Iksar said:Mordecai said: The mid level raids really does intrigue me. Could be a lot of fun. Pretty much gives the finger to hurry to end game.Only if they are level locked or have trivial loot coding.
This is true but I believe VR has mentioned that they plan on scaling encounters according to the number of players engaged but I doubt (unconfirmed opinion) that they will adjust the rewards accordingly, therefore discouraging high level players from engaging in lower level content for anything other than griefing lower levels by being first to engage or doing more dmg than others.
I really hope the content is good throughout the game so that I don't feel rushed to get to the end game, like Mordecai said: ,l,,
When it comes to trivial Loot, I think their should be a little bit of one, mainly so the high level characters stay in the high level areas, now im not saying like 45-50 strcitly, but a 35-50 seems quite reasonable, for one if the mobs are scaled correctly and the layout done well even some level 35 areas could prove quite difficult for mx level characters to solo, and therefore would still need a group to get such items.
But I dont think level 15 mobs should drop somethign a level 50 would want, it cuases high level character to prevent low level character from experiencing the game it's ment to be played, and can turn them off from wnting to go further due to knowing if it's like that at low level, than how is it going to be any different at higher levels.
This also touches nother note that I'm not going to mention here due to how well this convo is going, but this is basically my take of Trivial loot coding, should be used, but loosely, but not to loosely.
Just had a thought - what is actually WRONG with a high level character wanting to go back and get something that he missed from level 15 mobs? Some here are saying "it prevents low level characters from experiencing the game" etc but really, didn't the high level player have the right to see that same content? Certainly doing it at level 40 instead of 15 doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to experience that part of the game (even if the experience is easier because he's higher level)?
I don't know, just a thought I guess. I'd feel bad for someone who outleveled an area and was told "sorry, you can't be here anymore...get out, be gone!" before he got to see/do all he wanted to do there.
I like what one person said here about getting revenge. I remember a time in EQ when I went into upper guk to get my revenge on some mean old frog...most mobs were grey so I thought "Alright, his time has come!!" So I got to him, then somehow he called for help or something and I had 15 of them on me...DEAD AGAIN!! Well, I thought I was going to get my revenge but failed LOL. Bet you didn't see that coming.
(I realize that some of you are talking about intentional griefing low level players by taking spawns for the purpose of griefing. That part I agree with, but that's a different topic).
Edit: Side note, I looked at some old maps and found the frog that I never did end up getting my revenge on. He was the froglik shin lord. I went back again later at like 4am one day since no one was around, made my way to his room and tried again...and failed again.
Edit again: This kinda makes me want to get my old character restored and go get my revenge....
Ranarius said:Just had a thought - what is actually WRONG with a high level character wanting to go back and get something that he missed from level 15 mobs? Some here are saying "it prevents low level characters from experiencing the game" etc but really, didn't the high level player have the right to see that same content? Certainly doing it at level 40 instead of 15 doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to experience that part of the game (even if the experience is easier because he's higher level)?
I don't know, just a thought I guess. I'd feel bad for someone who outleveled an area and was told "sorry, you can't be here anymore...get out, be gone!" before he got to see/do all he wanted to do there.
I like what one person said here about getting revenge. I remember a time in EQ when I went into upper guk to get my revenge on some mean old frog...most mobs were grey so I thought "Alright, his time has come!!" So I got to him, then somehow he called for help or something and I had 15 of them on me...DEAD AGAIN!! Well, I thought I was going to get my revenge but failed LOL. Bet you didn't see that coming.
(I realize that some of you are talking about intentional griefing low level players by taking spawns for the purpose of griefing. That part I agree with, but that's a different topic).
That's actually why I was hoping mentoring would be in the game as you could more easily have some mobs/items with trivial loot coding and still allow anyone the chance to obtain whatever drops, just they would have to do it at the intended difficulty and likely with a group of appropriate level players. This would only help the server keep content relevant and grouping more fluid at all levels of play.
The problem is never one character who wants to go back and see/get/experience something they missed. It's when there's a hundred. They crowd out the new folks.
Or worse, people bottom-feeding on purpose to farm items to sell.
I'm a fan of scaling people down in level via mentoring or whatever, as long as the scaling algorithm doesn't leave them overpowered (which it does in so many games). I'm honestly scratching my head at why mentoring was cut for launch - I get that the team has to make cuts, but it doesn't seem like it should be all that much work on its own to implement. I'm not a programmer though, so maybe it's a lot harder for them to do than it seems.
((The "rest stop" or "waystation" idea that dorotea proposed doesn't need instancing. There are various ways you can implement it within any zone:))
I just cited what Jothany had said earlier and supported it.
Akilae - good, well written post. I still feel, however, that in a game with Pantheon's objectives it makes more sense not to follow the traditional approach but rather to focus on group content leaving raids and solo play as more incidental. I agree entirely that coordinating a raid is harder than coordinating a group but equally being one player in a raid is a lot easier than being one player in a group. Your point that loot should be better because the chance of any one person getting that loot is a lot lower is reasonable under the approach many other MMOs take to raids. But I am advocating a different approach under which raids are not treated as better or more important than group content. If four full groups spend two hours to complete a raid, I would prefer the rewards being closer to the rewards that four groups would get if they each did a dungeon separately. Maybe four "group quality" drops but no "raid quality" drops at all.
The idea is to have people think of group content as important in this game. Solo content is when you can't group. Raid content is for kicks when you want to do something different. Group content is the beating heart of the game.
Poor Smeagol. Such an interesting character. So important to the survival of the Free Peoples. So disrespected - first Frodo gave him the finger and then he fot seriously flamed.
Nephele said:The problem is never one character who wants to go back and see/get/experience something they missed. It's when there's a hundred. They crowd out the new folks.
Or worse, people bottom-feeding on purpose to farm items to sell.
I'm a fan of scaling people down in level via mentoring or whatever, as long as the scaling algorithm doesn't leave them overpowered (which it does in so many games). I'm honestly scratching my head at why mentoring was cut for launch - I get that the team has to make cuts, but it doesn't seem like it should be all that much work on its own to implement. I'm not a programmer though, so maybe it's a lot harder for them to do than it seems.
I think the problem with scaling *well* is that you aren't simply applying a ratio to everything. You would have to assess every ability of every class to see if it skews the intended power reduction. Some abilities aren't scalable at all. Like if you get Invisibility at level 20, how do you scale that to be level 10? Even if you half the duration, it still allows a capability that just wasn't there at level 10. And that's just one example from many potentials.
As you mention, other games do it, but don't do it well.
I think the recalling of the state of characters from when they *were* that level is safest, power-wise.
Just another social aspect (problem) in the game to be solved by social behavior. I guess we won't really know until we know the server populations, what items are sought after, wht camps are popular, etc. I think I lean toward not programming something to stop it though. For me - if something I want badly is being farmed by someone who just wants to sell it then I'll just go earn the money and buy it.
Honestly, I'd be completely okay with many or most rare/magic item drops to be flagged for a character once looted so that every character can loot these things 1 time. After that if they wanted more for some reason they can go to the market/engage with a crafter or partake in progeny/alts. Would also help curb the flow of items into the world.
Mordecai said: @iksar or just make an alt and go farm again. If said items were flagged for loot once.
Effectively that is still roughly the same. Basically you are able to get one copy of each flagged item per play through rather than an infinite number per play through. There will be a significant time cost to level an alt to an appropriate level to get said flagged item. That is a strong limiter on the maximum number of instances of the item that can appear on the server.
This would be a piece of cake for items you get from quests or NPC turn ins. Just make it a non-repeatable quest from a rare drop item. Not much of a fan of items dropping usable form. Lots of opportunities for crafter interactions if dropped items need to be cleaned up and resized by a crafter before it can be used at full strength.
I am not a big fan of these ideas.... I know I like to go back with my main and get items for my twinks....
Nytman said:I am not a big fan of these ideas.... I know I like to go back with my main and get items for my twinks....
That's part of the issue and why we are coming up with these ideas. Mitigating issues where high levels go down and deny appropriate level content for groups of players. I
Ranarius said:I don't really like some of these ideas because of the impact they would have on the economy of the game. The open market is part of what makes this a social game.
There would still be an open market, just not one flooded or controlled by someone controlling a camp for a popular item for weeks/months on end.
Mordecai said: Couldn’t find exactly where I saw it, but didn’t devs already say they plan on making multiple items that are pretty much the same things just spread out over different zones because of players perma camping mobs?
That is one thing they are doing to help mitigate farming, yes. Not sure that's a complete fix.
That's part of the issue and why we are coming up with these ideas. Mitigating issues where high levels go down and deny appropriate level content for groups of players.
This is one of those issues where the few ruin it for the many. I really don't like when a game design exists just because a few people out there make it no fun for someone else. If an item I'm looking for is being farmed by an appropriate level player then I should move on to somewhere else. If it's being farmed by a higher level player I should...move on to somewhere else. I'm fine with checking back later when that player is done. Tough to explain my point of view I guess, but I'd prefer to have no restriction (and I'm not even a farmer).
I keep going back to the social consequences bit. Let it play out, see what happens.