tehtawd said:this belief fundamentally ostracizes the community for no purpose other than that of showing off who has more time than others or who has been playing longer than others. This kind of prestige hurts gamers who want to play with other people. Can you explain a positive outcome of this? Because I certainly cannot, and I’d like to know how you and others think about this. But all I’m really getting from this is the whole “Back in my day we had to walk barefoot through the snow etc etc..”
I'm sure you believe all that to be true, I just don't agree that lacking the ability to down leveling your character is going to ruin the game/community as you say it will. Most MMO's over the past 2 decades do not have features like this and their communities are just fine.
Also, this is an online role playing game. The purpose of the game is to level up. No matter how hard you try someone will always level faster than you, so don't let it bother you. So your argument doesn't hold weight because if other people out leveling you bothers you, that's your issue not the developers issue. Maybe you're not playing in the right game space (competitive/online)
Even if I did agree, I not convinced 'down leveling' your character is a better option than making an ALT character to play with other people. I'd rather have the development resources put elsewhere rather than have time spent making and balancing a feature that can easily be handled by players by just making another damn character (or slew of characters).
Development resources should be put towards features that players have no control over and rely on developers to address, not features for things we can handle our self or hold our hands. What your asking for is like asking developers for macro's, ie. a feature you can do yourself (just put in effort and play the game) but would rather the developers give you an easy mode.
bigdogchris said:tehtawd said:this belief fundamentally ostracizes the community for no purpose other than that of showing off who has more time than others or who has been playing longer than others. This kind of prestige hurts gamers who want to play with other people. Can you explain a positive outcome of this? Because I certainly cannot, and I’d like to know how you and others think about this. But all I’m really getting from this is the whole “Back in my day we had to walk barefoot through the snow etc etc..”
Even if I did agree, I not convinced 'down leveling' your character is a better option than making an ALT character to play with other people. I'd rather have the development resources put elsewhere rather than have time spent making and balancing a feature that can easily be handled by players by just making another damn character (or slew of characters).
Because being able to maintain or level an alt isn't always possible. Let's say I have friends or family who start to level an alt or come into the game much later than I did. Your premise assumes I can play everytime they are online. However, this isn't always the case. Let's say they are level 10 and we play on a Monday night. I may not be able to get online for 2-3 days (work, classes, etc) and If I had an alt, my alt would already be behind their level or zone and therefore I can no longer group with them. With a mentor system, I can group with them regardless of whether they are level 15, or 4 days later at level 20, another 4 days later at 27 etc.
On a side note: As long as mentoring down doesn't trivialize content, it has no impact on other players. If I mentor down to a friend while in X zone in this area and effectively become a level 6, it doesn't stop anyone else from doing what they are doing at that given time in the entire game.
@bigdogchris The last two decades did have more than a few games which had systems like this. Final fantasy 14 and guild wars 2. The feature and argument holds weight, it doesn't need my belief to be true the facts stand for themselves.
As kobrashade said, Alts don't fix the issue well enough either. Try and understand others aren't as competative as you. This feature does not take away from competition or prestige. It just brings people together so they can play.and from what I am reading its better than level syncing in ff14 I'm trying to see it from your view Chris. I think it's nice to be proud of your level or being farther along in the race than others. But not everyone feels that Way. This feature isn’t taking away anyone’s achievement, it’s just helping people get together and play, and it’s better than making an alt by a long shot. Sent via mobile -Todd
This thread serves to remind me how tenuous humanity's collective hold on reason really is. The only sound argument put forward by the opponents of this feature, in 6 pages of discussion, is how such a feature requires the players to suspend their disbelief. In weighing this against the numerous advantages detailed in many previous posts, I think it is a good idea. I have never played a game with such a system, but the social advantages seem too good to pass up. As long as experience gain by the Mentor is negligible to nill and the nerfing of the mentor is done in such a way so as to reduce them to a peer of the pupil, I don't see how anyone loses more than they would gain with such a system.
For those who support instancing, please search the forum on that topic. It has already been discussed ad nauseam.
Not that I think there was any lack of solid arguments against mentoring already in the thread (including immersion), but I will just repost my thoughts on mentoring from another thread.
If there is a way to make mentoring work, it will involve limitations to the system so that it won't be abused. The risk I feel we run with a mentoring system, much like other convenience systems, is that it could ultimately trivialize progression. A level-cap on mentoring is just one of the things that might make such a system work.
In the past, problems with mentoring were mostly the result of mentors exceeding the power of normal characters. However, that was not the only drawback as I mentioned earlier in the thread. What it also did was trivialize the social aspect of the game. Instead of players needing to get out there and meet people, they were able to ignore the general populus and rely on their preexisting community - their guilds or their real life friends. It promotes a policy of exclusion rather than inclusion. Some people will think, "Well what is wrong with that? Shouldn't I be able to play with whomever I want, whenever I want?" Yes, to some degree, but if there is a level disparity, the rules of the world should not bend to accomodate you.
When you bend those rules, you do so at the peril of others. You see, a large portion of the playerbase of any given server will be randoms. New players, casual players or those who have no in game affiliations; they need the affiliated and unaffiliated alike.
Players must need each other. Its not just a matter of creating group-only content. Its a matter of encouraging players to look among their peers for people to play with. That means not giving them a way to circumvent such social challenges by allowing them to group with only those they're already affiliated with. When there is no 'easy out', "random" players become a valuable commodity and a good reputation, of great importance. Mark my words, people will take the path of least resistance. Especially when it comes to finding the fastest and most efficient ways to progress in an MMORPG.
Preserving the scarcity of playmates... The argument that electrons people follow the path of least resistance is a compelling one. People will do this, but their objective is not always the same. For me, there is great joy in teaching a new person the ropes. So much so that I spent lots of time searching for new players to bestow my old gear on in my P'99 days. I would certainly have used mentioning as a recruiting tool for my guild had it been available. Being a druid It was hard to contribute beyond porting for raids. I would go around buffing the crap out of all the new players I could find and giving them advice. Surely it would have been a better experience if I could have joined up with them, at or bellow their own level, to illustrate some methods. This would have been a powerful recruiting tool acting in direct opposition to your argument that mentioning would serve a divisive end. It would serve the end you describe, but only for some of the people on the server. I think that your argument too pessimistic an appraisal of humanity. If it is not; we have bigger problems than whether or not to include mentioning in Pantheon.
edit for spelling
For me, there is great joy in teaching a new person the ropes. So much so that I spent lots of time searching for new players to bestow my old gear on in my P'99 days. I would certainly have used mentioning as a recruiting tool for my guild had it been available. Being a druid It was hard to contribute beyond porting for raids. I would go around buffing the crap out of all the new players I could find and giving them advice.
OMG you are so nice! We need more people like you in games!
-Todd
Jason said:You are deep within a dungeon in a group that took you ages to get together. You are having a great time. Suddenly your only tank or only healer *dings* and gains a level. Now there is a level gap that prevents certain or all people in the group from getting XP . Your tank or healer who just dinged informs your group that they must regretfully leave because of the XP situation and there are no other tanks or healers around to take their place. You cry as your group breaks up for the night. Could or should this be able to be prevented ?
"Well back in my day....." We would consider the risk of the person dinging before us, resulting in that happening to the group.. Just use your brain, ask yourself if it is worth the risk (and/or by how much is he ahead of you? 1 yellow? and could the group kill for 20-30min to get the lowest person to ding, then reinvite the other member, etc) especailly now as an adult, if i were the high lvl person, i'd happily disband and sit in the corner of highkeep in the basement /AFK for 20min to pack one up, do cleaning around the house, sit with my daughter, etc..
That being said, I'm all for there being an EXP lock. In the current emulator of EQ1 I play, they do exp locks so they can kill raid-type mobs (Adepts) that are only killable at certain lvl's so some people would prefer to get good gear for their lvl, instead of lvl'n to cap and raiding end-game stuff. To each their own..
The emulator also would allow everyone to get exp, as long as the highest lvl person gets exp- everyone will get it, however, it reduces SIGNIFICANTLY when a person is much lower than the highest lvl person in the group. Though, this could be avoided with the EXP lock if doing regular grouping. Personally, this is how I would sometimes power level some of my alts if I couldn't get a group.. Sneak them into a higher lvl zone (estern wastes- orc fort), kite on my main. My lvl65 main would get sub par exp but not too terrible, however, the lvl30 alt gets less than if he were to solo dark blue mobs.. So it was probably slower to PL this way, but it was way safer and I was making a tiny bit more plat.
I think the newbie population is important to any online game. Be friendly, help out. Create an alt and go on a few adventures with that new person. Or mentor that new person. Newbies are the bread and butter of MMOs...it keeps the game from fading into oblivion. Pantheon gamers can get the reputation of being the friendliest and most welcoming. I've seen a few instances of this over the years, Saga of Ryzom, had a whole slew of people that sat in General chat, offering helpful advice, and or to adventure with new folks. They weren't rude, they didn't troll newcomers. I think if we set out with that mindset...it will do much to increase Pantheon's rep and therefore popularity. It's all up to us. :)
Cana
Dullahan said:What it also did was trivialize the social aspect of the game. Instead of players needing to get out there and meet people, they were able to ignore the general populus and rely on their preexisting community - their guilds or their real life friends. It promotes a policy of exclusion rather than inclusion.
Players must need each other. Its not just a matter of creating group-only content. Its a matter of encouraging players to look among their peers for people to play with. That means not giving them a way to circumvent such social challenges by allowing them to group with only those they're already affiliated with. When there is no 'easy out', "random" players become a valuable commodity and a good reputation, of great importance. Mark my words, people will take the path of least resistance. Especially when it comes to finding the fastest and most efficient ways to progress in an MMORPG.
It's a drawback, I agree. Generally speaking I think a mentoring system could be very fun and useful too tho (if tuned well etc).
Maybe the amount of mentors per group could be limited (say one or two max per group). Maybe mentors could even be gimped a bit, not equal but slightly below, to even it out with their experience and to make people who are leveling a more attractive choice.
Whilst I really like to respect everyone's opinion and all, I really can't see how people keep using the "roll an alt" argument to counter mentoring. (Not that mentoring *needs* 'countering').
If you start a new toon every time you meet someone you like playing with you're gonna need 100 character slots.
If you have a toon for every friend you have to keep them in sync you're going to need to play about 100 hours a day.
If two of your friends log on and you want to play in a group... er... you can't because you can't be the same level as both of them.
Etc.
Or you could just use mentoring...
Also, are people really arguing mentoring is 'less' sociable? Having friends and wanting to play with them is somehow 'avoiding socialising' lol.
There's a certain kind of person that goes out every night looking for new 'friends'. 'Sociable' is not what I'd call them hehe.
As soon as people have a friend or two, they go out with their friends. Yes, sociable people will meet strangers and get to know them, but you don't then abandon them the next night because it's more sociable to make new friends, lol.
Sure, in an MMO, I meet strangers and am happy to socialise (and play with them) *much* more than I do in real life, but wanting to be able to play with friends, real or made in-game, does not make the game anti-social.
You may as well ban guilds. Lost count in EQ P99 of the times I've walked up to a load of chars from another guild and happily asked "Hey, how's it going? I'm after a group here, can I join in the fun?". "No. Can't you see it's a guild event?". If you're thinking mentoring with a friend will ruin the social aspect of the game, then guilds must rank as complete game-busters.
99.9% of the players I would meet in game would be by a camp/dungeon/zone and they were within level range to group with. I started EQ right before Kunark so I was playing catch up and still managed to meet new friends and caught up with my old friends.
Never hung out in zones that was to low for me to gain xp in, other than EC Tunnel on Sundays.
I would pass through them and help lower levels if i saw someone in trouble but I didnt chill out there.
Greattaste said:No to mentoring. It cheapens the game and would lead to less class diversity because "Ill just mentor down" versus "Ill start a new toon with you, what should I play?"
People need to roll a new toon or delevel to go back.
I think the most likely option would be to just power level their friends so they don't have to level up another character they didn't wantto play.
Nanoushka said:Dullahan said:What it also did was trivialize the social aspect of the game. Instead of players needing to get out there and meet people, they were able to ignore the general populus and rely on their preexisting community - their guilds or their real life friends. It promotes a policy of exclusion rather than inclusion.
Players must need each other. Its not just a matter of creating group-only content. Its a matter of encouraging players to look among their peers for people to play with. That means not giving them a way to circumvent such social challenges by allowing them to group with only those they're already affiliated with. When there is no 'easy out', "random" players become a valuable commodity and a good reputation, of great importance. Mark my words, people will take the path of least resistance. Especially when it comes to finding the fastest and most efficient ways to progress in an MMORPG.
It's a drawback, I agree. Generally speaking I think a mentoring system could be very fun and useful too tho (if tuned well etc).
Maybe the amount of mentors per group could be limited (say one or two max per group). Maybe mentors could even be gimped a bit, not equal but slightly below, to even it out with their experience and to make people who are leveling a more attractive choice.
I think a limit on how many levels after ten you can be mentored, would encourage people to participate in other group events. I suggested mentoring up to and including level 20, but that is just an example. Guess I don't want to see any of that I hit level 50 in one day..silliness. So now that you are so far ahead, what do you do with your time..powerlevel someone else? How well do you know your class, are you effective in group adventures...are questions that need asking. People buying capped level characters...do they know how to play it? Do I want them in my group? So a limit on how many levels you can receive by being mentored might encourage folks to learn their class better...? Maybe?
Can someone who is against mentoring please consider this and answer this question...
If when a high level player opts to mentor a low level player and as a result the level, equipment stats, spells, abilities, health, a/c, mana pool, weapon damage, block chance etc etc (all stat related things) are correctly reduced (through testing) to a comparable or lower level of an average player of that level, how would this be any different to having a alt character at that level with the same (average) stats etc as stated before?
I for one believe for it to work correctly you need to (as an example) give each item they are a maximum stat potential based on the level not based on just re calculating each of the items current stats to a lower number.
Here is an example of what i mean regarding equipment if you didnt understand my opening statement.
"Awesome plate helmet of likely death to those who oppose the wearer" (lets say dropped from end game raid boss)..
Stats..
A/C 100
+50hp
+50Mana
+10Int
+10Stamina
+20 Magic Resist
5% Chance to cast lifetap when hit
Lets just say for the sake of this equation coming up that a a ranging A/C of a plate helmet in the range of level 1 - 10 is anywhere from 1 - 10 A/C, and if its a magic one would be likely to have only 1 stat or so on it.
If you drop all the player and item stats down to a certain level i dont think that alone cuts it, you still have an OP item for the level your mentoring even if you cut all item stats value by more than half (depending on the level) etc etc. But if have a maximum number of stat modifiers per item as well based on level your mentoring to then this goes a long way to help bring equality to the genuine low level chars.
So if you have a rule set in place that says (only example) if lvl 50 mentored to...
Levels 1-10 maximum each item worn has maximum 1 stat modifier per item, stats reduced by 99-90% including A/C & Damage etc
Mentored to level 10 now you have a helmet that has A/C 10 and +5hp and thats it.
Levels 11-20 maximum each item worn has maximum 2 stat modifiers per item, stats reduced 89-80% including A/C & Damage etc
Mentored to level 20 now you have a helmet that has A/C 20 and +10hp +10mana and thats it.
Levels 21-30 maximum each item worn has maximum 3 stat modifiers per item stats reduced to 79-70% including A/C & Damage etc
Mentored to level 30 now you have a helmet that has A/C 30, HP+15 Mana+15 Int+3 and thats it.
I am sure you can fill in the blanks after that...
Remember i am basing this with no knowledge of stats at any level just making up numbers so dont get bogged down on that. But this way it reduces the items worn massively, of course as well as the item being reduced the characters base mana/hp/dodge skill/ abilities to choose from are all reduced to the level you have mentored to.
Of course there are flaws in my maths here and these numbers would need to be re jigged for basically every level possibility and yes that would be a fair bit of work to come up with an equation that suits but all i am providing is a concept to hopefully show that if done correctly you can reduce a mentored players stats to at least the average of the mentor subjects level also (and i think very importantly) removing the bulk of the stat modifiers in lower levels leaves you with a fairly averagely capable mentor. In most circumstances this will probably actually leave you with an underpowerd mentor which I think is actually a better goal to aim for, if mentoring means that you are actually left with lower than average stats then this will encourage players to seek real level players instead of mentors reducing the powerleveling issue people have with mentoring also mean that content will not be trivialised.
The other important concept to be included is that (as an example) a lvl 50 cleric mentoring to level 10 will NOT be able to use his lvl 50 spells, he/she cant even use level 11 spells, they will have to re mem only spells available to them at the level and below.
With a system like this (probably a much better one) i dont really see how mentoring could trivialise content or allow for power leveling etc... all you get is a low level character in awesome looking (but actually average usefullnmess) gear that is actually potentially underpowered for the level.
Hokanu said:Can someone who is against mentoring please consider this and answer this question...
If when a high level player opts to mentor a low level player and as a result the level, equipment stats, spells, abilities, health, a/c, mana pool, weapon damage, block chance etc etc (all stat related things) are correctly reduced (through testing) to a comparable or lower level of an average player of that level, how would this be any different to having a alt character at that level with the same (average) stats etc as stated before?
Simple. Convenience.
One requires you to spend time gearing and leveling a new character. The other allows you to switch at any time making it easy for players to rely on previous friends or even boxed characters rather than encouraging players to seek out and meet new people.
Yes, it can be great when a game no longer has players to facilitate groups, but otherwise it can actually have an adverse effect on the social nature of the game as I explained in my post above.
Dullahan said:Hokanu said:Can someone who is against mentoring please consider this and answer this question...
If when a high level player opts to mentor a low level player and as a result the level, equipment stats, spells, abilities, health, a/c, mana pool, weapon damage, block chance etc etc (all stat related things) are correctly reduced (through testing) to a comparable or lower level of an average player of that level, how would this be any different to having a alt character at that level with the same (average) stats etc as stated before?
Simple. Convenience.
One requires you to spend time gearing and leveling a new character. The other allows you to switch at any time making it easy for players to rely on previous friends or even boxed characters rather than encouraging players to seek out and meet new people.
Yes, it can be great when a game no longer has players to facilitate groups, but otherwise it can actually have an adverse effect on the social nature of the game as I explained in my post above.
is this the strawman you referred to, since he was specifically referring to if/how mentoring would trivialize content and you quoted only part to misrepresent the post to argue against losing social interaction?
Dullahan said:Hokanu said:Can someone who is against mentoring please consider this and answer this question...
If when a high level player opts to mentor a low level player and as a result the level, equipment stats, spells, abilities, health, a/c, mana pool, weapon damage, block chance etc etc (all stat related things) are correctly reduced (through testing) to a comparable or lower level of an average player of that level, how would this be any different to having a alt character at that level with the same (average) stats etc as stated before?
Simple. Convenience.
One requires you to spend time gearing and leveling a new character. The other allows you to switch at any time making it easy for players to rely on previous friends or even boxed characters rather than encouraging players to seek out and meet new people.
Yes, it can be great when a game no longer has players to facilitate groups, but otherwise it can actually have an adverse effect on the social nature of the game as I explained in my post above.
I understand that part of it and i am an avid supporter of social, Ok so if you focus the reduction to ensure the mentor is underpowered comparitively to an average real low level player wouldnt the mentor be a less desirable team member and a group would be more likely to actively seek out a real low level character to replace.
Lets also say as an scenario you /shout in your zone for LF tank for Orc camp 1..
Bob the lvl 50 tank is kicking around in the same zone selling things and after seeing you /shout a few times he decides, i'm going to help these lil guys out for a while so he offers to join as a mentor. Because he gains nothing besides a good fuzzy feeling, somthing to do and potentially a few new friends he is helping but at the same time due to his underpoweredness from mentoring restrictions and also his greater interest in furthering his own character he and the rest of the group are still actively seeking a replacment for him as a better option.
I mean i see this as being much better than a level 50 getting out his twinked up alt so he can actually be way overpowered for the level right? (i know twinking is a different issue but its realistic to consider)
Also regarding your point to taking away the search for new friends, if a level 50 tank who would have mentored instead responds to your call and brings his alt (who is most likely twinked up) you are still using the same RL person behind the keyboard so its not really opening the horizon to new players its just using the same player with a different skin, no new friends have been included.
It can really play out either way i think... each with its positives and negatives. But by making mentors underpowered comparitively (remember that is the key to it working) then they are not the preference but can provide relief in a /LFG drought with the intent of moving on when a replacment is available.
alephen said:is this the strawman you referred to, since he was specifically referring to if/how mentoring would trivialize content and you quoted only part to misrepresent the post to argue against losing social interaction?
No, actually that would be a misunderstanding because I didn't realize his post was of a purely technical nature.
Threw me off by asking for someone against mentoring to offer an analysis.
Dullahan said:alephen said:is this the strawman you referred to, since he was specifically referring to if/how mentoring would trivialize content and you quoted only part to misrepresent the post to argue against losing social interaction?
No, actually that would be a misunderstanding because I didn't realize his post was of a purely technical nature.
Threw me off by asking for someone against mentoring to offer an analysis.
haha i do that as well all the time D,
Knowing how longwinded my posts always are and the TLDR nature of things I tried to bold the introduction of the example to help people get to the end :)
I couldn't even fathom having to have 10-20 alts just to have something to play with friends. Also with no fast travel it would be a headache to get to my friends. Heck, on the other note then I'd have to lvl another alt if I took an alt too high. And honestly I don't care for having tons of different classes. I'm a 1 character kind of guy.
... deciding to go without mentoring I think would just create problems. #opinion
-Todd
Hokanu said:I understand that part of it and i am an avid supporter of social, Ok so if you focus the reduction to ensure the mentor is underpowered comparitively to an average real low level player wouldnt the mentor be a less desirable team member and a group would be more likely to actively seek out a real low level character to replace.
Lets also say as an scenario you /shout in your zone for LF tank for Orc camp 1..
Bob the lvl 50 tank is kicking around in the same zone selling things and after seeing you /shout a few times he decides, i'm going to help these lil guys out for a while so he offers to join as a mentor. Because he gains nothing besides a good fuzzy feeling, somthing to do and potentially a few new friends he is helping but at the same time due to his underpoweredness from mentoring restrictions and also his greater interest in furthering his own character he and the rest of the group are still actively seeking a replacment for him as a better option.
I mean i see this as being much better than a level 50 getting out his twinked up alt so he can actually be way overpowered for the level right? (i know twinking is a different issue but its realistic to consider)
Also regarding your point to taking away the search for new friends, if a level 50 tank who would have mentored instead responds to your call and brings his alt (who is most likely twinked up) you are still using the same RL person behind the keyboard so its not really opening the horizon to new players its just using the same player with a different skin, no new friends have been included.
It can really play out either way i think... each with its positives and negatives. But by making mentors underpowered comparitively (remember that is the key to it working) then they are not the preference but can provide relief in a /LFG drought with the intent of moving on when a replacment is available.
I think the best way to implement some mentoring would be to scale it as its necessary in an extremely limited fashion. Maybe theres no mentoring at the start, but as the early leveling areas become less populated you allow mentoring 1-10 etc. As the level cap increases and this continues to happen, then maybe up the mentor cap further.
Another way would be to limit the number of mentors per group.
As to the technical aspect, I think the best way to scale it so a mentor was truly on par or slightly lower would be a matter of tweaking or downscaling the formula that determines damage reduction, evasion, mana pool focus etc. This is going to be a combination of skills + stats.
Honestly if we're really going to completely nerf a mentor the best way might be to make up a generic character sheet for any given class/level and regardless of your gear, scale them to that exact amount.
Dullahan said:As to the technical aspect, I think the best way to scale it so a mentor was truly on par or slightly lower would be a matter of tweaking or downscaling the formula that determines damage reduction, evasion, mana pool focus etc. This is going to be a combination of skills + stats.
Honestly if we're really going to completely nerf a mentor the best way might be to make up a generic character sheet for any given class/level and regardless of your gear, scale them to that exact amount.
Booyah! thats a simplification of the idea beautifully put in a nutshell (i suck at nutshelling things lol).. simply ensure the reduction is below average of that level and you start to see a change in the way people see mentors, they are not an op assistant who ruins content they actually offering less potential than a real level player would therefor less desirable but can make a huge difference to a group struggling (espeically in off peak times when the Aussies come out from work after a hard day of riding in kangaroo pouches to play pantheon)