Riply said:I think alot of people on recent topics have lost sight of the fact that if you actually managed to get half of what you guys want put into this game your not going to have enough players to make a MMO. You need more then a few people to sign on in order to make the game a success.
All of these artificial constraints that you guys want put in just for the sake of making the game harder or making the player "earn" their right to play wth you, is going to do nothing but drive off new blood to this game.
So you don't like the druid sitting to the side buffing his buddy or the cleric healing some newb to help him out...tuff, it's their world too. I can't count the amount of people that I helped in EQ1 get their feet wet, by a little powerleveling, that would of never otherwise gave the game a shot.
I'm all for challenge and feeling of accomplishment you got from playing early MMOS, but come on, some of you want to make the game even harder then EQ1. There is no way in hell that a going to work. I'm not trying to be over offensive, but you really gotta start thinking beyond just what you want out of the game.
I dont feel particuarly strongly about the PL'ing discussion here, frankly. However, I think you're quite wrong about the "half of what you guys want" argument you've got going here. I'd much rather 200,000 people play this game for 10 years, than have 2 million eat thru the vending machine of goodies for 3 months and be done.
Gnog said: Your Quote: If you dont want to PL dont do it, dont try and dictate to others how to play. This is not a reasoned defense of power leveling. Your argument would justify giving players the unrestricted ability to design their own gear with whatever stats they want. Your argument would justify letting anyone "boost" their character to maximum level by pressing a button. Your argument is absurd and not persuasive at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
I am not trying to defend PL, dont care if someone does it or not...All I care about is if they can play the class in a group. If they can, great...will be happy to group with them again. If they cant then I simply wont group with them. I dont give a rats a** if they PLed or bought a max level toon on ebay..if they can play then they can play. Your views on PL are just that, Your views. And your views do not affect me in any way. Your view of "I dont like PLing" so no one should do it is pretty absurd (using your word). I dont like spaghetti so you cant eat it, I dont like Coors light so you cant drink it, I dont like PLing so you cant PL....You see what I mean by Reduction ad absurdum?
Edit: Put **'s in place of S's so as to keep it clean :)
Only Visionary Realms knows the answers to these fundamental design questions.
Will they have locked encounters, like EQ2? Will encounters reset to full if someone on the hate list logs out or goes LD?
Will there be automatic level scaling for all regions, like SW:TOR?
Will there be personal loot, rather than static loot? (like many, many games, but Rift/GW2 are two examples)
Will crafting components drop from 'grey' mobs?
Will there be scaled heals, attacks, gear, and more to ensure even if you are grouped, you gain no untoward advantage?
WIll there be limits on AoE targets? (there are no limits on some AoE spells in EQ1)
If they want to permit Power Levelling or similar emergent behavior, the game mechanics will permit it.
Put another way; If they Don't want power levelling, then the game mechanics will NOT permit it. It's just that simple.
Sevens said:
I dont like spaghetti so you cant eat it, I dont like Coors light so you cant drink it, I dont like PLing so you cant PL....You see what I mean by Reduction ad absurdum?
No, this isn't quite right. Your argument doesn't work because your eating of spaghetti or my drinking of coors light in real life does not have the same kind of negative externalities as PLeveling can have in an MMO. Apples and oranges.
vjek said:
Only Visionary Realms knows the answers to these fundamental design questions.
Right, this is a thread discussing the merits of one particular fundamental design question. You've dodged the question! :)
Amsai said: Aside from the discussion. If I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure they were leaning towards both a mentor like system and allowing PLs. As well as twinking. This was covered in either one of the streams or some Q&A. So while it's possible they could change this, I would say it's not likely. Unless something just isn't working out in testing.
I really hope we are allowed to twink to at least some degree. After leveling your primary character to max level I really enjoy the ability to set up my alt twink with whatever gear I can collect or barter for.
@ Riply & @ Grog
I particularly appreciate both your comments on this as it changed my opinion about the dynamics in PL'ing and twinking.
My error was on my fundamental bias that changed with the scenario:
Bias: P/L'ing means P/Ling for RMT to sell character or to hurry up player who may make mistakes.
Change: P/L ing your friend because the low levels are harder, and this is a confidence boost- Mentoring also plays a role here not in PL per se but in knowledg sharing.
Pro: Going back to newbie areas as a higher level to "rofl stomp" old enemies and because that felt so good- buffing newbies so they could share in some "rolf stomp" feeling and not feel so incompetent (to the point, this encourages/keeps players)
Bias: Twinking is an unfair advantage to those that play immersively. /agree This is purely subjective and cannot be enforced without it becoming restrictive.
Change: (rofl stomping above) but also beiong able to take advantage of all the things the dungeon/quest offers at the right age (my sub Bias- this does not take into account horizontal leveling, but is predicated on past MMO experience.)
Con: This may only "work" on a trivial loot code rule set. ( sub Bias also applies)
Pro: random twinking encourages confidence boosting behavior (like casting buffs)
Pro: twinking encourages returning players. If a char's current gear was top of the line 10 years ago, and now by comparrison is weak to current content, being twinked with hand-me-downs or crafted stuff is a confidence booster. Better than what you have, not as good as what you can get, but nice in the meantime.
Gnog said:Sevens said:
I dont like spaghetti so you cant eat it, I dont like Coors light so you cant drink it, I dont like PLing so you cant PL....You see what I mean by Reduction ad absurdum?
No, this isn't quite right. Your argument doesn't work because your eating of spaghetti or my drinking of coors light in real life does not have the same kind of negative externalities as PLeveling can have in an MMO. Apples and oranges.
vjek said:
Only Visionary Realms knows the answers to these fundamental design questions.
Right, this is a thread discussing the merits of one particular fundamental design question. You've dodged the question! :)
Your arument doesnt work because me PLing has no affect on you, none. Oh but PLers will take all the mobs so it affects me!! Ok, Beers drinkers will drive and might hurt people so it affects me!!....we can do this all day, you took my statement to a ridiculous extreme so I just turned it about to take yours to the same extent
I'm against anything that would add more restriction to game design, just like PvP Balance... Power Level Restriction is another UNNECESSARY crap that was cried about during EQ early era and what did we get?! We got horrible itemization design (level restriction) we got hidden codes that only affect lower level characters.. and the most horrible thing it will limit player to player interaction (buffs and such) just because some people want to PL their friends. I am against antyhing that would hurt the big picture just because some people don't want others to power level; who cares?! My main focus is the game and the game design, your post is really really way too early and unnecessary.
Boy do I hate the cries and whines of some people that resulted in ruining my game experience. Do realize, I don't care about PLing and if somehow the game was PL incompatable I don't care as long as they didn't COMPROMISE the game just so this won't happen. I am, however, against preventing Twinking. Bring Twinking Back, look at Black Desert Online it's created with twinking in mind and no body is complaining. Please stop with this item level restriction and give the players in the game more freedom.
I hardly come to these forums anymore because everytime I do theres someone suggesting absolutely horrible ideas. Everytime I come I cringe and hope the one game i am very excited about isnt ruined by these threads.
Why people care so much what others are doing is beyond me. Your biggest complaint is you might get in a group with someone who doesnt know how to play? Really? There will be TONS of people who will suck regardless of how they leveled.
If i bust my arse and level a toon and get him geared to the teeth, theres no way im not going to use him to help level my next character. I currently play on Phinny and have PL many toons on there, and ya know what the funny part is? I ALWAYS invite any low lvls around me to join the group and get the free experience as well.
Stop trying to regulate how others play. You liked EQ? Well there were almost NO rules when it came out and thats what made it amazing.
beautifully said:I hardly come to these forums anymore because everytime I do theres someone suggesting absolutely horrible ideas. Everytime I come I cringe and hope the one game i am very excited about isnt ruined by these threads.
---snip---
I think the OP mentioned that the title he used was 'designedly provocative' so as to start a debate on this core 'issue'. Having read most, if not all, of the posts in this thread, I can say that the 'simple majority' are in favour of PL'ing and, those who are not, are not against the principle - merely concerned about a few of the potential side effects it may generate. The vast majority of posters (certainly in this thread) are looking at it from the view of 'effect on the playerbase and the game' and not some ingrained presumptions, predicated on an attempt to impose their personal preferences on the rest.
MY VIEW:
My concern is not with PL'ing. It is ONLY concerned with my core belief that slower level progression is what makes an MMO more social and fulfilling. There will always be 'achievers' who see levelling to the end-game as quickly as possible as 'the way to go'. For them, that is the fun part! This, in itself, is not a problem as long as they are a small minority. A game's longevity is somewhat dependent on the server's 'maturity', i.e. what the median player level is and, particularly, the density of players in lower level zones. (There are other factors, too - such as ensuring starter areas are not superceeded and maintain usage throughout the level spectrum). These define the barrier to entry for new players and, as such, determine the game's growth over time. To that end I am a staunch advocate of anything that distracts the players from the levelling grind:
1. Crafting (solely Horizontal progress)
Not just for the hard-core crafters, but to a lesser extent, the whole population. The collection of raw materials, learning a few lower-end crafting skills and even a certain amount of 'amateur' crafting will give lots of horizontal progression options for a large proportion of the player-base.
2. Questing and Factions (mainly Horizontal)
A vivid world lends itself to people taking notice of it. The more interesting lore, cultures, styles, peoples and related quests and faction, the more poeple will invest in their character as part of the world. This lends itself to more fleshed out characters, not superficial avatars with little emotional attachment by the player. Once players are invested - spending a day or two to work on their faction, or an interesting puzzle/quest will be seen as worthwhile. This is particularly true if the result has significant impact. If faction matters. If choices in quests matter. These things can cause players to identify more closely with the game world.
3. RP functionality (slower vertical)
This would include social aspects/options, dyes, options to hold player-led/active 'faires'/celebrations, housing, character lineage, PC's able to attain NPC ranks/interact with the city/town etc. These all feed into the RP community and give them the tools to indulge themselves. This has a direct knock-on effect to the non-RP population. It only works if you avoid having an 'RP only' server, but instead have a 'suggested' server for those who indicate they want to RP at character creation.
(This kind of tailored suggestion for 'preferred server' based on check-boxes, say, at character creation can help avoid splintered populations in the more niche aspects of play-style).
4. Explorer Functionality (somewhat Horizontal)
If VR embrace the mainly undervalued 'explorer' population, this will channel their inclination for play-style towards their preferred option (exploring) rather than their secondary option as 'achievers'. Thus, some form of benefit must accrue the explorer - whether a map crafting system, journals, 'opening regions', player names listed as 'discoverers' in city libraries etc. It would be interesting to see what % of the current support base are explorers from a Bartle Test.
5. Some form of 'achievement' system
Since the very player who sees the levelling grind as the 'de-facto standard' are achievers (in the Bartle sense) it would make sense to offer some inducements towards the horizontal for this large chunk of the population. It could be something as simple as the form of 'Achievement Badges' that LOTRO used.
Badges for getting to level (5) or (10) etc without getting killed!
Badges for number of quests undertaken ...
Titles for the number of Orcs killed ....
Titles for producing a master crafted item ...
Titles/Badges for taking down 'Local World Bosses' of level 20/30/40 etc (early multi-group raids perhaps)
Medals for group/solo killing X red-cons ... and living
Titles (eg 'Cowardly', 'pickpocket') for less 'honourable' deeds
NPC related titles (eg 'Saviour of FrostFall', or 'Honorary Guardman' etc)
In my (personal) view, anything that offers an incentive for players to stop and smell the roses as they level up (i.e. horizonal porogression) is a good thing. I really don't see a need to specifically stop PL'ing and Twinking, if they end up having minimal impact to the player-base. I would certainly rather have positive reasons for players to undertake horizontal progression that attempt to regulate their vertical progression. That is not to say some 'speed bumps' may not be needed (perhaps merely to identify possible gold famers), but it would not be my first choice.
PS : Chinese-syle gold-farmers etc should be burned with fire, though .... just saying. They are worse than Gnomes anything!
Laura said:
I'm against anything that would add more restriction to game design, just like PvP Balance... Power Level Restriction is another UNNECESSARY crap that was cried about during EQ early era and what did we get?! We got horrible itemization design (level restriction) we got hidden codes that only affect lower level characters.. and the most horrible thing it will limit player to player interaction (buffs and such) just because some people want to PL their friends. I am against antyhing that would hurt the big picture just because some people don't want others to power level; who cares?! My main focus is the game and the game design, your post is really really way too early and unnecessary.
Boy do I hate the cries and whines of some people that resulted in ruining my game experience. Do realize, I don't care about PLing and if somehow the game was PL incompatable I don't care as long as they didn't COMPROMISE the game just so this won't happen. I am, however, against preventing Twinking. Bring Twinking Back, look at Black Desert Online it's created with twinking in mind and no body is complaining. Please stop with this item level restriction and give the players in the game more freedom.
^^^ This.
Twice.
beautifully said:I hardly come to these forums anymore because everytime I do theres someone suggesting absolutely horrible ideas. Everytime I come I cringe and hope the one game i am very excited about isnt ruined by these threads.
Why people care so much what others are doing is beyond me. Your biggest complaint is you might get in a group with someone who doesnt know how to play? Really? There will be TONS of people who will suck regardless of how they leveled.
If i bust my arse and level a toon and get him geared to the teeth, theres no way im not going to use him to help level my next character. I currently play on Phinny and have PL many toons on there, and ya know what the funny part is? I ALWAYS invite any low lvls around me to join the group and get the free experience as well.
Stop trying to regulate how others play. You liked EQ? Well there were almost NO rules when it came out and thats what made it amazing.
That's great and all until it begins to affect other players. The game isn't even out yet, so I don't think it's unreasonble to hope that there isn't a way to circumvent the process and challenge of leveling.
Dullahan said:That's great and all until it begins to affect other players. The game isn't even out yet, so I don't think it's unreasonble to hope that there isn't a way to circumvent the process and challenge of leveling.
Ooohh the hypocrisy, the game isn't even out yet, so I don't thinks it's unreasonable to hope people won't attempt to place restrictions on actions that have yet to circumvent the process and challenge of leveling, nor have they affected other players in any way what so ever.
Eliseus said:How does one prevent power leveling? I don't know if you really can without hurting the core design of the game. Look at FFXIV 1.0. They tried to prevent power leveling and it actually drove players away how they did it, yet didn't fully prevent it.
Powerleveling, at least as it existed in EQ, could easily be prevented in Pantheon ... and should be.
To powerlevel another player in EQ, you could simply heal them in combat without it penalizing the player on the receiving end of the experience. That would be the first thing to prevent. Just like when you did more than half the damage, another player would receive no experience, that same principle should be applied to healing. If a mob has 1000 hp, and during the fight a player out of group healed another for over more than 501 health, it should remove or at least reduce the amount of experience they receive.
Likewise, if a player is given a buff like a damage shield that is doing more than half the damage, that portion of the damage should also be penalized. The same principle would go for regeneration spells or reactives, like proc buffs. The point of buffs should not be to empower independent players, but primarily to empower yourself and your group. That will encourage grouping and benefit the social nature of the game in general.
In addition to those things, I think buff durations should be reduced based on level. If a level 50 casts a level 50 HP buff with a duration of 2 hours on a level 10, it should last 1/5th the time. That would mean the buff only lasts 24 minutes. That means the player can either receive a lower level buff that gives them less health that lasts longer, or a buff which yields more health with shorter duration. It then becomes a choice.
That leaves methods such as feign death which removes damage history on a mob with aggro. In that case you just don't wipe the damage credit. The player who kills the damaged mob will still be able to loot (so as to prevent kill and loot stealing), but they wouldn't be rewarded with full experience as if they were solely reponsible for killing the mob.
These rules do not prevent powerleveling all together, nor should they. Players should be happy to both receive and give buffs to and from strangers. It would simply make it less potent and prevent trivializing the leveling process.
Riply said:Dullahan said:That's great and all until it begins to affect other players. The game isn't even out yet, so I don't think it's unreasonble to hope that there isn't a way to circumvent the process and challenge of leveling.
Ooohh the hypocrisy, the game isn't even out yet, so I don't thinks it's unreasonable to hope people won't attempt to place restrictions on actions that have yet to circumvent the process and challenge of leveling, nor have they affected other players in any way what so ever.
Sorry, that's not how hypocrisy works. We came here because we were promised a harder game, therefore it can be assumed we are getting that. There is no pretense here. Powerleveling assures that players can circumvent that challenge, so everyone should be expecting that players will asking for restrictions of that nature for both themselves and everyone else.
Better luck next time.
Riply said:
Ooohh the hypocrisy, the game isn't even out yet, so I don't thinks it's unreasonable to hope people won't attempt to place restrictions on actions that have yet to circumvent the process and challenge of leveling, nor have they affected other players in any way what so ever.
The distinction you make between default rules governing the leveling-up process and "restrictions" is illusory. What you describe as a "restriction" (e.g., no buffing lower-level players, no out-of-group healing) could easily be recasted as affirmative rules governing the experience system--for example, the rule could simply be, as Dullahan noted above, that a character earns less experience (perhaps dramatically less experience) from killing a mob when the character accomplished the kill with the benefit of damage shields, out-of-group healing, or other assistance that trivializes the kill. Rules like this are not "restrictions" on gameplay; they are just rules that fairly implement a risk vs. reward progression system.
You also seem to be suggesting that there should be no discussion whatsoever about design or policy issues until the game is released and the ramifications of those design and policy issues are observed. Surely you realize that good system design involves the identification of predictable issues (such as methods to exploit the level-up system) and the development of rules and policies to prevent those issues before they cause too much negative impact on the system. And if you're willing to accept that, then it would be great if you could respond on the merits, rather than attacking the conversation itself.
Gnog said:The distinction you make between default rules governing the leveling-up process and "restrictions" is illusory.
No, you are claiming it to be illusory, there is a difference. In both cases (Hense the hypocrisy comment) are based on things that have no happened, thus neither one is anymore more illusory then the other, see two can play this game.
Gnog said:What you describe as a "restriction" (e.g., no buffing lower-level players, no out-of-group healing) could easily be recasted as affirmative rules governing the experience system--for example, the rule could simply be, as Dullahan noted above, that a character earns less experience (perhaps dramatically less experience) from killing a mob when the character accomplished the kill with the benefit of damage shields, out-of-group healing, or other assistance that trivializes the kill. Rules like this are not "restrictions" on gameplay; they are just rules that fairly implement a risk vs. reward progression system.
This is 100% your opinion and I respect that, but in my opinion, you are completely wrong. I believe that any functionality that is created to prevent ANYTHING good or bad is considered a restriction, even you call them rules. Read from the Webster's dictionary please, which describes a rule as a regulation:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule
As for rules, just because you feel it to be fair, does not mean that it is so. You are assuming an awful lot about the precieved risk vs reward progression system, one of which is that there is no desire to help the fellow man past a challenge WITHOUT your "Fairly implement rules of risk vs reward".
Gnog said:You also seem to be suggesting that there should be no discussion whatsoever about design or policy issues until the game is released and the ramifications of those design and policy issues are observed. Surely you realize that good system design involves the identification of predictable issues (such as methods to exploit the level-up system) and the development of rules and policies to prevent those issues before they cause too much negative impact on the system.
I am not suggesting that at all, what I am suggesting is that there are some issues that really do not warrent additional restrictions because they were never really an issue (If you look at the ENTIRE picture; community, player interaction, continued new subsciptions over the long term, etc, etc) to begin with. With software development you never attempt to code to prevent the user from ever doing ANYTHING wrong(you would never complete the project), you code for the obvious, you code for the most detrimental and most of all you code for the majority over the minority in your target demographic audience.
Gnog said:And if you're willing to accept that, then it would be great if you could respond on the merits, rather than attacking the conversation itself.
I am not attacking anything. I want the same thing you do, a great gaming experience. But what it seems to be is that you want is to dictate the arguement and then further dictate how others respond, that just not going to happen.
Riply said:Gnog said:The distinction you make between default rules governing the leveling-up process and "restrictions" is illusory.
No, you are claiming it to be illusory, there is a difference. In both cases (Hense the hypocrisy comment) are based on things that have no happened, thus neither one is anymore more illusory then the other, see two can play this game.
False. One is more illusionary, because it runs contrary to the spirit of how this game is being created. Thus, the pretense or hypocrisy is only on the side of those who come contrary to that spirit.
Dullahan said:Riply said:Gnog said:The distinction you make between default rules governing the leveling-up process and "restrictions" is illusory.
No, you are claiming it to be illusory, there is a difference. In both cases (Hense the hypocrisy comment) are based on things that have no happened, thus neither one is anymore more illusory then the other, see two can play this game.
False. One is more illusionary, because it runs contrary to the spirit of how this game is being created. Thus, the pretense or hypocrisy is only on the side of those who come contrary to that spirit.
Uh hu, riiiiigggghhhhttt........
While I believe that EQ should provide the blueprint from which much of Pantheon is constructed, I don't believe emulating every part of it would be practical for achieving the same goal in 2016. When it was created, neither players or even developers understood how many different aspects would be used to trivialize different facets of the game. Whether that was utilizing FD powerleveling or something as simple as strafe running, it would be counterproductive to recreate those things in Pantheon just because players became accustomed or enjoyed the benefit it afforded them.
Dullahan said:While I believe that EQ should provide the blueprint from which much of Pantheon is constructed, I don't believe emulating every part of it would be practical for achieving the same goal in 2016. When it was created, neither players or even developers understood how many different aspects would be used to trivialize different facets of the game. Whether that was utilizing FD powerleveling or something as simple as strafe running, it would be counterproductive to recreate those things in Pantheon just because players became accustomed or enjoyed the benefit it afforded them.
While I do agree that no one knew how specific things in EQ would be utilized to create truly organic game play....we will have to agree to disagree on whether or not those things ultimately ended up creating something so negative that it should be prevented in the future.
beautifully said:I hardly come to these forums anymore because everytime I do theres someone suggesting absolutely horrible ideas. Everytime I come I cringe and hope the one game i am very excited about isnt ruined by these threads.
Why people care so much what others are doing is beyond me. Your biggest complaint is you might get in a group with someone who doesnt know how to play? Really? There will be TONS of people who will suck regardless of how they leveled.
If i bust my arse and level a toon and get him geared to the teeth, theres no way im not going to use him to help level my next character. I currently play on Phinny and have PL many toons on there, and ya know what the funny part is? I ALWAYS invite any low lvls around me to join the group and get the free experience as well.
Stop trying to regulate how others play. You liked EQ? Well there were almost NO rules when it came out and thats what made it amazing.
I feel the exact same way. However, I don't think discussion should stop. There has truly been some horible ideas of late. For example, some nostalgic things that are really bad ideas, but just for the sake of nostalgia, trying to be enforced upon VR. I'm not talking about making WoW, but like here is a good example. We should zone for 5mins since people use to zone like that in EQ. That hasn't been suggest, but should get the point lol.
The reason these threads can and should exist though is it may better help VR with who their players are, at least the forum players. Then there is that rare occasion a thread pops up with a good idea. I hope in the future that they implement some sort of polling with the players in the game to get a better understanding of what players might wants instead of just those that dwell on the forums.
I also like these threads existing because this will be fellow Pantheon players we are playing with and I would not only like to get to know them more, but potentially create a discussion that might give them a better understanding of what their other players feel on matters. Some people may talk to only a handful of people on ideas and think they are great, when in reality they aren't. So they create threads. Sure it creates clutter, but I love to see when people are having civil discussions on any and all matters and get to know each other better.