I like EQ2's vitality system to help casual players. You earn vitality through rest. As long as you have vitality, you get bonus XP.
Those that play all the time get regular XP. Those that have not played a lot recently get a little extra to help them catch up. It doesn't last long, but it helps without limiting more active players.
Beefcake said:I like EQ2's vitality system to help casual players. You earn vitality through rest. As long as you have vitality, you get bonus XP.
Those that play all the time get regular XP. Those that have not played a lot recently get a little extra to help them catch up. It doesn't last long, but it helps without limiting more active players.
Never cared for that system nor do I think it would make sense for Pantheon while considering the following tenet:
An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses.
Beefcake said:I like EQ2's vitality system to help casual players. You earn vitality through rest. As long as you have vitality, you get bonus XP.
Those that play all the time get regular XP. Those that have not played a lot recently get a little extra to help them catch up. It doesn't last long, but it helps without limiting more active players.
But the people that play a lot get the bonus as well. They dont accrue quite as much, but they still get it. So the people that play constantly get a boost they will surely fully consume putting them even further apart from those that you're trying to assist with "keeping up", who often wont even use all the bonus alloted them. Unless you're just trying to make the game easier for people with less time to play which I interpret as, "dumbing down" to the lower denominators.
In the end all you've done is accelerate people thru content you've (hopefully) painstakingly design for their enjoyment. I don't get it.
I'm not fond of systems that change based on somewhat arbitrary criteria. Much like the other thread going right now about out of combat regen, I don't like things that obtrusively remind me that there's a system to game, rather than a world to enjoy.
oneADseven said:Unless the tenets change I'm not sure how it could ever make sense for Pantheon.
Using the word "tenets" to describe the ideas behind this game was a bad idea. Way too dogmatic. We're already getting into the territory of people thinking the "tenets" should be flexible vs. strict adherence.
It's all a numbers game. If giving lower playtime players a slightly more accelerated experience rate to prevent massive disparities, then I think that could be worth pursuing. I feel the same way about reducing the experiencr curve years down the road to make things less daunting for new players.
It also might not be necessary to implement this stuff at all. So before someone mentions that Pantheon isn't the game for me or some other silliness, I'd just like to point out that I only wish for Pantheon to suceed, both long and short term.
Liav said:oneADseven said:Unless the tenets change I'm not sure how it could ever make sense for Pantheon.
Using the word "tenets" to describe the ideas behind this game was a bad idea. Way too dogmatic. We're already getting into the territory of people thinking the "tenets" should be flexible vs. strict adherence.
It's all a numbers game. If giving lower playtime players a slightly more accelerated experience rate to prevent massive disparities, then I think that could be worth pursuing. I feel the same way about reducing the experiencr curve years down the road to make things less daunting for new players.
It also might not be necessary to implement this stuff at all. So before someone mentions that Pantheon isn't the game for me or some other silliness, I'd just like to point out that I only wish for Pantheon to suceed, both long and short term.
I disagree. Using the word "tenets" shows a commitment to detail. This isn't an area where people should be looking for flexibility ... using the word tenets is like making a promise about what you believe in. When I read the game tenets, I interpret them as guiding principals ... core beliefs that even if all else fails, you can count on these to remain true. This isn't something you double back on lightly. I would absolutely expect strict adherence over flexibility when it comes to "Game Tenets" -- otherwise it's like saying "Content is King" -- haha, just kidding ... we were being flexible ... we have an Ogre King in the game, his name is Content ... but he's the only king in the game because we only have one major city planned. or "An understanding that with greater risk will come greater reward" -- We don't know what we were thinking when we said that. We're gonna give out participation trophies to everybody ... your voices have been heard!
I want Pantheon to succeed as well, and I think it all starts with delivering on your promises to the awesome and loyal community that you have established. Everybody has their own reason for being here, but the "Game Tenets" were a major factor for me. The game tenets as they stand are all part of a beautiful vision that has been shared and I sincerely hope they remain in tact, exactly as they are.
oneADseven said:Liav said:oneADseven said:Unless the tenets change I'm not sure how it could ever make sense for Pantheon.
Using the word "tenets" to describe the ideas behind this game was a bad idea. Way too dogmatic. We're already getting into the territory of people thinking the "tenets" should be flexible vs. strict adherence.
It's all a numbers game. If giving lower playtime players a slightly more accelerated experience rate to prevent massive disparities, then I think that could be worth pursuing. I feel the same way about reducing the experiencr curve years down the road to make things less daunting for new players.
It also might not be necessary to implement this stuff at all. So before someone mentions that Pantheon isn't the game for me or some other silliness, I'd just like to point out that I only wish for Pantheon to suceed, both long and short term.
I disagree. Using the word "tenets" shows a commitment to detail. This isn't an area where people should be looking for flexibility ... using the word tenets is like making a promise about what you believe in. When I read the game tenets, I interpret them as guiding principals ... core beliefs that even if all else fails, you can count on these to remain true. This isn't something you double back on lightly. I would absolutely expect strict adherence over flexibility when it comes to "Game Tenets" -- otherwise it's like saying "Content is King" -- haha, just kidding ... we were being flexible ... we have an Ogre King in the game, his name is Content ... but he's the only king in the game because we only have one major city planned. or "An understanding that with greater risk will come greater reward" -- We don't know what we were thinking when we said that. We're gonna give out participation trophies to everybody ... your voices have been heard!
I want Pantheon to succeed as well, and I think it all starts with delivering on your promises to the awesome and loyal community that you have established. Everybody has their own reason for being here, but the "Game Tenets" were a major factor for me. The game tenets as they stand are all part of a beautiful vision that has been shared and I sincerely hope they remain in tact, exactly as they are.
And, just like any Dogma, everyone reads the same tenents, interprets them for to their own vision, and declares their version to be the absolute truth. Then, the interpretation gets used to justify or eliminate ideas.
No different than how some people claim auction houses, mentoring, solo play, or just about anything else they disagree with are against the tenets.
I will leave it up to VR to interpret their own tenets.
Beefcake said:And, just like any Dogma, everyone reads the same tenents, interprets them for to their own vision, and declares their version to be the absolute truth. Then, the interpretation gets used to justify or eliminate ideas.
No different than how some people claim auction houses, mentoring, solo play, or just about anything else they disagree with are against the tenets.
I will leave it up to VR to interpret their own tenets.
Except that with a private business, and in terms of it's internal direction, the only interpretation of the tenents that matters is that of the devs. I would have little respect for those that write a tenent with a personal understanding of its meaning and then distort that meaning later for convenience or expedience.
Feyshtey said:Except that with a private business, and in terms of it's internal direction, the only interpretation of the tenents that matters is that of the devs. I would have little respect for those that write a tenent with a personal understanding of its meaning and then distort that meaning later for convenience or expedience.
I find it hard to believe that any two human beings are truly, 100% on the same page regarding any topic. That doubt is compounded when talking about a very specific, small set of people (the devs) and a rigid set of rules. There's plenty of room for interpretation. People bickered that Auction Houses violated the tenets for about a year in a 20+ page long thread, and the devs have committed (albeit not fully) to a regional Auction House model.
I don't believe that incentives for lower playtime players violates the tenets. I believe there are limitations to how powerful those incentives should be. I don't believe it cheapens the achievements of high playtime players. The disparity will still be large, just not as large.
Beefcake said:oneADseven said:Liav said:oneADseven said:Unless the tenets change I'm not sure how it could ever make sense for Pantheon.
Using the word "tenets" to describe the ideas behind this game was a bad idea. Way too dogmatic. We're already getting into the territory of people thinking the "tenets" should be flexible vs. strict adherence.
It's all a numbers game. If giving lower playtime players a slightly more accelerated experience rate to prevent massive disparities, then I think that could be worth pursuing. I feel the same way about reducing the experiencr curve years down the road to make things less daunting for new players.
It also might not be necessary to implement this stuff at all. So before someone mentions that Pantheon isn't the game for me or some other silliness, I'd just like to point out that I only wish for Pantheon to suceed, both long and short term.
I disagree. Using the word "tenets" shows a commitment to detail. This isn't an area where people should be looking for flexibility ... using the word tenets is like making a promise about what you believe in. When I read the game tenets, I interpret them as guiding principals ... core beliefs that even if all else fails, you can count on these to remain true. This isn't something you double back on lightly. I would absolutely expect strict adherence over flexibility when it comes to "Game Tenets" -- otherwise it's like saying "Content is King" -- haha, just kidding ... we were being flexible ... we have an Ogre King in the game, his name is Content ... but he's the only king in the game because we only have one major city planned. or "An understanding that with greater risk will come greater reward" -- We don't know what we were thinking when we said that. We're gonna give out participation trophies to everybody ... your voices have been heard!
I want Pantheon to succeed as well, and I think it all starts with delivering on your promises to the awesome and loyal community that you have established. Everybody has their own reason for being here, but the "Game Tenets" were a major factor for me. The game tenets as they stand are all part of a beautiful vision that has been shared and I sincerely hope they remain in tact, exactly as they are.
And, just like any Dogma, everyone reads the same tenents, interprets them for to their own vision, and declares their version to be the absolute truth. Then, the interpretation gets used to justify or eliminate ideas.
No different than how some people claim auction houses, mentoring, solo play, or just about anything else they disagree with are against the tenets.
I will leave it up to VR to interpret their own tenets.
I'll leave it to webster's dictionary.
your taking this time to bash folks that don't like auction houses in a thread that has nothing to do with auction houses is really, quite petty.
BeaverBiscuit said:Beefcake said:oneADseven said:Liav said:oneADseven said:Unless the tenets change I'm not sure how it could ever make sense for Pantheon.
Using the word "tenets" to describe the ideas behind this game was a bad idea. Way too dogmatic. We're already getting into the territory of people thinking the "tenets" should be flexible vs. strict adherence.
It's all a numbers game. If giving lower playtime players a slightly more accelerated experience rate to prevent massive disparities, then I think that could be worth pursuing. I feel the same way about reducing the experiencr curve years down the road to make things less daunting for new players.
It also might not be necessary to implement this stuff at all. So before someone mentions that Pantheon isn't the game for me or some other silliness, I'd just like to point out that I only wish for Pantheon to suceed, both long and short term.
I disagree. Using the word "tenets" shows a commitment to detail. This isn't an area where people should be looking for flexibility ... using the word tenets is like making a promise about what you believe in. When I read the game tenets, I interpret them as guiding principals ... core beliefs that even if all else fails, you can count on these to remain true. This isn't something you double back on lightly. I would absolutely expect strict adherence over flexibility when it comes to "Game Tenets" -- otherwise it's like saying "Content is King" -- haha, just kidding ... we were being flexible ... we have an Ogre King in the game, his name is Content ... but he's the only king in the game because we only have one major city planned. or "An understanding that with greater risk will come greater reward" -- We don't know what we were thinking when we said that. We're gonna give out participation trophies to everybody ... your voices have been heard!
I want Pantheon to succeed as well, and I think it all starts with delivering on your promises to the awesome and loyal community that you have established. Everybody has their own reason for being here, but the "Game Tenets" were a major factor for me. The game tenets as they stand are all part of a beautiful vision that has been shared and I sincerely hope they remain in tact, exactly as they are.
And, just like any Dogma, everyone reads the same tenents, interprets them for to their own vision, and declares their version to be the absolute truth. Then, the interpretation gets used to justify or eliminate ideas.
No different than how some people claim auction houses, mentoring, solo play, or just about anything else they disagree with are against the tenets.
I will leave it up to VR to interpret their own tenets.
I'll leave it to webster's dictionary.
Same. Some words are pretty definitive and not up for debate or interpretation. Saying that there won't be bonuses for apathy or lack of action seems pretty clear to me.
The problem with tenets is the inability to change course when something doesn't work out. At least, not without making your zealous playerbase feel betrayed when you have to make concessions for practical reasons.
It's not that I disagree with (some of) the ideas, it's that I disagree with the way in which they are presented.
The dogmatic approach is a great way to feed an "us vs. them" mentality which there is already far too much of in the world. Look no further than the plethora of replies telling people that the game "isn't for you" because of a minor disagreement about a very specific aspect of the game.
Either way, I've derailed this enough. If the past couple hundred thousand years of homo sapien history aren't enough to convince someone that there is always "room for interpretation", then I don't know what will.
Liav said:Feyshtey said:Except that with a private business, and in terms of it's internal direction, the only interpretation of the tenents that matters is that of the devs. I would have little respect for those that write a tenent with a personal understanding of its meaning and then distort that meaning later for convenience or expedience.
I find it hard to believe that any two human beings are truly, 100% on the same page regarding any topic. That doubt is compounded when talking about a very specific, small set of people (the devs) and a rigid set of rules. There's plenty of room for interpretation. People bickered that Auction Houses violated the tenets for about a year in a 20+ page long thread, and the devs have committed (albeit not fully) to a regional Auction House model.
I don't believe that incentives for lower playtime players violates the tenets. I believe there are limitations to how powerful those incentives should be. I don't believe it cheapens the achievements of high playtime players. The disparity will still be large, just not as large.
Just because a lot of backers (myself included) interpreted VRs tenents in a way that would have led them to believe that AH's would be excluded in any form doesn't mean that VR's internal interpretation has been compromised in any way.
I would agree that there's nothing in the tenents that excludes the possibility of casual xp bonus', and I dont think I've made that case. I just personally think it's somewhat self-defeating for a number of reasons, and I don't generally subscribe to any core game mechanic that alters based on specific (and often arbitrarily measured) criteria.
Feyshtey said:Just because a lot of backers (myself included) interpreted VRs tenents in a way that would have led them to believe that AH's would be excluded in any form doesn't mean that VR's internal interpretation has been compromised in any way.
I would agree that there's nothing in the tenents that excludes the possibility of casual xp bonus', and I dont think I've made that case. I just personally think it's somewhat self-defeating for a number of reasons, and I don't generally subscribe to any core game mechanic that alters based on specific (and often arbitrarily measured) criteria.
I'd like to be convinced that it's self defeating, but I'm just not there yet. If the mechanic was strong enough that low playtime players leveled at the same rate as high playtime players, I could see that. However, lessening the divide is wildly different than bridging it completely. If it helps player morale without breaking the game, I see it as a plus for everyone involved.
As far as "core game mechanic that alters based on specific (and often arbitrarily measured) criteria", I think just about any game mechanic could be shown to fit those qualities. While sitting down in EQ, you gain more HP regen than while not sitting. HP regen could be argued to be a core game mechanic, and it most certainly alters based on specific (possibly arbitrary) criteria. Whether or not it's arbitrary requires us to know the developer's reasonings for that, and also requires us to agree with their design philosophy.
There's a lot of subjectivity here, is the point I'm making, I suppose.
Kilsin said:We have discussed this before my friend, we can't and won't stop people from playing the way they like, just because they want to race to max level doesn;t mean they have any impact or effect on your gameplay or experience, so why should we try to stop them? They pay the same subscription and have the same access to the game and same options s you but they choose to play faster and race, while you may wish to play slower, read the lore, enjoy the world and progress at your own pace, you don;t affect each other though, if anything, you should want these folks to blow past you and not be restrained and forced to play at a slower pace against their will or else they will express their dislike for that in other ways that may affect your gameplay.
Either way, it isn't a problem and I am not sure why other people get upset by it, just ignore their playstyle and enjoy your own and then you can both exist in a fantasy world together without having any impact on each other :)Plus, we won't have a huge amount of quests so we can't gate or bottle neck people with experience on them or give out huge amounts, so while I appreciate the idea I am not sure it would work properly in our game.
Yup.
Bottlenecking for the sake of it doesn't solve anything. I still remember the Plane of Time flagging drama in EQ. Let folks play how they want. My responsibility as a player is to find likeminded folks to play with.
Should never be a way to bridge it completely. I think it makes sense to have a slight reduction system in place. Could call it vitality endurance or what have you. You could even make a mini game out of it where you can mitigate the effect by utilizing certain food/drink, campfires, or music during downtime.
It also would make sense from a immersion standpoint. Anyone that's done any extensive training or study knows that it becomes increasingly problematic the longer you do it. Whether it's physical or purely mental.
Retsof said:Yup.
Bottlenecking for the sake of it doesn't solve anything. I still remember the Plane of Time flagging drama in EQ. Let folks play how they want. My responsibility as a player is to find likeminded folks to play with.
Every rule a game has stops someone from playing how they want. Where do you draw the line? Should people be allowed to make top level characters right away because that's how they want to play? Should players be able to 1 hit KO bosses in case they don't want the tedium of long, drawn out battles? Should we have npc mercenaries that stop us from needing groups in case we don't like people?
People, people....
Can we please stop with the pretense that slower levelers are somehow just better people? It's just a play style, one of many.
Frankly, I played EQ hardcore at times, and laid back during periods of my life that's all I could do.
I simply can not believe I am hearing people calling for the slowing down of others' progress.
If I wanted to experience that, I'd go back to college again.
corpserunner said:People, people....
Can we please stop with the pretense that slower levelers are somehow just better people? It's just a play style, one of many.
Frankly, I played EQ hardcore at times, and laid back during periods of my life that's all I could do.
I simply can not believe I am hearing people calling for the slowing down of others' progress.
If I wanted to experience that, I'd go back to college again.
Actually, there are reasons it could be beneficial. It has the potential of preventing a massive disparity between friend/acquaintance levels when one player goes on a binge. It also has the benefit of slowing the process down so that players actually have a chance to experience the world. Even if people do not realize it and their intention is to complete the leveling process as fast as possible, when it's over the accomplishment will feel less significant. The lack of bond between world and players is a big reason MMOs have become so dispensable.
Assuming that it's just a suggestion rooted in envy is not productive.
Dullahan said:corpserunner said:People, people....
Can we please stop with the pretense that slower levelers are somehow just better people? It's just a play style, one of many.
Frankly, I played EQ hardcore at times, and laid back during periods of my life that's all I could do.
I simply can not believe I am hearing people calling for the slowing down of others' progress.
If I wanted to experience that, I'd go back to college again.
Actually, there are reasons it could be beneficial. It has the potential of preventing a massive disparity between friend/acquaintance levels when one player goes on a binge. It also has the benefit of slowing the process down so that players actually have a chance to experience the world. Even if people do not realize it and their intention is to complete the leveling process as fast as possible, when it's over the accomplishment will feel less significant. The lack of bond between world and players is a big reason MMOs have become so dispensable.
Assuming that it's just a suggestion rooted in envy is not productive.
If someone out levels their friends/acquaintances, that is their mistake, not the games. The rest of the players should not be punished because someone actually enjoyed the game so much that they went on a playing binge. Shame on her. How dare she actually enjoy the game and want to it more.
Any potential "disparity" is solved through mentoring, Progeny (if we ever learn the specifics), or alts.
If people want to level fast, by playing the game more (not by cheating or lousy game systems), let them. Again, people should not be punished for enjoying their free time. And should definitely not be punished because someone else claims they enjoy other parts of their lives, but still feels entitled to be equal with everyone else.
Why should anyone else care about how a player feels about the significance of their experience. That is completely a personal choice. Just because someone else wants to have a "significant" feeling should not equate to everyone must do it their way to suffer.
Just because you bond with a world in one way does not mean others can't bond differently.
Last thing I need in life is someone trying to tell me what a bond is or how to develop it best for me. I decide how to bond and how much bonding I want. You decide for you, not me.
Corpserunner, as usual, has it right. Slow levelers are not inherently better people. Fast levelers are not better people. How fast you level has nothing to do with being a better person.
Beefcake said:Dullahan said:corpserunner said:People, people....
Can we please stop with the pretense that slower levelers are somehow just better people? It's just a play style, one of many.
Frankly, I played EQ hardcore at times, and laid back during periods of my life that's all I could do.
I simply can not believe I am hearing people calling for the slowing down of others' progress.
If I wanted to experience that, I'd go back to college again.
Actually, there are reasons it could be beneficial. It has the potential of preventing a massive disparity between friend/acquaintance levels when one player goes on a binge. It also has the benefit of slowing the process down so that players actually have a chance to experience the world. Even if people do not realize it and their intention is to complete the leveling process as fast as possible, when it's over the accomplishment will feel less significant. The lack of bond between world and players is a big reason MMOs have become so dispensable.
Assuming that it's just a suggestion rooted in envy is not productive.
If someone out levels their friends/acquaintances, that is their mistake, not the games. The rest of the players should not be punished because someone actually enjoyed the game so much that they went on a playing binge. Shame on her. How dare she actually enjoy the game and want to it more.
Any potential "disparity" is solved through mentoring, Progeny (if we ever learn the specifics), or alts.
If people want to level fast, by playing the game more (not by cheating or lousy game systems), let them. Again, people should not be punished for enjoying their free time. And should definitely not be punished because someone else claims they enjoy other parts of their lives, but still feels entitled to be equal with everyone else.
Why should anyone else care about how a player feels about the significance of their experience. That is completely a personal choice. Just because someone else wants to have a "significant" feeling should not equate to everyone must do it their way to suffer.
Just because you bond with a world in one way does not mean others can't bond differently.
Last thing I need in life is someone trying to tell me what a bond is or how to develop it best for me. I decide how to bond and how much bonding I want. You decide for you, not me.
Corpserunner, as usual, has it right. Slow levelers are not inherently better people. Fast levelers are not better people. How fast you level has nothing to do with being a better person.
People don't always know what is best for them. This can be observed by the fact that few people continue playing new MMOs after the first couple of month.
Don't worry, if you're still going hard, you will still level up faster. Everyone is under that same potential restriction.
I also find it ironic that you're in favor of something as artificial as mentoring, while being against a rule that decreases experience on longer play sessions. Sounds like you just want to pick and choose what rules you're subject to, regardless of how much sense they make or how potentially harmful they are to the game itself.
corpserunner said: Wow, Dullahan. Thankfully we have you to save us ifrom ourselves LOL. I can't believe you said that
I can't believe you're pretending like every idea is a good idea.
If there are no bad ideas, devs could just let their kids design pantheon and we can have a massively multiplayer coloring book game.
Thankfully the devs have shown in the past that they will follow their own ideas no matter how many threads people start complaining about certain ideas. I for one was pleased about the announcement of regional auction houses and I'm glad that the devs took the tough stance that they did even though there was a 20 page thread with a significant number of people saying they don't want an auction house. This shows the devs are strong people with a vision for what they want Pantheon to be and that even if people disagree with them they know what will work best in their game.
I love the Pantheon you are all a great group of people but I get wound up reading this forum sometimes by people who make posts as if they are the only ones who understand how to make an MMO. At best this is just wrong and at worst it shows that you don't trust the devs to make good decisions even though they are an experienced team who have made at least two great MMOs in the past.
Just try to have a little faith is all I am saying. We will have our chance to give feedback during testing when we actually know what the game will be like. So far all any of us know is what has been released in the newsletters and what was shown in three Twitch streams. In other words we know basically nothing. Giving feedback when you are completely ignorant of a subject is pointless.
So yeah wait for testing and then give well reasoned and well though out ideas and feedback. That is certainly what I am planning on doing once we hit pre-alpha and beyond and I'm looking forward to seeing what the game is actually like and not basing an opinion on the scant information that has been released so far.