I think you mean Diminishing experience. I think it is a great way to get people to move around. But plenty of people like to set up in one place and stay there a while. Too much of that can lead to problems, but as long as there isn't 'too much' of it, I don't see why they shouldn't do it.
We haven't heard any more that I know of about 'Diminishing Returns' on abilities, that we heard about a while ago. If VR does that, we might well see something like you describe here.
I didn't like this idea when it was about drops, I still don't like it when its about xp. Why do you think people need to be pushed to explore more?
How many hours does it take to go everywhere and see everything in one of the sprawling dungeons? Its going to be more than 2 hours or these are going to be problematic dungeons.
Using the same logic you should be punished for leaving the zone before you see everything. You want to get people to explore afterall don't let them miss content... no one should be told how to play an MMO.
I don't think people should be pushed to explore. I think they should be pushed to move to a different spot, if they stay in one place for a very long time. A 'very long time' in my opinion would be way longer than 2 hours. Perhaps not at all if the zone isn't crowded.
Every rule in Pantheon tells players how they may play or may not play it. This is nothing more or less than that.
If a person is staying for a really long time in one area it is unlikely, they are there for EXP and more likely they are interested in a rare drop. I doubt this idea would even work to solve the intended issue. I am hesitant to even call it an issue as I am not sure I even see it as one. Make lots of content with lots of potential areas to hunt for loot and exp is the best way to solve content availability problems.
Susurrus said:If a person is staying for a really long time in one area it is unlikely, they are there for EXP and more likely they are interested in a rare drop. I doubt this idea would even work to solve the intended issue. I am hesitant to even call it an issue as I am not sure I even see it as one. Make lots of content with lots of potential areas to hunt for loot and exp is the best way to solve content availability problems.
I have to disagree on the rare drop chance. In the days I played EverQuest. We would grind for hours in DSH for AA experience. One of the very fun things to do back in Underfoot / House of Thule days when you were getting ready for higher end content.
I generally agree with the negative response but I think there is one point the naysayers are missing.
As a mechanism to force us to explore more I think its a terrible idea for the reasons others have given. But as a mechanism to prevent groups from hogging a scarce resource (particularly good camps) for hour after hour after hour and not letting other people have a chance it has a lot more to recommend it.
But the disadvantages outweigh the advantages especially since a group hogging a camp would simply roll-over its membership rather than leaving the camp vacant for others.
Raidil said: Dimension experience Yes feel about something like this? The more time you spend in the area let's say past a 2-hour point your experience starts to slow on the amount that you can get from the same mobs.. maybe it's focus more on the area you're in in the zone but also has minor effect in the greater zone. This would push people to explore.
What? Seriously? Just because I want to stay in a given area suddenly the XP I should be earning starts to decrease? The game doesn't need to push me to explore, I will do that on my own. Having contrived mechanics like this to try and force me to move around is just going to push people out of the game.
dorotea said: ... But as a mechanism to prevent groups from hogging a scarce resource (particularly good camps) for hour after hour after hour and not letting other people have a chance it has a lot more to recommend it. ...
IMO:
What situation can you imagine where this wouldn't be a solved problem with many solutions? I'm not singling you out, dorotea, I just see this argument for years, and it's just yet another missed opportunity, from my perspective. Diminishing Returns (not on CC) is not the answer. It's among the worst possible options, historically.
If the problem is: This resource is only available at this one camp in the entire game world?
A Solution: Make it available in more than one camp in the entire game world.
If the problem is: There aren't enough camps in the entire world?
A Solution: Make more camps in the entire world.
If the problem is: There are too many people in too many camps in the entire world?
A Solution: Reduce the server population cap. (and/or Make more camps in the world)
I mean, really, 'scarce resource' is not a thing, if you want the mechanic that utilzes the resource to be used. Does VR want the mechanic to be used? Then the resource must be made available.
If it can be produced via any game loop (harvesting, crafting, adventure, combat, exploration, diplomacy, many/some/more/any) at whatever rate, over time, then that's what it will be produced at, sequentially or in parallel. If something has a 1% drop rate, than it will come into the world at that rate. You can fully expect, averaged over enough drops/kills over enough time, that you'll see ~1 enter the world after 100 times killing that enemy. If that's happening thousands of times per day.. there will be a lot of that, whatever it is.
Objectively, there is absolutely no problem with everyone have an infinite amount of everything if you tie the creation of useable and/or tradeable rewards to agonizing personal choice that involves an NPC, and appropriate/commensurate costs or sinks, including time, currency, XP, and more.
It is trivial to make the creation of anything of value require the consumption of multiple TIMES the resources and hours required to obtain the mats. Including outputs of all dropped gear, items, consumables, and more. That no-one has had the will to do it, so far, doesn't make it less true.
But of course, all of these are off the table and history repeats itself if you drop currency and immediately use-able/equippable items directly from vanquished enemies. Which Pantheon, so far, fully intends to do.
I only mention this because people are so worried about "the economy" and "monty haul" and "loot cornucopia" and "gold explosions" and all these other things which, if you actually spend 5 minutes of design on it, are all non-issues, provided you have the will to not make everyone rich by default. It's a single player mentality applied to a multi-player game, and it's broken.
In other words, there is no economy. No first/third person developed-in-north-america fantasy-themed MMO has had an economy that I've ever heard of or seen, nor anyone in my guild.
They've all had runaway inflation and exploited RMT currency disparity from day 1, because exactly zero seconds of effort has gone into any serious effort at design. That's not an economy. That's guaranteeing failure.
This community of interest treats these problems as unsolved because they keep looking at one example (EQ1) of how loot, drops, camps, mobs, and the combat loop in general was/is done. It was and remains flawed in many ways from an economic perspective. The recent TLP change to randomly distributed loot by zone instead of specific drops by mob went a long way, but it still has a ton of issues.
This is a design issue, not an implementation or social issue. With appropriate design, all players can have access to infinite amounts of everythiing (which they will, anyway, with the flawed/existing current/historical temporal-based systems) and it means exactly nothing with respect to "the economy".
At least with appropriate design, you avoid the RMT, currency disparity exploitation, money laundering, and runaway inflation.
And regarding the overly optimistic view of Diminishing Returns (not on CC) that "it's tuneable"? It's not. This is another knife-edge problem. It's a two dimensional object. :) It's just like progeny, or how many hours to max level. You cannot pick a number that is punitive enough to the hardcore that is not overly punitive to the casuals. Likewise, you can't pick a number that rewards the casuals and won't be exploited by the hardcore. In order for Diminishing Returns (not on CC) to be effective, it has to, it MUST punish the hardcore, which invariably will simply punish the casuals more.
tl;dr? Diminishing return on anything but CC, and especially in the combat/economy loops? To echo Vandraad's sentiment, it simply drives customers out of the game. Just like it did in GW2.
I think that there need to be natural incentives for people to move around the world. However, if you are having to implement something like diminishing returns on experience based on time spent in an area and not level gain in that area, then you have designed the game wrong at a basic fundamental level.
I think I have to agree and yet disagree with some of you. I think the game should always emphasize for the different play style crowds to have a chance at enjoying the game whether it's through camping at certain spots or running the zones for questing or you name it. Honestly, the way I feel about it, is, if the game forces their players to experience the way in a linear way and always appease a certain crowd, then, I really feel a part of the player base will not enjoy the game how they'd like to. A perfect example, is that, if I'm not able to have a socializing experience with my friends and focus on just grinding that said quest or task you put yourself through, then I feel that it will lose the purpose of socializing and form a fun community to be a part of. If I'm not able to do that and I'm not able to enjoy the game by being focused on questing, then I really don't want to do that when I come from a game that I rarely enjoy it with friends. But of course, we'll see how that turns out and what the community would feel like.
FatedEmperor said:I think that there need to be natural incentives for people to move around the world.
Plenty of incentives:
And for me, sometimes, tranquillity.
To me, the Camping Experience (TM) will be a core part of the game, and punishing people for camping should not be part of the Pantheon experience. You'll already have to deal with people showing up wanting to /duel you for your camp, or just straight up trying to take it from you. ;)
But besides that there is a huge set of layers to a decision like this. The first major one is defining the "group". If someone leaves and someone new joins is that a new "group"? Or is it the same "group" for so long as that group exists even if all original members get replaced? The first one is exploitable and the second one punishes the new people for something they're not doing.
Also while we're asking what defines a group, what defines a "camp"? That was frequently nebulous in previous games where mobs usually didn't wander around too much (especially in dungeons) but it might be even more so in Pantheon. How large of an area will we define as a "camp"? If we make it too small you can just move from "camp" to "camp" within a small area and never run into the diminishing returns. If you make it too big now you're forcing people to leave the whole dungeon after two hours and the next closest dungeon of appropriate level might be on a different continent.
We actually saw this in Dark Ages of Camelot. If anyone cleared a camp of mobs (camps were very obvious in that game,) the next set of mobs that spawned there would be worth less XP for a certain time (if I'm remembering right, it's been a while.) So if I came across a group of goblins and killed them all then moved on and you came a long a bit later and killed those goblins it would tell you that you got X experience minus Y amount for being a dirty camper. What's funny is that this had 0 effect on camping in the game because most mobs respawned very quickly. Some of the best camps respawned instantly and you could just keep pulling.
Which brings me to a second major layer. Opportunity cost. So you've been at a camp for 2 hours and now you're earning 15% less xp per kill. Okay, that sucks but unless there's an unclaimed camp within a short walking distance what are you going to do? Are you really going to spend upwards of another hour traveling to a new location for the possibility of a camp? You could get there and the whole place could be full, even if you checked before moving. Now what? You could have spent that hour killing mobs and getting 85% of the experience. That's better than 0%. A lot better. Heck even 50% would still be preferable in that scenario. When faced with a risk like that, the majority of people will stick to the option that is a guaranteed reward rather than risking it for the possibility of something better.
Diminishing Experience would create many issues and would not even solve the perceived issue of people spending too long in a single camp.
It would be far more advantageous to offer a carrot instead of a stick. First time in this dungeon this week? 5% bonus to experience for the next two hours. Or maybe there's a perception quest in each dungeon that requires you to kill several of each mob type. Rewards could vary and completing 1 from each "tier" of dungeons (i.e. lvl based, 1-5, 5-10, 10-15, etc) could net you a nice reward. etc, etc, etc.
"What situation can you imagine where this wouldn't be a solved problem with many solutions? I'm not singling you out, dorotea, I just see this argument for years, and it's just yet another missed opportunity, from my perspective. Diminishing Returns (not on CC) is not the answer. It's among the worst possible options, historically."
Don't forget that my bottom-line is the same as yours - I do not support this proposal. But I am perfectly happy to discuss the concept of limited resources.
Limited resources is intrinsic in the basic concept of a game that does not rely heavily on instancing. Which neither I nor you want Pantheon to do.
Limited resources is intrinsic in the basic concept of having a world with different things and different peoples and different potential enemies. Some enemies will, and should be, more desirable for those looking for a difficult challenge. Some enemies will, and should be, more desirable for those looking for a relaxing social time withhout a lot of challenge. Some enemies will be clustered to promote fast killing by good groups with powerful area attacks and good tanks to keep them alive. Some enemies will be more powerful individually and ideal for those not relying heavily on area attacks. And so on. Some areas will be convenient to get to - not too far from an adventuring "hub". Note I do not say quest hub. Some enemies will be harder to reach, and get back from.
In other words - it is certain that some camps will be more desirable than others although the composition and disposition of a group will affect their standards for what camps to seek. It is certain that there will be many campable areas scattered around multiple areas but it is also certain that unless the game is a failure or server population is kept much lower than feasible in a group-centric game multiple groups will want the same camps. Possibly there will be enough camps that almost everyone can find one - even during prime time. More likely - not so. But with a probability nearing certainty the number of the most desirable camps will be significantly less than the number of those that want them.
All of this said to support the concept that the idea of keeping one group from sitting on the same camp hour after hour after hour has some validity though I *hope* that there will be enough camps that there will be things for almost all players to do.
To me this is a theoretical discussion. I do not intend or want to spend much time in camps. I find camping one of the most tedious and boring ways to gain experience or treasure. I want to go from town to town and realm to realm helping people out through quests (yes my preference is to be very "good" and I will not play an evil character). I want to go into dungeons not to find a spot to kill trash for 10 hours but to move toward the bosses and eventually kill same - for experience or loot or just to do a good deed.
On the topic of whether the game should focus on camping or questing - both! Just as I have often urged VR to support soloers as well as groupies under the broad umbrella of a group-focused but not group--forced game. The more people we can appeal to even if the game is not *quite* as good for some playstyles as others the more subscribers and the more success. A successful game that appeals to soloers as well as groupies; questors as well as campers - is far superior for all four playstyles than a game that fails. Though this has diverted from the primary topic.
dorotea said:... It is certain that there will be many campable areas scattered around multiple areas but it is also certain that unless the game is a failure or server population is kept much lower than feasible in a group-centric game multiple groups will want the same camps. Possibly there will be enough camps that almost everyone can find one - even during prime time. More likely - not so. But with a probability nearing certainty the number of the most desirable camps will be significantly less than the number of those that want them. ...
IMO:
This is the attitude I'm referring to. It's.. defeatest? Planning to fail? Failing to plan? (/sphinx)
It just seems very odd to me to intentionally implement something in a way that you know, historically and logically, is a solved problem. Why not just implement a solution, instead?
If you set your server population caps appropriately, and create enough content, then the problems of the past are no longer problems.
They're simply opportunities for your customers to experience the service you're providing.
Instead of having a few dozen targets in solb or lower guk, have 6 possible places for people to go, with hundreds of mobs.
These are veteran developers, hopefully among which at least 1 played EQ1 and has learned from the failures of the past.
What's the downside to having groups of players be able to consume open world content? Isn't that the ideal?
Or is the design really to force groups together into not-enough-content in not-enough-areas to force toxic social interactions? That's the attraction?
That seems like the opposite of learning from history; it seems intentionally recreating it, to me.
You are forced to move when you out level the area. No need to kick people out of the zone before that happens imo. I personally like to hunker down and grind in one area for a while, if I starting getting less exp after 2 hours, then I would go to the closest are I could get equivalent exp for 2 hours, then back to the original spot. This doesn't offer anything positive for the game.
We have two different aspects to this problem.
One aspect is the supply of enemies. You are right - in designing a zone VR can build in scores of campable locations, largely redundant, so that there are usually enough for all at that level. The one thing I would ask in a zone with so many enemies is that the locations be somewhat discrete and not on the main paths. It can be highly inconvenient to have to fight dozens of battles just to get from one place on a road to another or from a questgiver to the quest location and then again on the way back. Roads need not be entirely safe - nor should they be. But they shouldn't represent Grand Central Station for enemies either.
The second aspect is server population caps. The smaller the cap the less the issue of access to resources - unless resources are reduced as well. But also the harder it is to find groups especially at off-peak hours. Especially to find groups with whatever role is scarce on the server - likely tank or healer. This is what VR has to balance - unpleasant overcrowding at one end especially peak hours against unpleasant lack of people to group with at the other end especially off-peak hours. I do not envy them this job especially since population will not be static but is likely to spike at release and then plummet. They do not like the idea but they may yet find no better solution than multiple phases of the same zone when population is excessive.
((accidental duplicate post - forum lag was bad for a while))
I think there is a difference bewteeen camping,crawling and task repeating. Like in the southpark episode where they killed pigs ad naseum untill they maxxed level. Sure you can still camp it, but there comes a point where you outgrow the monsters and they dont give as much benefit as they used to. maybe moreso with task-like quests.