oneADseven said:"Being efficient without the XP bonus chain also gives more XP in a shorter amount of time, it's the exact same thing, a good group (with or without XP bonus) will always get more XP than a weaker group, that's why I sady it does not matter, in the end VR will set the pace, and if there's XP bonus or not the game will play the same."
I am not a big fan of that mindset. The pace being set for me, and in the end no matter what it being the exact same. That's why I like the idea of XP chaining. It allows players to have influence on their pace. It allows players to leverage their skill, synergy, and experience to directly impact the rate at which they level. VR can still design the grind to take X amount of hours, but it becomes much less monotonous, much less grindy, much less repetitive if players are able to have some influence on the rate at which they accumulate XP. I understand that having a good group can accomplish something similar, but this is separate. This is a completely separate element outside of how fast you pull or how much damage you do. Again, it's an additional layer that creates windows of opportunity.
I'm sorry I just don't see what the difference is, the end result is exaclty the same to me, you pull/kill faster you level faster.
Agree with both Dullahan and jpedrote. The net result is the same. Having not played the system, as an outsider it just seems like the only really difference is an attaboy. I don't need attaboys, and honestly in the games I've played that pop up things in front of my face to tell me how good I'm doing it really feels patronizing and it annoys the hell out of me.
I'm not agains the chain killing mechanic it self, it's just the implementation of it only applying to XP and basicaly doing the same thing as killing mobs faster doens't seem like an innovative use of it. I'd much rather have something simmilar to what Iskar proposed a few posts back, where chain killing gives more chances at rare or uncommon loot, or it increases the spawn chance of are mobs or changes it's pathing towards your camp, or triggering a spawn boss or event if you kill them within the time limit that starts when you kill the first one.
Feyshtey said:oneADseven said:Hunk said: NoobieDoo, your logic is so flawed in your assessment that I honestly don't even know where to begin. I've seen oneAD attempt to convey his thoughts and the head in the sand mindset here is unbelievably strong. I've skimmed over the responses hereThe way I look at is simple. If someone can point out how the idea goes against the established tenets of the game, they have my ear on why it has no business being in Pantheon. That is something I have yet to see. What I have seen, consistently on this forum for months, is "It's bad for this game because I don't like it."
I've personally tried to have long, seasoned, reasonable discussions with you about ideas you've presented, and thought-out rational reasons for that disagreement. I've been met consistently with "You just don't get it, so your reasons are meaningless.".
Why is it that a style of gameplay can't simply have those who enjoy it and those who dont? Why must everything either be black or white? Why can't we just accept that we have differing opinions, instead of these threads constantly devolving into name calling and belittlement simply because we seek slightly different things? I don't have to agree with you to respect your position. Can you say the same?
How is it reasonable to take something out of it's context, warp it into your own imposed version, and then pick it apart based on that? How is that rational? Let's reflect:
Searril said:There are some here who will automatically reject anything that doesn't increase the amount of tedium in the game. That became apparent to me a long time ago. Just keep posting your ideas. Whether I agree with you or not it's still fun to think on them, and you never know when a particular idea will spawn a different idea in a dev's head. It happens for me at work all the time.
Feyshtey said:
Another way to put this is, "There are some here that don't see how making the experience of the game pass by more quickly makes the game better, or contributes to its longevity, and any system that is predominantly meant to do so is automatically suspect."
Another example:
Feyshtey said:
"So you benefit by having a constant stream of unchallenging but xp-granting mobs and doing nothing at all but fighting non-stop for as long as possible?
Er, nah."
I accept that you have a different opinion. What I don't accept is you manipulating the context of a conversation, bending it to your will, and then creating a set of problems or issues with it that never existed. I referenced the crab mentality, yes, and it runs rampant on here. I would say that implying that something is automatically suspect is a form of belittling and you started that on page 1, just as you have done on many of my other threads.
Some of your other responses:
"Pointing out flaws, complications or areas ripe for abuse are also what these forums are for."
"The system just creates too many incentives that are destructive to the community, is overly complex, and doesnt actually solve the issue it means to solve."
"If they accepted random stuff from the forums I'd be highly skeptical of both the diligence they had put into the design plan and their level of commitment to that design."
"You're not honestly suggesting that random_forum_poster_8746 knows better how well any idea aligns with Brad's vision than the guy Brad hired as Community Relations Manager does, are you?"
The last one in particular was a real gem as the suggestion you were referring to was implying the exact opposite of what you were accusing me of. I haven't even gotten through a single page of one other thread yet in looking for examples but I think I'll stop here.
To be honest, I would rather not have any future dialogue with you whatsoever because the only comments I ever see from you are negative. That said, you always seem to pop up to sound the doomsday alarm on every idea I share and these disagreements seem inevitable. At this rate, you have disagreed with every idea I have ever shared, often citing them as pointless, destructive, or a slew of other negative connotations. I have respectfully asked that you not do such, but you can't seem to resist the temptation. Again, it started as early as page 1 on this thread when you implied that the idea was automatically suspect based on a set of false pretenses that you yourself came up with.
jpedrote said:oneADseven said:"Being efficient without the XP bonus chain also gives more XP in a shorter amount of time, it's the exact same thing, a good group (with or without XP bonus) will always get more XP than a weaker group, that's why I sady it does not matter, in the end VR will set the pace, and if there's XP bonus or not the game will play the same."
I am not a big fan of that mindset. The pace being set for me, and in the end no matter what it being the exact same. That's why I like the idea of XP chaining. It allows players to have influence on their pace. It allows players to leverage their skill, synergy, and experience to directly impact the rate at which they level. VR can still design the grind to take X amount of hours, but it becomes much less monotonous, much less grindy, much less repetitive if players are able to have some influence on the rate at which they accumulate XP. I understand that having a good group can accomplish something similar, but this is separate. This is a completely separate element outside of how fast you pull or how much damage you do. Again, it's an additional layer that creates windows of opportunity.
I'm sorry I just don't see what the difference is, the end result is exaclty the same to me, you pull/kill faster you level faster.
I have to agree with jpedrote here. If you want more XP, kill faster. You don't need some artificial multiplier mechanic slapped in there to convince you to kill faster. Just kill faster by doing just what you say you should be doing anyway: "...leverage their skill, synergy, and experience to directly impact the rate at which they level."
@oneADseven
Heheh, I stand by every one of those statements. I don't see them as belittling, tangential or inappropriate. I believe them. I'd be happy to elaborate on any of them, but it's neither on-topic or likely to be met with objective critique. If you're going to find quotes from me I know for a fact that there are a couple of much more condemning examples from late nights and a couple too many beers. :)
edit:
I do have to admit something though. I do tend to automatically be a bit negative to your ideas, generally speaking. But it's largely because experience shows that any criticism of your ideas, no matter how valid, are taken as a personal attacks against you, and you strike back as if they are. They are not. You have experience in games that I have never been tempted to play for a variety of reason. You enjoyed aspects of those games I've experienced similarities in from other games, and I didn't enjoy them. If you'll look at posts I've made on other people's ideas there are plenty of examples where I've not only supported the notion but expanded upon it.
My negativity is no more personal that liking Botecelli paintings far more than Warhol prints. Or how I like Linkin' Park far more than Lil' Wayne. I'm not right. I just have a preference. And since silence is consent, I speak when someone puts rap on the radio that I don't want to listen to.
Nice, they all showed up. Again, this isn't a matter of "needing" something. It was a mechanic that rewarded skill and good behavior. It's really that simple. Of all the mechanics a game could ever have, I favor those that reward skill and good behavior. The mechanic definitely isn't needed ... but it's nice. And it's not an "attaboy pat on the back." It's a tangible reward that you get to experience every time you manage a successful chain. Saying that this mechanic isn't needed because the same thing can be accomplished without it is like saying "We shouldn't give them an iconic ability at level 50. They already gain a level and receive a bump to their stats. A new, powerful spell isn't needed because they're already more powerful." It's another layer that compliments the initial reward.
I mentioned earlier that the XP chain feature would also compliment the sentiment that the game will have engaging combat mechanics that make multi-boxing less than ideal. XP chains would absolutely go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. I don't recall a single instance of someone multi-boxing in a group or raid in the several years that I played. I can obviously try to explain this until I'm blue in the face but I guess it's impossible to comprehend without having personally experienced it. The obvious trend here is that players who actually used the system agree with it's effectiveness. I wish I could explain it better, or put it in a better context. I have done my best, but I rest my case.
Kilsin must be asleep at the wheel. I thought this thread would have been shuttered by now. In fact, I made it my:
Mod Edit: Removed link to gif as per the forum guidelines.
I thought this might be helpful for those of us who have played very little of FFXI or none at all:
"Also known as an "EXP Chain" or simply "Chain", this term is used to describe the acquisition of an increased number of experience points from a monster's death due to the speed in which the monsters were killed. The bonus is obtained by defeating monsters that check as Even Match or tougher (EM+) within a time limit that starts when the last EM+ mob is killed. The percentage bonus earned increases as the chain becomes longer; however, a chain will be broken by failing to defeat an EM+ mob before the time allowance expires. Simply defeating a monster below Even Match will not break a chain (example: Beastmaster mob's pet), as long as the EM+ is killed within the allowed time, based on the last eligible kill. In party settings, bonuses are based on each individual member's level, so it is possible for mobs that check EM to lower level members to give experience chains, while the same mob will check Decent Challenge to a higher level member and not give a chain. The maximum experience bonus is 50%."
Taken from ffxiclopedia
Hunk said: NoobieDoo, your logic is so flawed in your assessment that I honestly don't even know where to begin. I've seen oneAD attempt to convey his thoughts and the head in the sand mindset here is unbelievably strong. I've skimmed over the responses here
and most of the negative responses have yet to give a well reasoned idea that opposes why such an idea would not be a welcome change.
It's ok Hunk because others DO understand my logic. You're allowed your opinion, I'm allowed mine, and everyone else is allowed theres. I understand oneADs thoughts very well. There is no 'head in the sand' mindset here. And just because someone opposes his idea doesn't make it inherently negative. Some of us just don't like the xp bonus chain for whatever reasons that may be. And again it is your opinion that nobody has given a well reasoned idea that "opposes" his xp bonus reward. At the end of the day there is no rule that says we even have to give a "well reasoned idea".
Dullahan said:This is also why I don't think we should even see the exact amount of experience we gain each kill to begin with.
You gained party experience. (all we need)
I especially agree on this one, make experience gains hidden again. I much prefer "Maybe another hour or so at this rate and I will level" instead of "72 more orcs till ding!"
If experience was balanced around the idea of groups averaging a certain chain then all you are doing is moving the goal posts and it ends up pretty much the same as without, where better groups kill more mobs and more efficiently and come out ahead in exp. Adding a XP chain for every group to constantly work on leads to xp/hr charts and honestly becomes a metric like damage meters, used to push players to perform. You may say "good" but that really hurts the more casual gamer base as far as pick up groups go, or just wanting to relax after a long day of work for some nice steady pulling as groups will have a direct measure as to how well they may be performing to cast judgements and point fingers like they do with DPS meters. It more or less forces everyone to play with and around the chaining system.
BeaverBiscuit said:Personally I disagree, like oneAD, because there is no clear line where "hand holding" does and does not occur. Getting experience from killing bats efficiently or getting cooking supplies from killing bats could ultimately be considered hand holding, despite being the basic of the basics. I dislike ideas that are put forward, with themselves as an argument, without a clear line of where it begins and ends.
I wouldn't consider it hand holding if you got cooking supplies for chaining the bats faster. I guess that's where I draw the line? If you got anything OTHER than an xp bonus I probably wouldn't consider it hand holding because then it would be something else as a mechanic.
NoobieDoo said:BeaverBiscuit said:Personally I disagree, like oneAD, because there is no clear line where "hand holding" does and does not occur. Getting experience from killing bats efficiently or getting cooking supplies from killing bats could ultimately be considered hand holding, despite being the basic of the basics. I dislike ideas that are put forward, with themselves as an argument, without a clear line of where it begins and ends.
I wouldn't consider it hand holding if you got cooking supplies for chaining the bats faster. I guess that's where I draw the line? If you got anything OTHER than an xp bonus I probably wouldn't consider it hand holding because then it would be something else as a mechanic.
I argue that the fewer "systems" in the game, to an extent, the better. We have to have the system whereby you kill an enemy and gain exp and loot. We have to have systems whereby you gain and expend currency. We have to have systems for crafting. We must have systems for AI, pathing, combat, skills & abilities, mechanics like pulling, healing, armor class/mitigation/avoidance, crowd control.
We do NOT have to have systems for fast travel, group finder, caravans, instancing/sharding, mentoring/brotherhood, heroic chains, infusions, auctions houses. To me, there is a very clear distinction between the fundamentals and the (fake, not all, but many) add ons. The more of these non fundamental systems we have, the further away from the(my) vision of a 3D mud we get.
Is one or two or X combinations of those systems being in the game necessarily a bad thing? No. But I FIRMLY maintain that there is a threshold beyond which the game will cease to be what a majority of us came here to support. There will be a point crossed where this game will become an homage to the "old school mmo" instead of actually, tangibly, fundamentally BEING ONE.
Dullahan said:I don't even think this is a tenet issue. I don't really think the concept stands in opposition to the tenets in any way. I just legitimately do not see a reason to do it, because the benefit for efficiency already exists inherently.
On the other hand, I do see potential problems it could create. Exp as it existed in previous games, did not provide a way to easily gauge your exact level of efficiency. If chains are timed (which obviously they would be), that would create an easily discernable metric and therefore a standard players will strive for. When players do not meet that standard, they will likely do whatever it takes to rectify that, including booting members of the party for someone else. Without that obvious metric, it would be of less importance.
This is also why I don't think we should even see the exact amount of experience we gain each kill to begin with.
You gained party experience. (all we need)
I am sorry I disagree with the 2nd half of your post.
I dont need to know it down to the point but I would like a general % based indicator. Or atleast some way to quantify my xp/hour so I can dynamically compare 1 zone to another or one set of actions.
I really don't feel like going back to the days of taking screenshots, and using a vernier to measure xp gain in a period of time. Thinking pre blue bar EQ. That was terrible.
Though I am one of those terrible people that kicks people that are getting carried /sarcasm.
Krixus said:NoobieDoo said:BeaverBiscuit said:Personally I disagree, like oneAD, because there is no clear line where "hand holding" does and does not occur. Getting experience from killing bats efficiently or getting cooking supplies from killing bats could ultimately be considered hand holding, despite being the basic of the basics. I dislike ideas that are put forward, with themselves as an argument, without a clear line of where it begins and ends.
I wouldn't consider it hand holding if you got cooking supplies for chaining the bats faster. I guess that's where I draw the line? If you got anything OTHER than an xp bonus I probably wouldn't consider it hand holding because then it would be something else as a mechanic.
I argue that the fewer "systems" in the game, to an extent, the better. We have to have the system whereby you kill an enemy and gain exp and loot. We have to have systems whereby you gain and expend currency. We have to have systems for crafting. We must have systems for AI, pathing, combat, skills & abilities, mechanics like pulling, healing, armor class/mitigation/avoidance, crowd control.
We do NOT have to have systems for fast travel, group finder, caravans, instancing/sharding, mentoring/brotherhood, heroic chains, infusions, auctions houses. To me, there is a very clear distinction between the fundamentals and the (fake, not all, but many) add ons. The more of these non fundamental systems we have, the further away from the(my) vision of a 3D mud we get.
Is one or two or X combinations of those systems being in the game necessarily a bad thing? No. But I FIRMLY maintain that there is a threshold beyond which the game will cease to be what a majority of us came here to support. There will be a point crossed where this game will become an homage to the "old school mmo" instead of actually, tangibly, fundamentally BEING ONE.
I agree. I consider an xp bonus reward for chain pulling to fall under your group of 'fast traverl, group finder, caravans, heroic chains, auction houses, etc' But obviously we need to have systems to make the MMO function and behave as we expect it to.
Sunmistress said:Dullahan said:I don't even think this is a tenet issue. I don't really think the concept stands in opposition to the tenets in any way. I just legitimately do not see a reason to do it, because the benefit for efficiency already exists inherently.
On the other hand, I do see potential problems it could create. Exp as it existed in previous games, did not provide a way to easily gauge your exact level of efficiency. If chains are timed (which obviously they would be), that would create an easily discernable metric and therefore a standard players will strive for. When players do not meet that standard, they will likely do whatever it takes to rectify that, including booting members of the party for someone else. Without that obvious metric, it would be of less importance.
This is also why I don't think we should even see the exact amount of experience we gain each kill to begin with.
You gained party experience. (all we need)
I am sorry I disagree with the 2nd half of your post.
I dont need to know it down to the point but I would like a general % based indicator. Or atleast some way to quantify my xp/hour so I can dynamically compare 1 zone to another or one set of actions.
I really don't feel like going back to the days of taking screenshots, and using a vernier to measure xp gain in a period of time. Thinking pre blue bar EQ. That was terrible.
Though I am one of those terrible people that kicks people that are getting carried /sarcasm.
Just using a bar (even before the blue bar), I could tell without much trouble, where I gained the most experience. EQ also always had logs you could parse, so there was that too.
I just don't think it's necessary or particularly wise to create a way to measure real time efficiency within the client. If people want to run a log parse every hour or so and compare xp rates, that's one thing; making that information readily available, has great potential of being used as a weapon to wield against other players to justify their dismissal from groups.
Don't worry about it Noobie. I learned an important lesson in this thread; there was a mechanic in FFXI that was well received by it's players. I attempted to share it here but as you mentioned, many folks opposed the idea and they have every right to do that. The reasoning behind the opposition varied ... some folks felt that it wouldn't make a difference ... some felt it would discourage pugs ... some felt it would break immersion ... some felt it was an advantage that mostly benefited skilled players (true) ... some felt it was artificial, arbitrary, or just flat out unneccessary. To that end, I can only say that guilds discourage pugs too. The amount of XP required to "Ding" feels arbitrary and artificial to me. In my 15 years of MMO gaming, neither of those thoughts have ever occured to me until just now.
You can put a negative spin on just about anything. Some people are more sensitive to certain issues than I am, and that's okay. If I had to choose between making grouping with friends more relevant or encouraging PUGS, I would choose the former every day of the week. When it comes to immersion or artificial systems, I always thought that they were just a part of gaming. I never once thought that I wanted to be totally immersed into the game, hoping it would be as realistic as possible. I personally don't mind if there are features that remind me that I'm playing a video game. I do enjoy playing video games after all. Rather than looking at it as a metric than can be used to kick bad players, I used it as a metric to help distinguish good ones and gauge the overall effectiveness of my group. Some folks don't like that because it can lead to setting a standard. I always appreciated high standards, especially when my group could achieve them! It felt quite gratifying.
We all have our own preferences. When it comes to this particular topic, I place a lot of emphasis on a feature that rewards skill and cooperative play. Not everybody is going to agree with that, especially if it comes at the expense of their immersion or potential pick-up groups. It's been a learning experience for sure. I appreciate all of the feedback and comments. I still think it's one hell of a system that compliments the majority of tenets established for this game, and that alone should be significant enough for it to be considered. It was a super engaging combat mechanic that rendered multi-boxing very inefficient for leveling purposes. It added depth ... it added challenge ... it added fun ... it offered a strategic layer to the risk vs reward balance ... it did a lot of things. It may sound like a lame, artificial system in theory ... but in action, it was quite spectacular.
I had a hard time trying to relate to the various issues/concerns that have been presented on this thread because they all felt way off-base relative to how the system actually worked in game. I'm chalking it up as something that might not necessarily sound as good on paper as it feels in real experience. That kind of experience can't possibly be demonstrated (at least by me, I tried) through text communication and it is what it is. Thank you again to everybody that weighed in with their opinion. I particularly enjoyed reminiscing with some of my fellow FFXI veterans.
NoobieDoo said:Krixus said:NoobieDoo said:BeaverBiscuit said:Personally I disagree, like oneAD, because there is no clear line where "hand holding" does and does not occur. Getting experience from killing bats efficiently or getting cooking supplies from killing bats could ultimately be considered hand holding, despite being the basic of the basics. I dislike ideas that are put forward, with themselves as an argument, without a clear line of where it begins and ends.
I wouldn't consider it hand holding if you got cooking supplies for chaining the bats faster. I guess that's where I draw the line? If you got anything OTHER than an xp bonus I probably wouldn't consider it hand holding because then it would be something else as a mechanic.
I argue that the fewer "systems" in the game, to an extent, the better. We have to have the system whereby you kill an enemy and gain exp and loot. We have to have systems whereby you gain and expend currency. We have to have systems for crafting. We must have systems for AI, pathing, combat, skills & abilities, mechanics like pulling, healing, armor class/mitigation/avoidance, crowd control.
We do NOT have to have systems for fast travel, group finder, caravans, instancing/sharding, mentoring/brotherhood, heroic chains, infusions, auctions houses. To me, there is a very clear distinction between the fundamentals and the (fake, not all, but many) add ons. The more of these non fundamental systems we have, the further away from the(my) vision of a 3D mud we get.
Is one or two or X combinations of those systems being in the game necessarily a bad thing? No. But I FIRMLY maintain that there is a threshold beyond which the game will cease to be what a majority of us came here to support. There will be a point crossed where this game will become an homage to the "old school mmo" instead of actually, tangibly, fundamentally BEING ONE.
I agree. I consider an xp bonus reward for chain pulling to fall under your group of 'fast traverl, group finder, caravans, heroic chains, auction houses, etc' But obviously we need to have systems to make the MMO function and behave as we expect it to.
I agree. And as an individual mechanic, in and of itself, I don't have a big care about it one way or the other. But as part of the whole including alllll those others things, I think we are rapidly moving down the path to non fundamental mechanic saturation that could ruin the game(for me).
oneADseven said:Don't worry about it Noobie. I learned an important lesson in this thread; there was a mechanic in FFXI that was well received by it's players. I attempted to share it here but as you mentioned, many folks opposed the idea and they have every right to do that. The reasoning behind the opposition varied ... some folks felt that it wouldn't make a difference ... some felt it would discourage pugs ... some felt it would break immersion ... some felt it was an advantage that mostly benefited skilled players (true) ... some felt it was artificial, arbitrary, or just flat out unneccessary. To that end, I can only say that guilds discourage pugs too. The amount of XP required to "Ding" feels arbitrary and artificial to me. In my 15 years of MMO gaming, neither of those thoughts have ever occured to me until just now.
You can put a negative spin on just about anything. Some people are more sensitive to certain issues than I am, and that's okay. If I had to choose between making grouping with friends more relevant or encouraging PUGS, I would choose the former every day of the week. When it comes to immersion or artificial systems, I always thought that they were just a part of gaming. I never once thought that I wanted to be totally immersed into the game, hoping it would be as realistic as possible. I personally don't mind if there are features that remind me that I'm playing a video game. I do enjoy playing video games after all. Rather than looking at it as a metric than can be used to kick bad players, I used it as a metric to help distinguish good ones and gauge the overall effectiveness of my group. Some folks don't like that because it can lead to setting a standard. I always appreciated high standards, especially when my group could achieve them! It felt quite gratifying.
We all have our own preferences. When it comes to this particular topic, I place a lot of emphasis on a feature that rewards skill and cooperative play. Not everybody is going to agree with that, especially if it comes at the expense of their immersion or potential pick-up groups. It's been a learning experience for sure. I appreciate all of the feedback and comments. I still think it's one hell of a system that compliments the majority of tenets established for this game, and that alone should be significant enough for it to be considered. It was a super engaging combat mechanic that rendered multi-boxing very inefficient for leveling purposes. It added depth ... it added challenge ... it added fun ... it offered a strategic layer to the risk vs reward balance ... it did a lot of things. It may sound like a lame, artificial system in theory ... but in action, it was quite spectacular.
I had a hard time trying to relate to the various issues/concerns that have been presented on this thread because they all felt way off-base relative to how the system actually worked in game. I'm chalking it up as something that might not necessarily sound as good on paper as it feels in real experience. That kind of experience can't possibly be demonstrated (at least by me, I tried) through text communication and it is what it is. Thank you again to everybody that weighed in with their opinion. I particularly enjoyed reminiscing with some of my fellow FFXI veterans.
I appreciate this response AD because you can be known to really fight for your ideas tooth and nail. And at times when a person simply disagrees with you, neither of you being right or wrong, sometimes you come off as trying to really force your ideas on them which can be off-putting. I can understand feeling some type of way towards someone who dislikes every single one of your ideas because at some point it has to feel like they are just hating on you. But remember that I HAVE liked some of your other ideas so when I don't like an idea such as this one I'm not being negative or mean or a hater. I simply don't agree or like the idea and my reasons for why I don't ARE legitimate.
Something that might help you in the future with me, and others, on MMOs is how you don't mind a feature that reminds you you are playing a video game. I don't either just not in an MMO. This will probably be a terrible example but iirc Devil May Cry was a game where you could get super ultra combos and the screen would light up and blink and flash and it was fun and didn't take it self too serious. But then you also had a game like Dark Souls which was a game that handled and played similar in ways but didn't have all that flashy stuff and was a much more serious tone to it. For me both of those games were great and I had fun playing both and I WELCOME both styles of game mechanics/features. BUT when it comes to MMOs I HEAVILY prefer them to be like Dark Souls. I like them to be less flashy and more of a realistic serious tone. This is probably a terrible example and I'm sure a handful here will tell me how my head is stuck up my arse and that I shouldn't respond again until I can discover a valid opinion and how I'm way off base but oh well, it's what I'm going with lol. Just know that I too like mechanics that don't take them self too seriously, ones that remind you that 'hey' you're playing a video game, it's just that I prefer my MMOs to have as less of these as possible. And others do too.
cheers!
vthorm said:Kilsin must be asleep at the wheel. I thought this thread would have been shuttered by now. In fact, I made it my:
I am wide awake and reading everything, I can assure you ;)
This thread is a perfect example of a topic/idea that is great to discuss but once again is starting to spiral down into arguments over opinions, it happens every time without fail, I really wish people could just accept someone's opinion whether it agrees with their views or not and not turn everything into a debate that has to have a "winner" as discussions like this are not meant to have a "winner".
I appreciate that people are passionate about their ideas and stances on certain game mechanics but lately, I just watch these threads in hopes that they last a few pages with some great back and forth discussion and then end peacefully without the world ending, sadly, that is never the case and I am usually forced into moderating, then closing these threads, which I really dislike a lot.
I truly hope this one doesn't go in that direction but it is getting very close, so let this be a friendly warning to take a breath, keep it on topic and remove the personal emotions from your posts, enjoy the discussion or ignore it, either way, this isn't in our game nor do we plan on adding it, it is a community members idea that they posted online making it open for discussion, constructive criticism and possible alternative or additional ideas sparked from it.
For the record, we don't care whether it is EQ, VG, FF, WoW or any other game, Pantheon is not a clone or copy of any game and we are not defined by past games, their mechanics, features or systems, so it doesn't matter where it comes from, if it worked well and could serve a purpose in Pantheon, we will consider it, if not, we won't, it is a simple as that and just because we have no plans to implement this idea that doesn't mean you folks can't discuss it in a mature fashion, just please refrain from personal attacks or defensive arguments trying to stop an idea because you think it threatens the kind of game you want to play because it won't, we are building the game we want to play no matter how many things people like or dislike! :)
Amsai said:Long story short, it was fun, and competitive way to level. Though you might get kicked from a party or cause a party to break early if that xp chain wasnt flowing. It was taken at that point that you either were a terrible player or leeching xp. Made everyone pay attention and up their game.
I'm afraid this is where I go "Nope". I've read the whole topic and I really see how it could add fun, and why people enjoyed the mechanic so much. But I want downtime to be a good feature, not an unwanted one. I want groups to focus more on fun than efficiency. And I understand some groups will focus on efficiency anyway, it's the way it is. But I'd rather not see the game actively rewarding players for doing so, as it seems to me it would/could tip the balance not for just those who prefer efficient gameplay but for pretty much everyone.
To me personally, it feels better when the reward for doing great is in me simply knowing I did. Not that the game tells me so. Not because I'm afraid of the results (tho I am one filthy casual, trust me *grins) but because I want the game to support many options and not guide us to one (predictable) best result. I feel it gives players more freedom, even if it means not to play the most effectively, and that the choice is ours instead of feeling one option is so obviously best that we'd shoot ourselves in the foot not to take it. I hope I explain myself well enough, it's hard for me to put into words what I mean exactly.
Dullahan said:I don't even think this is a tenet issue. I don't really think the concept stands in opposition to the tenets in any way. I just legitimately do not see a reason to do it, because the benefit for efficiency already exists inherently.
On the other hand, I do see potential problems it could create. Exp as it existed in previous games, did not provide a way to easily gauge your exact level of efficiency. If chains are timed (which obviously they would be), that would create an easily discernable metric and therefore a standard players will strive for. When players do not meet that standard, they will likely do whatever it takes to rectify that, including booting members of the party for someone else. Without that obvious metric, it would be of less importance.
This is also why I don't think we should even see the exact amount of experience we gain each kill to begin with.
You gained party experience. (all we need)
EQ doesn't/didn't give numeric XP values either outside of some third party applications. However, a very inefficient group is trivial to detect even without that element.
When things die half as fast as they did in your last group in the same area, something's up. If the answer isn't obvious (lower average group level, missing a member, etc.) then it becomes very evident that someone isn't pulling their weight. Less than a minute of observing the people in your group is usually enough to detect who isn't pulling their weight. Oh look, that guy is keyboard turning, our puller isn't leaving camp until the mob has already been dead for 20 seconds, etc.
Ask yourselves this question, Do take the time to read this.
1. Do you want everything poping up offering free XP if you rush rush to the mob, kill it and gain a 1% increase?
2. Do you want to hurry up to a quest and gain 5% increase if you zone 10 times faster.
3. Do you really want to be playing a game with a timer?
I for one, like to be able to play a game like i did in 99 with quality workmanship, and not have everything so rushed. I want to group, and not be forced to beg for a pee break, from the game.
I would also like to sit for a minute or two to relax my arms.
Pull groups can do x2 pullers chaining mobs, it is very possible here too. I would like the 6 group bonus only. I am not against your ideas in this thread at all, but it is giving me the feeling we are being forced along like WOW and RIFT did.
Get where i am going?
Dummed down, game play.,
@Crazzie
I get where you're going, but I think you're incorrect.
1. Loaded terminology like the word "rush" undermines this entire discussion.
2. No idea what you mean by this, but it has nothing to do with this thread.
3. Yeah, I do. EQ had respawn timers, spell recast timers, etc. Drawing the line at this particular "timer" is arbitrary.
Early EQ had groups aimed at high efficiency gameplay and frowned upon frequent AFKs. If I form a group with the intent to farm XP efficiently, and one member is constantly taking AFKs, they're getting kicked regardless of if the proposed system is implemented.
Neither World of Warcraft nor RIFT had the mechanic talked about in the OP, so I have no idea why you're even mentioning those games.
Liav said:Dullahan said:I don't even think this is a tenet issue. I don't really think the concept stands in opposition to the tenets in any way. I just legitimately do not see a reason to do it, because the benefit for efficiency already exists inherently.
On the other hand, I do see potential problems it could create. Exp as it existed in previous games, did not provide a way to easily gauge your exact level of efficiency. If chains are timed (which obviously they would be), that would create an easily discernable metric and therefore a standard players will strive for. When players do not meet that standard, they will likely do whatever it takes to rectify that, including booting members of the party for someone else. Without that obvious metric, it would be of less importance.
This is also why I don't think we should even see the exact amount of experience we gain each kill to begin with.
You gained party experience. (all we need)
EQ doesn't/didn't give numeric XP values either outside of some third party applications. However, a very inefficient group is trivial to detect even without that element.
When things die half as fast as they did in your last group in the same area, something's up. If the answer isn't obvious (lower average group level, missing a member, etc.) then it becomes very evident that someone isn't pulling their weight. Less than a minute of observing the people in your group is usually enough to detect who isn't pulling their weight. Oh look, that guy is keyboard turning, our puller isn't leaving camp until the mob has already been dead for 20 seconds, etc.
Huge difference between total inefficiency and peak efficiency. That isn't the issue (as you know). It's normal versus peak.