HemlockReaper said:Jobeson said: Players will be able to die a dozen times to lose xp and stay their level.Assuming there will be Xp loss at death, Thats called an exploit, and players using that to manipulate their level should be permanently banned.
...What? That is absurd.
Be realistic developers cannot predict every way the game mechanics will be used. If you have too strict of rules people will be band like crazy. What if I give my sword to my wife to renew my values? Should I be band? It is I am sure not intended by the developers? Bans for untended use of game mechanics still need to be based on the damage the player is doing to the world.
Now you might think artificially keeping your level low is ban able on its own right but I just do not see it. Unless they are going to prevent higher level people from playing the same content, which I really hope they will not do and I have yet to play a game that did that. If they don’t then you will still be able to get all the loot etc. from a dungeon with less risk. How would it not be better for everyone if you have a level appropriate for the content?
Along the same line of logic.
Vanguard, the true progeniter of EQ1 by the creator, had many features that allowed players to control leveling and XP gain.
One feature that Vanguard had was "Brotherhoods".
Brotherhoods allowed multiple characters to join a brotherhood and all share the pool of XP that each gained as they played, allowing them all to level at the identical pace.
I and a couple friends used it extensively as we enjoyed making alts and leveling them. If one brotherhood member played while the other two were off, two thirds of the XP gained would be saved for the offline characters. And would be applied when they logged in.
We routinely used the brotherhood feature and loved it. We would start our brotherhood at character creation and our characters leveled at exactly the same pace.
HemlockReaper said:Knowingly using of a game system in a manner not intended by the game's designers is an exploit, and is generally cheating. It is highly unlikely that a death penalty of XP loss would have been intended to be used as a means of level manipulation.
This is an innacurate statement.
No game designer knows all possible functionalities of their design.
In complex games (such as many MMOs are) it is impossible to know programmatically all possible outcomes and have expectations for the results of 'all' possible gameplay.
In fact, in 'sandboxy' style games, unexpected ond original results are actually expected to be discovered and used by players.
Frankly it's how 'Kiting' came to exist in EQ1.
And yes, some players did use deaths to de-level when they desperately wanted to complete level-locked quests or for other functionalities.
Joppa actually said in a fairly recent stream that he was excited to see what kinds of cool things the players find that the Dev's hadn't planned for or intended. He seems to like the idea of players exploring new ideas and ways to do things. Obviously this will sometimes lead to players knowingly exploiting something to their extreme advantage (which would earn you a warning or a ban), but staying low level does not give anyone an extreme advantage.
Course, we're way off topic now. lol
HemlockReaper said:I’m not against someone choosing to stop XP, they may have a specific reason for it, but Having to turn of XP for friends just shows the leveling process is to fast. Additionally stopping XP could be a problem for extreme twinks as players stop xp just before a new level just to max their possible gear for the snapshot.
No one ever complained (that I'm aware of) in Vanguard about Mentoring, Brotherhoods and being able to stop XP.
Saying leveling is "too fast" makes zero sense as a player could choose to sit in the same camp for days on end and out-level immediate content and grouped players. Whose fault is that other than the player? You can't fault a game for gameplay by players that will be as diverse as peoples motivations are.
I can remember a great many groups/camps I was in where someone leveled and put the group members outside of the 5 level limit, thus blocking XP to the lowest level members of the group. I was on both ends of that equeation a number of times.
zewtastic said:HemlockReaper said:Knowingly using of a game system in a manner not intended by the game's designers is an exploit, and is generally cheating. It is highly unlikely that a death penalty of XP loss would have been intended to be used as a means of level manipulation.
This is an innacurate statement.
No game designer knows all possible functionalities of their design.
In complex games (such as many MMOs are) it is impossible to know programmatically all possible outcomes and have expectations for the results of 'all' possible gameplay.
In fact, in 'sandboxy' style games, unexpected ond original results are actually expected to be discovered and used by players.
Frankly it's how 'Kiting' came to exist in EQ1.
And yes, some players did use deaths to de-level when they desperately wanted to complete level-locked quests or for other functionalities.
They know their intended use for any given game system(s), and while it’s certainly possible for any game system to be used unknowingly outside the designers intended function, since some things are not as clear cut as others.
In the case of a Death penalty, I think it’s pretty clear than any reasonable person knows that a death penalty is meant to be a punishment, and reason not to die, and not a means to control your level.
Iksar said:How is that an issue at all? Who is that person hurting other than themself? They aren't gaining any kind of benefit over any other person or otherwise getting more than others (who could do the same if they really wanted to throw time away).
It may or may not be an issue with pantheon, but from past experience deleveling has been abused, especially with PVP systems that punish players killing lower level players. To avoid this they delevel while keeping some of the high level abilities and mass murder with out penalty.
HemlockReaper said:Iksar said:How is that an issue at all? Who is that person hurting other than themself? They aren't gaining any kind of benefit over any other person or otherwise getting more than others (who could do the same if they really wanted to throw time away).
It may or may not be an issue with pantheon, but from past experience deleveling has been abused, especially with PVP systems that punish players killing lower level players. To avoid this they delevel while keeping some of the high level abilities and mass murder with out penalty.
Sounds like another reason PVP and PVE do not mix well.
At first, I was thinking we had managed to get way off topic but as I think about it, I am not so sure. Dying to keep your level the same is just another way of turning off your experience. It is by far not my preferred way but it is a way. I think we have just added another way of accomplishing the same idea. HemlockReaper it sounds like you have a firm understanding of my point of view and I likewise think I understand yours. It seems we just happen to not agree.
Jobeson said: Players will be able to die a dozen times to lose xp and stay their level. So arguments against twinking don't really apply. Twinks, ahh, find a way. @disposalist I am referring to the common MMORPG leveling trope of 5-10 levels ends making your PC a god to content a few levels below you. Also a hopeless peon to high leveled creatures should you try to attack something a few levels higher than you. If leveling gives you options to use and new tools to solve problems with but not insane number growth in power then level ranges you can group with are much larger solving a ton great deal of the problem.
Good point. They wouldn't need to add a mechanic to turn off XP because you can just die as much as you need to stay a level. Very good point and way easier to implement haha.
HemlockReaper said:zewtastic said:HemlockReaper said:Knowingly using of a game system in a manner not intended by the game's designers is an exploit, and is generally cheating. It is highly unlikely that a death penalty of XP loss would have been intended to be used as a means of level manipulation.
This is an innacurate statement.
No game designer knows all possible functionalities of their design.
In complex games (such as many MMOs are) it is impossible to know programmatically all possible outcomes and have expectations for the results of 'all' possible gameplay.
In fact, in 'sandboxy' style games, unexpected ond original results are actually expected to be discovered and used by players.
Frankly it's how 'Kiting' came to exist in EQ1.
And yes, some players did use deaths to de-level when they desperately wanted to complete level-locked quests or for other functionalities.
They know their intended use for any given game system(s), and while it’s certainly possible for any game system to be used unknowingly outside the designers intended function, since some things are not as clear cut as others.
In the case of a Death penalty, I think it’s pretty clear than any reasonable person knows that a death penalty is meant to be a punishment, and reason not to die, and not a means to control your level.
I would agree that death is definitely a punishment.
But I do recall being in the situation where I had without warning, out-leveled a quest for whatever reason, (which is simply bad programming imo). And being somewhat annoyed as I had a bag full of turn-in items and considered the de-leveling option.
zewtastic said:But I do recall being in the situation where I had without warning, out-leveled a quest for whatever reason, (which is simply bad programming imo). And being somewhat annoyed as I had a bag full of turn-in items and considered the de-leveling option.
Out of curiosity, which game/quest was this? I don't recall being able to 'out-level' quests in EQ. I never played any of the similar MMO's (Vanguard, EQ2, WOW, etc). I don't like the idea of level restrictions on quests. If the rewards are proportionate to the difficulty, then it shouldn't be required to impose them. If you out-level the quest, there should be a more efficient use of time available. Conversely, if the quest reward is beneficial at any level, then your current level shouldn't restrict you from access--even if the effort is currently trivial.
I still think alot of this will go away with the match making system, becase you wil find others that have the smae play times as ytou and, by default, will be leveling at roughly the same rate so this will never be an issue. There may be some slight overlap if one person decides not to group and instead do non-combat activities but that difference will never be so wide as to block out one person from another. Even with shared experience ion a brotherhood type mechanic, while the adventurers are gaining battle skills the crafter is gaining crafting skills. However I think this would make sense if there is such a thing as a trivial loot code and there are items that are obtained at low levels that remain valuable through upper or even max level from some obscure clicky. It lends itself to a meta-questing mind set because you would want to stay a "noob" for as long as possible to be able to do all the nifty quests in all the cities and dsurrounding dungeons before they get trivial as well as boost faction before heading into the world at large in which case, the complaint may be for leveling too fast.
Manouk said:I still think alot of this will go away with the match making system, becase you wil find others that have the smae play times as ytou and, by default, will be leveling at roughly the same rate so this will never be an issue.
Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding the OP.
The point of the thread is for one or more FRIENDS to always be able to group together when they are all on, despite some of them having more time to play then others. Being able to find some stranger or PUG to play with on any given day isn't remotely the same thing.
Jothany said:Manouk said:I still think alot of this will go away with the match making system, becase you wil find others that have the smae play times as ytou and, by default, will be leveling at roughly the same rate so this will never be an issue.
Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding the OP.
The point of the thread is for one or more FRIENDS to always be able to group together when they are all on, despite some of them having more time to play then others. Being able to find some stranger or PUG to play with on any given day isn't remotely the same thing.
Exactly. Sure the matchmaking system (if it's in at launch...) will stop you having *nothing* to do, but a lot of my RL friends only play these games to play games with each other and me.
Some of them aren't really into MMORPGs, but would play if they get to play with the group of friends.
Jobeson said: @zewtastic "But I do recall being in the situation where I had without warning, out-leveled a quest for whatever reason, (which is simply bad programming imo). " This is why I really hope pantheon goes for a really low progression curve. It lets quests and group ranges be really wide without breaking the game. In a world advertised for the journey more than the common rush to max level to really start the MMO I think a slow progression fits with the idea.
Whatever the rate of progression, if there is enough content to support replay with alts, then there will be way more than can be experienced with one character.
If there is only just enough for one character to experience, then there won't be anything for replay.
I'm assuming there will be, like even Everquest had, more than enough content for replay with more than one character, but that being the case, those that only like to play a main will be missing out on 66% or more of the game.
bigdogchris said:Jobeson said: Players will be able to die a dozen times to lose xp and stay their level. So arguments against twinking don't really apply. Twinks, ahh, find a way. @disposalist I am referring to the common MMORPG leveling trope of 5-10 levels ends making your PC a god to content a few levels below you. Also a hopeless peon to high leveled creatures should you try to attack something a few levels higher than you. If leveling gives you options to use and new tools to solve problems with but not insane number growth in power then level ranges you can group with are much larger solving a ton great deal of the problem.Good point. They wouldn't need to add a mechanic to turn off XP because you can just die as much as you need to stay a level. Very good point and way easier to implement haha.
Hehe, yeah, perhaps a little unwieldy a technique compared to a UI toggle, but, yeah, you could always do that.
Jobeson said: Players will be able to die a dozen times to lose xp and stay their level.
Not commenting on the 'twinking' issue, but this has some serious potential downsides as a substitute for just turning off xp.
1. There's no guarantee that players will have access to a '/die' command. If we don't, then you're talking about finding a mob to kill you, then traveling back from wherever you are bound. While not a huge timesink, anything you have to repeat over and over will be a PITA
2. A larger issue: The class descriptions for healers already mention "resurrection sickness". If the default is to have it from any death and certain healer abilities remove it, then dying repeatedly to maintain level means spending a significant amount of time playing under such a handicap.
As I have yet to hear a definitive problem with having an XP toggle, I don't see a good argument for having to die instead of just turning off XP.
Elrandir said:zewtastic said:But I do recall being in the situation where I had without warning, out-leveled a quest for whatever reason, (which is simply bad programming imo). And being somewhat annoyed as I had a bag full of turn-in items and considered the de-leveling option.
Out of curiosity, which game/quest was this? I don't recall being able to 'out-level' quests in EQ. I never played any of the similar MMO's (Vanguard, EQ2, WOW, etc). I don't like the idea of level restrictions on quests. If the rewards are proportionate to the difficulty, then it shouldn't be required to impose them. If you out-level the quest, there should be a more efficient use of time available. Conversely, if the quest reward is beneficial at any level, then your current level shouldn't restrict you from access--even if the effort is currently trivial.
I was trying to remember which MMO/Quest. I have played so many. For a decade or more I tried to play any new MMO I heard about. I was addicted. I stopped with the Korean MMO's, when it became obvious they were all built with the same design. P2W, Grind2Win with RNG gambling.
If I were to guess, it was probably Vanguard. EQ1 didn't really have level-blocks in the start. It was very sand-boxish. (Thus why lowbies were able to get twinked with their epic class weapons early on.)
I spent the most time in the Vanguard MMO. But I wouldn't swear it was Vanguard. Sorry. Getting old. Memory of all those MMO years getting fuzzy.
disposalist said:So Joppa said mentoring would be post-launch. In the related discussion I highlighted my concern that it would have made playing with friends of different level progression speeds much easier, so it's ommission will make things quite difficult for me/us.
What just struck me when commenting about death penalty and XP loss is this: -
If mentoring is too much development effort to fit in before launch, how about a simple switch to turn off XP gain in the meantime?
For people like me, it would be very handy, since I care much more about being able to play with them than I do about racing to max level.
Even multiple friends all with different playing time can coordinate via social media these days and just agree to stick to a particular level cap until they can all get together again.
What do we think?
I just wanted to bring it back to the original suggestion, which I support. Setting up this would allow people to advance at the pace that they prefer.
Will it be needed? Hard to say. I find that in something like 95% of the MMOs I have played, I level faster than I really want to, and content becomes trivial/unrewarding to me as a result.
Even better than being able to toggle it off would be the ability to throttle it somehow. Maybe say "adjust my experience down to 70% of normal". That allows me to "soft-lock" my level so that I'm still progressing, just not as fast. It also provides a key data point that could be leveraged statistically by VR. While many players will probably just leave it at 100% because they feel that leveling is the point, being able to see how many people reduce their experience gain, and by how much, would provide a lot of useful information for VR to leverage in future content design.