to succeed and is shot down by the cries of blasphemy because it occurred, leading to the developers nerfing and changing the class so as to avoid such in the future. It is this very behavior which will make people like me drop the game in a heart beat.
Tanix said:It is inevitable that people will require the "perfect" role for a given case. I am not even asking that content be designed where all classes in any configuration can accomplish it. What I am saying is that the game should not be developed in a manner where some class finds a means through emergent play to succeed and is shot down by the cries of blasphemy because it occurred, leading to the developers nerfing and changing the class so as to avoid such in the future. It is this very behavior which will make people like me drop the game in a heart beat.
We can see already the spell and ability pathes for each class. So, for example, I know what an Enchanter does. I know what a Cleric does. It is laid out for each class if you base it on the published skills and abillities. I imagine it will change somewhat, but not direction, and spells and abilities are a pretty clear direction.
Will playing develop roles for a class not necessarily apparent by spells and abilities. Possibly, but unlikely. Some have said a Monk pulling in Everquest was just an emergent role. I think Brad might have said that at some point. But any class who can get FD (with no expire timer) skilled high enough to virtually never fail (mine was) and Mend high enough to aggro one mob in a group enough it stands over your FD while the others go back, was bound to become a premier puller class simply because of the abilities. I'm pretty sure, having played EQ beta (all) and live I knew a Monk was a premier pulling class before I was level 20, before Fear existed.
Remember how they nerfed the Necromancer's FD so it had an expire timer? Well, I knew the guy who set his pet Skelly up in Frenzy, FDed, and went to sleep, and woke up level 50. So Verant decided, hey you have a pet, you can't have unlimited FD and nerfed it. That was a fair nerf in my opinion.
They also nerfed a number of other spells and abilities, but no more than WoW did. And nobody left, or at least, nobody we cared about.
And I still think VR will work it out to a pretty good state of group-oriented gameplay by release. I look forward to testing and helping do that starting in Alpha.
Malla said:Tanix said:It is inevitable that people will require the "perfect" role for a given case. I am not even asking that content be designed where all classes in any configuration can accomplish it. What I am saying is that the game should not be developed in a manner where some class finds a means through emergent play to succeed and is shot down by the cries of blasphemy because it occurred, leading to the developers nerfing and changing the class so as to avoid such in the future. It is this very behavior which will make people like me drop the game in a heart beat.
We can see already the spell and ability pathes for each class. So, for example, I know what an Enchanter does. I know what a Cleric does. It is laid out for each class if you base it on the published skills and abillities. I imagine it will change somewhat, but not direction, and spells and abilities are a pretty clear direction.
Will playing develop roles for a class not necessarily apparent by spells and abilities. Possibly, but unlikely. Some have said a Monk pulling in Everquest was just an emergent role. I think Brad might have said that at some point. But any class who can get FD (with no expire timer) skilled high enough to virtually never fail (mine was) and Mend high enough to aggro one mob in a group enough it stands over your FD while the others go back, was bound to become a premier puller class simply because of the abilities. I'm pretty sure, having played EQ beta (all) and live I knew a Monk was a premier pulling class before I was level 20, before Fear existed.
Remember how they nerfed the Necromancer's FD so it had an expire timer? Well, I knew the guy who set his pet Skelly up in Frenzy, FDed, and went to sleep, and woke up level 50. So Verant decided, hey you have a pet, you can't have unlimited FD and nerfed it. That was a fair nerf in my opinion.
They also nerfed a number of other spells and abilities, but no more than WoW did. And nobody left, or at least, nobody we cared about.
And I still think VR will work it out to a pretty good state of group-oriented gameplay by release. I look forward to testing and helping do that starting in Alpha.
FD pulling was emergent, not expected and not even condoned. There were posts by even Brad himself stating it was not intended and healthy for the game. The velious code change was specifically designed to try and stop FD pulling. It was only over time that it was accepted as a valid game play feature.
I know this because I spoke directly to the devs who worked on this code in EQ while I was a Test monk. I was one of the monks who consistently pulled to test this very code during that time and who had discussions over the very aspect of FD and how it was designed for play.
Mekismo said: The problem with MMO games is that the quicker a player reaches max level cap the more powerful/wealthy in game they become so it gives those minded people even more incentive to power level to the cap. Take EQ for example, the first players to farm lower guk or sol b would be loaded with the most desirable loot to use or sell on (Ykesha sword for example). And the other other issue is the ability to sell in game currency/items for real money. Again, this incentivises players to be the first to reach level cap. Even when I first played EQ back in 99 when I was 20 I still had a job and a girlfriend and never got to play as much as I wanted to. Nothing has really changed so I expect to be slow to reach the level cap lol. I might book some annual leave when it is released though
The Problem is, when you increase the level duration, this problem gets worse.
Example:
For this example, l say a hard core gamer is 3 times faster than a normal player (it is even more, but for the example let us say 3 times).
If a hard gore player can reach max level in 240 hours playtime a normal gamer would need 720 hours.
Therefore, the hard-core player has now a 480 hours playtime advantage to farm gold items and set the market up.
If you would expand, the duration to 350 hours playtime for hc gamer than the normal gamer would need 1050 hours. Now the hc players have an advantage for 700 hours.
On top of that, there is this in my opinion shitty old school EQ1 mentality: I was here first so I farm this boss as long as I want to and if you steel my boss I am killing for hours I will report you.
I do not care if vr expands the level up time, but keep in mind that this means, that hc player will get a bigger advantage.
I play the game for entertainment. It's a chance to break away from the daily doldrums, and do something more constructive than watching TV.
If there are players who want to race to max level, so be it. How they play the game is their perogative, and I play as I want to play.
If those power levelers monopolize the game and economy, and it takes the fun out of the game for me, then I will go find something else (Which it would take a lot). So be it.
In the end, it is just a game, I have plenty of things I COULD do with my time, but I choose to use some of it to enjoy a virtual world and meet new people. And it's cheaper than going to the bar. ;)
dayhjawk said:I want leveling to take as long as possible. I want by the time new content is dropping, I just now looking at the "cap" for my level. I want a time sink like everquest was. I do not want 4-6 months from when I start, to be hitting the level cap and waiting another 6 months to a year for new content to be around the corner. I understand there are many out there that don't have that kinda of time, and don't want it. But a time sink, that a year from when you start you starting to get to the "cap" means longevity, to me.
Me too.
dayhjawk said:A suggestion I had was to add in options a "XP scaling" bar. Where the player can side that bar by 25/50/75/100. Everyone starts at 100%, mean they gain normal experience, going to 75%, means you only gain 75% of the normal experience, and 25% is lost, rinse repeat to 25%. That way the player can decided how fast he/she wants to level. If i want a more slower pace leveling then I can adjust my experience to that. If i play longer than some friends, I can adjust that so I gain less experience, so I am not outleveling said friends.
I like that idea. My problem is typically the reverse of yours. I do also play relatively long hours, but because I tend to "waste" a lot of time doing things that don't pay off in combat XP, my friends tend to outlevel me. But if I could find friends with your preference such an XP-adjustment feature would enable me to keep up without forcing myself to do more dungeon runs than I feel like.
Maybe we should found a guild for XP snails together. :)
Ayren said:Mekismo said: The problem with MMO games is that the quicker a player reaches max level cap the more powerful/wealthy in game they become so it gives those minded people even more incentive to power level to the cap. Take EQ for example, the first players to farm lower guk or sol b would be loaded with the most desirable loot to use or sell on (Ykesha sword for example). And the other other issue is the ability to sell in game currency/items for real money. Again, this incentivises players to be the first to reach level cap. Even when I first played EQ back in 99 when I was 20 I still had a job and a girlfriend and never got to play as much as I wanted to. Nothing has really changed so I expect to be slow to reach the level cap lol. I might book some annual leave when it is released thoughThe Problem is, when you increase the level duration, this problem gets worse.
Example:
For this example, l say a hard core gamer is 3 times faster than a normal player (it is even more, but for the example let us say 3 times).
If a hard gore player can reach max level in 240 hours playtime a normal gamer would need 720 hours.
Therefore, the hard-core player has now a 480 hours playtime advantage to farm gold items and set the market up.
If you would expand, the duration to 350 hours playtime for hc gamer than the normal gamer would need 1050 hours. Now the hc players have an advantage for 700 hours.
On top of that, there is this in my opinion shitty old school EQ1 mentality: I was here first so I farm this boss as long as I want to and if you steel my boss I am killing for hours I will report you.
I do not care if vr expands the level up time, but keep in mind that this means, that hc player will get a bigger advantage.
Personally I could care less about the market. In fact, I would prefer a game where no player trade is allowed at all outside of an NPC controlled vendor system so that all players are required to put in equal effort as it was designed to obtain an item from its original location. I don't even use the market systems because I find them to be gimmicks to circument game play. So if someone rushes to top level, farms a bunch of items and has a big stack of money, I really don't care as the effect they will have on me will be there regardless of who gets there first and who gets to be the most wealthy. The last thing I want to see them do is spend design effort to cater to the trade system which by its very design allows people to avoid having to defeat that content to obtain it.
What I want is a game I will be playing for years, not one where by just playing with any enthusiasm ends up with me hitting max level in little time. I would hope that even if I get time off, or am able to spend extra time each week to the game, the result is not the game ending for me, because for people like me, end game means you have explored experienced most of the content already and have obtained most of what you were seeking to obtain (I have no desire to play the EQ contested raid game race), so the sooner I get to end game, the sooner I find the game less enjoyable.
I think they should design the leveling curve (and game progression) not on the average player, but the top 20% averaged among itself. This way, in most cases other than the extreme players, there will be long term development and play. If they design it for the average or below average, a good percentage of the gaming base will hit max too quickly. I know some people who play very little do not like this prospect, but they can't expect a game to be made easy in terms of progression time because they "personally" lack time to play. In fact, there are tons of MMOs out there that cater to that very expecation, not every game needs to attend to it.
That is funny, because of Pantheon, I am playing P99 now as well. I was hardcore EQ player back in the day, and even though that game is 20+ years now, I am having a blast. Only thing that bothers me is that my skills have been softened over the years by other games in the genra. But my survival skills are slowing getting more and more honed.
As to the leveling, I do not mind it taking forever to level, and that it needs to be earned. If your casual, that is something you need to be content with. I used to be able to put in 8-12 hours a day back in the old EQ days, but now I am a professional in my field, 5 kids and a wife. So 2-3 hours a day at most is all I will be able to do with friends. Maybe more on weekends. I am ok still with the fact that I will earn my level like the rest. I want no system that makes it easier for me because of my situation. I want to play the game just like everyone else. I am not special or deserve any type of concideration. The only cocideration I would like is to be treated like everyone else and receive the same gaming expereince that the Hardcore will expereince. It will just be on my own timeline. I am so tired of hearing people complain that its not fair or want handouts. I like to earn my way through life, and feel cheated with I am treated like I have some type of handicap. Being casual is not a handicap, its they way you like to enjoy your game. Like I said, I hope the Dev team for Pantheon keep this in mind when they settle on something. I can almost bet there will be players out there or people that will complain, its our society today, they like their free, void of any achievement, work/labor for their rewards which results in nothing consequential or meaningful. When I see a level 50 or reach level 50, I would like to expereince the satisfaction no matter what pain or time it took me to reach it, because its my reward and not a cheap platitude given to me unfairly because I am not hardcore.
Thanks
Well, the pace of levelling and the time needed to do raid content are two different things. It should not take 10, 12, 20 hours to raid something...not because it should be different than EQ, but because that is beyond idiotic. The levelling pace though, as said, should be slow and take a long time. PART of why EQ took so long, was not just because it took a lot of exp to level, but because you spent SO much time doing stuff like travelling between zones or continents or areas, exploring zones, camping items even if they did not yield the best exp, working on quests, etc. The game was the game, not just the current MMO mindset of everything is about max levelling speed. Even in EQ if all you did was focus singlemindedly on getting max exp at all times, you could have levelling faster than you did (although still slowly).
It took me almost 3 years to get to 50, and while I do not want that level of pace today, I would not mind to see it take a year for a dedicated, regular player on average. I do not want to see any max level players in a month, or two months like other games. I want that to literally be impossible. I would argue that at best, 6 months should be the minimum time someone could make it to 50. Part of that requires that the game be engaging and interesting and the content and design support that kind of journey, because if it is just a mindless slog and is boring, than that will not be good either.