Sicario you are linking excerpts from an EQ forum. The entire premise of my argument is based around using FTE instead of MDD in order for that "organic deterrent" to take effect. Again, I understand your position and I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying if we're talking about a "oldschool hardcore" world governed by MDD. Here is a Kotaku article that describes the differences between FFXI and FFXIV: https://kotaku.com/final-fantasy-xi-was-so-challenging-it-brought-people-1785114506
Questaar said:
Tanix, you keep saying TLC is terrible but you don’t say why. Why do you want that L50 player fighting for that L30 helm? Because it’s still good?
In EQ, it could be. I already explained this, did you not read my response? The point was that items in EQ lasted over longer levels. This was a feature. Modern MMOs have gear treadmills where you level, re-gear, level, re-gear, etc... EQ was not like this which is what I was trying to explain in my reasoning.
Questaar said:
The L50 helm that VR has a mob for and a dungeon for Is better and level appropriate.
Again, in a modern gear treadmill game, you get entire gear changes in very short periods of time. EQ was not like this. You held on to your gear for much longer. In a game like this (ala a contested, random rare spawn system), it could take a long time to get an item. Gear doesn't drop like candy and is not being handed out by tons of quests, so when you think that at a certain level there will be every gear item that you need at that level, you are thinking more modern instanced/quest gear heavy design.
If this game is anything like EQ in that manner (which I think it will be because I have heard them say that gear should matter and be lasting), then you may have your gear spread over numerous levels (ie you find a nice amulet at level 20, then a helm at 28, a tunic at 35 and a sword at 40, etc...). That is, like in EQ, it is entirely possibly for you to have gear from your 20's when you are 50 because gear was not dropping all over the place.
Questaar said:
Does this mean you think VR is building a game so you can hunt greys all day? So the L50s are farming the L30 stuff so the L30s in game are farming the L10 stuff? What a cluster *&$# of a game that would be.
Ok, EQ didn't level like modern games, so you didn't get to max in week or two. It took many average players near a year to get near or at max level. You were likely to spend a LOT of time at various areas. Items did not drop constantly, it could take weeks to get some rare items, with hours of camping, hunting, searching to get an item. Again this is not like modern MMOs where you rush off, ding a level, do a quest and bing you have a sword designed for your exact level.
So, it is possible you may not even get the chance at getting your item to drop before you eventually move on to new areas. I can promise you that if you think you are going to be able to camp and pick up every rare while you progress, you will be severely mistaken. Gear will take time to obtain, and mean something when you do get it.
Questaar said:
I played EQ for ten years and ya grey mobs were easy. Keep in mind green mobs won’t attack a PC in Terminus. Grey mobs giving no loot or experience/loot accomplishes what it’s supposed to, it keeps high level griefers out of the game. That’s all it’s supposed to do, it’s an easy code and it works. It’s stops people from leveling up to cap and then farming low level stuff.
You can never keep griefers out of a game. All you can do is hinder honest players with mechanics while they have to still deal with the griefers.
I already explained the problems with TLC, you ignored it and then moved on like you didn't read it.
Read my comments, then... go back, read them again, think about them, then when you are done, read them again.
Then ask me questions specific to my comments (quote them specifically if you need) and refer to such specifically. This way we can have a nice conversation rather than you acting like I made no point because you didn't read anything and just went on about how you are right.
/shrug
Sicario said:Yes, but even FTE is inadequate in this situation, it doesn't matter if you tag it first when it takes a whole group to kill a single mob in a zone, versus max level characters running around freely AoE nuking everything.
What you're describing wasn't an issue in FFXI, at least that I saw personally. I tried to explain why that was the case on the last page but there is absolutely a difference between rotating a crawl between 10-20 names and camping a single name for an extended period of time. You are 100% correct in saying that the high level player would have an advantage when it comes to "navigating to the camp" -- I'm not disputing that, but it's a short-lived or even one-time advantage. Once the dust settles ... and multiple players/groups are contesting the same camp, for an extended period of time, there isn't much of an advantage for being higher level. This is a very important distinction that separates FTE from MDD.
Beyond that, I think AI can be improved significantly in Pantheon compared to what we have seen in previous games. If NPC's see a high level player that is capable of destroying them with ease, maybe they should call for reinforcements and gang up on him? I think there are a bunch of options to explore that could make it more challenging for high level players to navigate through low level content.
EQ was camps, EQ2 was crawls. I understand that you're trying to say that FTE will make a difference in a camp scenario (i.e. EQ1). I'm not convinced. High level characters don't have to contend with adds, wanderers, respawns, etc. Level-appropriate groups are at a significant disadvantage even in established camps vs high levels. And, beyond that, guess what? Still not fair. Max level does absolutely no work in killing the named if they tag it first, and they get to keep all the loot to themselves. Level appropriate groups have to split it, and that's after having to work together as a team to overcome an actual challenge vs someone who mindlessly pressed buttons. Literal slot machine. Shouldn't be rewarded.
@sicario also, besides for what 187 mentioned, those links are not from "eq" when it was still an open world /purely subscription game designed in a way to have reputation matter like Pantheon is being designed
Those links are all from a time when it was a completely different game, even though the name was the same. It isn't a good comparison to how Pantheon is being designed.
Sicario said:EQ was camps, EQ2 was crawls. I understand that you're trying to say that FTE will make a difference in a camp scenario (i.e. EQ1). I'm not convinced. High level characters don't have to contend with adds, wanderers, respawns, etc. Level-appropriate groups are at a significant disadvantage even in established camps vs high levels. And, beyond that, guess what? Still not fair. Max level does absolutely no work in killing the named if they tag it first, and they get to keep all the loot to themselves. Level appropriate groups have to split it, and that's after having to work together as a team to overcome an actual challenge vs someone who mindlessly pressed buttons. Literal slot machine. Shouldn't be rewarded.
Well, if they design it with respect to not over powering characters, then it won't be that bad. For instance, I was around 44 and I went back to kill the Lava Elemental in Sol A which was around level 35. I could make rounds killing the level 20 goblins, but I had to be careful (I couldn't just round up a bunch of mobs and kill them, I had to kill one at a time, and slowly work through them). So even though I was 24 levels above them, I still had to be careful. I watched warriors get mowed over by trying to do large pulls. I watched mages who could AoE get interupted and killed easily by these grey mobs. Now consider that when I went to take on the Lava Elemental at 35, I had to be VERY careful working my way back through the gnomes. I could hold the areas fairly well, but it took time (respawn was 30 mins) and by the time I went through the 5-7 mobs, it was about time for the elemental to spawn again.
The problem in later EQ was that the power increase got silly and raiders especially became massively increased in power allowing them to just destroy older content. Before that, up to Velious, players working zones and destroying content was not really a think other than a level 60 trying to farm something like Najena and even then things could get out of hand quick for them.
There is still a chance for a problem though, but... I think simple solutions should remedy this.
For instance, mobs should ALWAYS attack regardless of level. The whole concept of you walking into a dungeon and because they are grey, they should ignore you is counter to game play practicality. Having mobs agro and having the same agro range or near the same as even level content should remain. A player regardless if 60 in a level 10 zone, should have to deal with the mobs as they go through.
Next, mobs should not become invalid just because they are lower level. In early LoTRO, they handled this brilliantly I think. Grey mobs still would be a serious threat if you were not careful. Yes, you were more powerful, yes, if you were high enough, you could kill through the content, but it was a very wide range you had to be and even then, getting a few mobs on you would result in serious issues.
I am not sure the mechanic, but something could be designed to make high levels farming low content difficult. That is, you could introduce mechanics that would increase mobs power after a level check based on the number of mobs that add to the fight. I would even have a default power of a mob increased (like a percentage to health/mitigation/damage) based on the players level. Not massive, a high level should still be poweful enough to move through the content, but it should not be fast and easy. So, if you have mobs more difficult and they also increase in power with multiples attacking, you can make it where a level 60 if they carelessly walked through a dungeon, would over agro a bunch of mobs and then end up having a VERY difficult time trying to fight them off. I would say that if a level 60 got 10 level 10 mobs on them, it should be a problem.
That would make high level interaction in a zone possible, but there would be a need to be careful and old content would not be dismissed. Not to mention, if the content is not super easy to get around in, it would remove the running area to area to kill everything (farming entire wings of dungeons).
Those are simple mechanic changes that still allow for all players to function, but puts more risk in the play. I always thought it was silly when a high level could walk into a lower level dungeon and lay waste to entire levels. Levels aren't supposed to be that way. Even in AD&D, this level of power was not as such.
Hmm, I mean it will feel artifical but one thing could be 7nique to account, at least this way they can only have one until they sell it, like I said it is very artifical but at least once they get it they would have to sell it first before acquiring it again.
One thing for sure is that this would be a tough one, I mean you could have it to where if anything if a high level pulls a mob much lower than them they immediately seek help from others, realizing you are more dangerous than the usual people causing problems and know they need help, this would be the one and true only way to try and prevent it without seeming to artifical
I get what you're saying but the math doesn't really add up Sicario. You're implying that the group gets the lesser end of the stick because they have to "split the loot." While this is true, it's important to consider that they also have a much higher chance of acquiring said loot (due to the higher probability of winning the engage), so it more or less evens out. This is a bit of a double edged sword because one thing I have always promoted when it comes to FTE (at least with how I would like to see it implemented in Pantheon) is the idea that content should be challenging enough to require a meaningful preparation phase. There should be less emphasis on "winning the tag" and more emphasis on being capable of "beating the content." This wasn't always the case in FFXI since winning the tag was the main objective for a decent amount of content. This is one area where I think open-world competition was a bit better in EQ2 -- the preparation phase was consistently more meaningful / required. There were plenty of group/raid wipes that were decided in the first 5-10 seconds due to a lack of preparation, coordination, or execution.
Trying to merge the strengths of multiple games into a single melting pot can get a bit confusing at times and I'm willing to admit that in this case, regardless of how things worked in FFXI, I wouldn't want to see the FFXI system as a whole translate over to Pantheon. A part of my argument was contingent on a weakness that I was overlooking (and one that I would want to see changed) which is the lack of emphasis on a meaningful preparation phase for group content. It worked in the context of FFXI but I would expect better in Pantheon. If a single high level player truly does have an insurmountable advantage against a low level group then I think some sort of TLC may be in order. Again though ... this is contingent on there being a meaningful preparation phase for group content. I'm really hoping that will be the case in Pantheon. You bring up a few good points and I'll have to spend some more time thinking about this from different perspectives. I'm too tired to do all that right now but I'll try again tomorrow. In the meantime, I concede to your position.
dorotea said:((So do we really need a trivial loot code? ))
Yes we do.
Make it so that low levels don't drop anything all that valuable and it won't really matter. Some high levels will come through and slaughter them by the hundreds because a 10 copper item times 100 gotten in a few minutes with no risk and no need to form a group is a fast and steady source of revenue.
((You seem puzzled by pretty much anything not involving artificial mechanics, and dampening the feeling of sharing a world at all. If outgrowing a zone in level has a negative effect on drops, why taking level ? Why making hyperbolic statement like "Lower levels will never being able to enjoy..."))
Wanting some artifical mechanics here and there when they prevent undesirable conduct and do little or no harm is not trying to avoid an open world. Wanting to to discourage or prevent things that we know have hurt or destroyed other games is not the same thing as putting Pantheon on rails and removing all sandbox elements. Wanting a few "artifical mechanics" is not even remotely close to being puzzled by anything that *isn't* artifical mechanics. Making abuses harder in a few situations will not mean that we do not share a world. Your own statements reflect far more hyperbele than saying lower levels will never be able to enjoy when it was entirely obvious to both you and everyone else that what was meant was that too often they would be unable to enjoy.
Not a fair response.
You claim the high levels will come in and slaughter everything to sell items worth nothing to them and not having much worth in general because they can farm it easy. While this certainly did occur it was not the primary reason high level players camped low-mid level zones...they were looking for rare spawns that dropped highly valuable items that they could use, give to guildies or alts, or sell. Trivial loot code wouldn't be necessary if the high levels could get better loot/money per hour in their own level appropriate zones.
When I think of content that is off limits to me because I am too high level (no loot) it damages the gameplay experience in terms of character progression. It makes me wonder about why the game bothered having experience or levels in the first place. My character has increased too much in power: I cannot loot gnoll pups any longer. It isn't a good feeling at all...much like level scaling isn't a good feeling. You solve one problem and yet create an entirely new one, a situation where players need to prevent leveling up too much or they lose access to things. What if mobs of a certain level dropped a particular crafting component...and your character's level was too high to loot it? Buy it off other players? Make an exception in the trivial loot code? What would you say about that?
Well another thing you can also do is while going towards camps, or named mobs is have NPCs that will attack you regardless of level and have any other npc attack you with him, that way traversing through dungeons could still be dangerous giving the situation, this also doesn't feel artifical, and the grps of equilivant level would have to kill these NPCs anyway, so it would be a regular old mob to them. Now this could make it rough on corpse runs, but like we all have said this isn't an easy question to answer, you could do a multitude of things, you could combine the three ideas I said and put them together.
Ziegfried said:dorotea said:((So do we really need a trivial loot code? ))
Yes we do.
Make it so that low levels don't drop anything all that valuable and it won't really matter. Some high levels will come through and slaughter them by the hundreds because a 10 copper item times 100 gotten in a few minutes with no risk and no need to form a group is a fast and steady source of revenue.
((You seem puzzled by pretty much anything not involving artificial mechanics, and dampening the feeling of sharing a world at all. If outgrowing a zone in level has a negative effect on drops, why taking level ? Why making hyperbolic statement like "Lower levels will never being able to enjoy..."))
Wanting some artifical mechanics here and there when they prevent undesirable conduct and do little or no harm is not trying to avoid an open world. Wanting to to discourage or prevent things that we know have hurt or destroyed other games is not the same thing as putting Pantheon on rails and removing all sandbox elements. Wanting a few "artifical mechanics" is not even remotely close to being puzzled by anything that *isn't* artifical mechanics. Making abuses harder in a few situations will not mean that we do not share a world. Your own statements reflect far more hyperbele than saying lower levels will never be able to enjoy when it was entirely obvious to both you and everyone else that what was meant was that too often they would be unable to enjoy.
Not a fair response.
You claim the high levels will come in and slaughter everything to sell items worth nothing to them and not having much worth in general because they can farm it easy. While this certainly did occur it was not the primary reason high level players camped low-mid level zones...they were looking for rare spawns that dropped highly valuable items that they could use, give to guildies or alts, or sell. Trivial loot code wouldn't be necessary if the high levels could get better loot/money per hour in their own level appropriate zones.
When I think of content that is off limits to me because I am too high level (no loot) it damages the gameplay experience in terms of character progression. It makes me wonder about why the game bothered having experience or levels in the first place. My character has increased too much in power: I cannot loot gnoll pups any longer. It isn't a good feeling at all...much like level scaling isn't a good feeling. You solve one problem and yet create an entirely new one, a situation where players need to prevent leveling up too much or they lose access to things. What if mobs of a certain level dropped a particular crafting component...and your character's level was too high to loot it? Buy it off other players? Make an exception in the trivial loot code? What would you say about that?
Though I don't think a loot code should be used, I don't believe just becuase people want to twink new characters, or get old gear that he didn't get beforehand, should give him a free pass into basically getting free loot either, people are correct their definately be something in place to prevent this behavior as much as possible without actually harming the flow of the grps that are actually suppose to be there
And btw people soloed the content not becuase of anything other than they didn't have to worry about splitting it or having to roll against someone else, to achieve said items to mainly sell which ultimately means regardless of how valuable it is compare to their lvl on content they will still bring in loads more money for as long then item is truly valueable. usually in camping items theu camp one item so they can buy the items they want to twink their alts not farm all the items that they want their twink to have. This is usually the case anyway, people can do it the harder way if they want to i guess, that's up to them.
Now another way to prevent this which I believe they said they are doing is making many variants of items, probably not all of them that would be crazy, but enough of them to where hopefully camping an item to sell, won't be all that valuable at low level so the high levels will just continue to proceed in their appropriate level dungeons and wishing the best they get the good rolls, which would be a good thing, it keeps the high levels away, from content to low from them, adding with some of the other ideas people have thought of it might just be to much of a Hassel to even bother if done correctly
Damage divided by time coding could be a great compromise in my mind. Now to explain what I mean by this.
Let's take a level 20 to 35 group content camp. It takes a group on average 2 minutes to kill an equal to their level. Full loot capable, including Boots of Awesomeness.
A level 50 comes in and wants Boots of Awesomeness so starts one shooting the mobs. Well because he is killing the mobs with such power he is getting destroyed loot. Ruined boot of Awesomeness.
Now level 50 has a choice to slow down and use lower level spells to kill therefore taking more risk to get the item or get the Ruined boots of awesomeness. Which may be repaired through a tradeskill or vendor.
It would be extra programming but could be coded in. Just a little harder than a TLC code. Instead of a simple level check it is a level check with a time table for killing that level mobs to fast. Would you have ways around this yes but if it isn’t a profitable way to spend time they will be discouraged by it. It also has some realism feel to it. The mighty powerful wizard's fireball is just to detructive for the item to handle.
Interesting concept, but ultimately many will disagree with this, becuase they will say but what about my alt I want to twink, or any other reason they wouldn't want this as well.
I think at least when it comes to gearing up themselves you just make getting improvements in the future look decent, that way a lvl 50 won't go to a lvl 30 dungeon, he'll go and camp a lvl 50 one with a group. That way at least for one players know their better to come and also a low level won't go there at level 30 later on and say nice now they I got this I won't have to replace til I get max level sweet.
Plus like I said the Dev team as alrdy said their will be variants on many types of gear, so it sounds promising and also guessing that this is an attempt of them trying to prevent these certain behavoirs, I still think that some of the previous ideas o had make sense, and aren't immersive breaking, cept for one which I stated.
Paloo said:Damage divided by time coding could be a great compromise in my mind. Now to explain what I mean by this.
Let's take a level 20 to 35 group content camp. It takes a group on average 2 minutes to kill an equal to their level. Full loot capable, including Boots of Awesomeness.
A level 50 comes in and wants Boots of Awesomeness so starts one shooting the mobs. Well because he is killing the mobs with such power he is getting destroyed loot. Ruined boot of Awesomeness.
Now level 50 has a choice to slow down and use lower level spells to kill therefore taking more risk to get the item or get the Ruined boots of awesomeness. Which may be repaired through a tradeskill or vendor.
It would be extra programming but could be coded in. Just a little harder than a TLC code. Instead of a simple level check it is a level check with a time table for killing that level mobs to fast. Would you have ways around this yes but if it isn’t a profitable way to spend time they will be discouraged by it. It also has some realism feel to it. The mighty powerful wizard's fireball is just to detructive for the item to handle.
What about melee auto-attack swings? Would they not be over powered in this case? How would you handle this?
I don't mind higher levels farming lower level stuff. If an area or boss is camped then it's camped. Either by one max lvl character, a duo of higher level characters, a group of level appropriate characters, or a zerg of lvl 2's. In any case I'm going to look elsewhere or work something out with them.
Tettnang said:I don't mind higher levels farming lower level stuff. If an area or boss is camped then it's camped. Either by one max lvl character, a duo of higher level characters, a group of level appropriate characters, or a zerg of lvl 2's. In any case I'm going to look elsewhere or work something out with them.
See but if this is a thing than why even bother having a dungeon have different teirs of difficulty if they are simply just going to take the lower teiroto themselves, I mean, granted if I do a cc and they say they have it of course I'm not going to go there to see if it is being soloed camped but it should be discouraged, let the high end dungeons have enough gear at the end to twink their alts if anything so the lower level stuff can actually be camped by close to level appropriate players, it really isn't that hard of a concept.
Riahuf22 said:Tettnang said:I don't mind higher levels farming lower level stuff. If an area or boss is camped then it's camped. Either by one max lvl character, a duo of higher level characters, a group of level appropriate characters, or a zerg of lvl 2's. In any case I'm going to look elsewhere or work something out with them.
See but if this is a thing than why even bother having a dungeon have different teirs of difficulty if they are simply just going to take the lower teiroto themselves, I mean, granted if I do a cc and they say they have it of course I'm not going to go there to see if it is being soloed camped but it should be discouraged, let the high end dungeons have enough gear at the end to twink their alts if anything so the lower level stuff can actually be camped by close to level appropriate players, it really isn't that hard of a concept.
If you litter the game with gear, then it will defeat the concept of meaningful rewards. The idea is that gear will last over longer periods and will be harder to come by, so it is possible a higher level could be picking up something at the lower end of the spectrum that they can use. If they are designing the game anything like original EQ, you won't have a level appropriate drop for every level and area. That is, you may do a dungeon that does not have a helm that drops at level 40. It may be a helm that dropped at 28 or 30. Even if there is a better item out there for that slot, they may not have the means to get it and so picking up the less effective (but better than nothing) item from the lower dungeon becomes a solution.
As I said, games today have it where the world is saturated with gear all over the place and so there is essentially numerous selections of gear at every level for all slots. I don't think that will be the case with this game, though I could be mistaken.
I have to ideas that I think are novel and not too immersion breaking.
1) Agro buff.
For each mob agroed on you those mobs get a buff. That buff is divided by the number of people on the mobs agro table. Effectively it could be something like the effective level of each mob ganged up on a player is increased by one for every mob agroed. This would be primarily for chance to hit and a damage multiplier. A level 50 with 20 level 20 mobs agroed on him would effectively have 20 level 40s agroed on him but they would still have level 20 HP. I would also add some additional buffs like increase movement and attack speed based on incremental jumps (5 would be 10% 10 would be 20% and 20 would be 40% for example). This would increase the lethality of over pulling and represent the concept that even an expert can get swarmed by fodder.
This will encourage groups not to agro more mobs than the number of people in their group as well as discourage high level players from swarming. Once a high level player can no longer use AoE skills to swarm kill their kill rate will go way down so the issue will largely go away.
2) Challenge bonus loot tables.
Mobs will have both a standard and a challenge loot table. The standard loot table can be accessed by any player at any level. The challenge bonus loot table will be accessed only if all players contributing to the kill (both in and out of group) are below a certain level relative to the level of the mob. This is not true trivial loot code as many of the items will be on the standard loot table but the rare items will only exist on the challenge loot table. Challenge loot is in addition to what is rolled on the standard loot table.
High level players can mentor down to being in the challenge level range for that mob in order to still attempt to farm the item after their level has progressed. The caveat is that now that they have mentored down to the challenge level they will need to group up to be able to kill the target.
Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Tettnang said:I don't mind higher levels farming lower level stuff. If an area or boss is camped then it's camped. Either by one max lvl character, a duo of higher level characters, a group of level appropriate characters, or a zerg of lvl 2's. In any case I'm going to look elsewhere or work something out with them.
See but if this is a thing than why even bother having a dungeon have different teirs of difficulty if they are simply just going to take the lower teiroto themselves, I mean, granted if I do a cc and they say they have it of course I'm not going to go there to see if it is being soloed camped but it should be discouraged, let the high end dungeons have enough gear at the end to twink their alts if anything so the lower level stuff can actually be camped by close to level appropriate players, it really isn't that hard of a concept.
If you litter the game with gear, then it will defeat the concept of meaningful rewards. The idea is that gear will last over longer periods and will be harder to come by, so it is possible a higher level could be picking up something at the lower end of the spectrum that they can use. If they are designing the game anything like original EQ, you won't have a level appropriate drop for every level and area. That is, you may do a dungeon that does not have a helm that drops at level 40. It may be a helm that dropped at 28 or 30. Even if there is a better item out there for that slot, they may not have the means to get it and so picking up the less effective (but better than nothing) item from the lower dungeon becomes a solution.
As I said, games today have it where the world is saturated with gear all over the place and so there is essentially numerous selections of gear at every level for all slots. I don't think that will be the case with this game, though I could be mistaken.
Litter ally no where in my post did I say put a crap load of gear into the game I said have enough to where lvl 50 character stay at level 50 dungeons, and not take away the experiences away from lower level players simply becuase you want a price of gear, and even worse just to sell to the people that are trying to camp it. So how about you find a solution that might solve both problems instead of just saying mine doesn't work, it's getting old
I think one, of several, methods they talked about is not having must have items for a huge amount of classes, like GEBS, FBSS..etc. If they have a wide range of different gear and not a piece of gear that everyone wants and gets bottlenecked, then that would limit it to a degree. But we will see what happens.
Grimix said: I really think this issue will be less of an issue than what people are making it out to be. Look at the streams, how many times did a stream group go after a named and got totally wrecked? I think we won't be camping names as much as looking for efficient sources if exp while leveling. So largely, I don't think "appropriate level" parties will go after names all the time for this reason. As far as artificial rules of any kind farming monsters. This is an open world game and competing for resources is part of the experience. A max level player camping for an item for whatever reason from a much lower npc has as much right to be there as a group of "appropriate level" players. There is no logical reason to exclude them besides being honest and admitting that being what you consider as the right level for content means you are entitled to the content.
Sounds like you played FFXI. I have mentioned many times on this forum that I think it's a bad idea to allow players to "double dip" while adventuring. Named bosses shouldn't be the center piece of an XP camp. They should be dangerous and risky, not something you kill over and over while leveling up. Separating "XP" from "Hunting for Rares" is incredibly impactful in an open world MMO. It changes the entire landscape of how the world is explored ... and shared. "Trash Mobs" basically disappear as a thing. There was no such thing in FFXI. 150+ camps that didn't have a boss or shiny piece of loot dangling at the end of the stick. And yes ... competition is inherent in an open world game. It's imperative to to design the game so that competition is considered a fun/healthy/fair element of the overall experience rather than something that needs to be heavily regulated by GM support!
Riahuf22 said:Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Tettnang said:I don't mind higher levels farming lower level stuff. If an area or boss is camped then it's camped. Either by one max lvl character, a duo of higher level characters, a group of level appropriate characters, or a zerg of lvl 2's. In any case I'm going to look elsewhere or work something out with them.
See but if this is a thing than why even bother having a dungeon have different teirs of difficulty if they are simply just going to take the lower teiroto themselves, I mean, granted if I do a cc and they say they have it of course I'm not going to go there to see if it is being soloed camped but it should be discouraged, let the high end dungeons have enough gear at the end to twink their alts if anything so the lower level stuff can actually be camped by close to level appropriate players, it really isn't that hard of a concept.
If you litter the game with gear, then it will defeat the concept of meaningful rewards. The idea is that gear will last over longer periods and will be harder to come by, so it is possible a higher level could be picking up something at the lower end of the spectrum that they can use. If they are designing the game anything like original EQ, you won't have a level appropriate drop for every level and area. That is, you may do a dungeon that does not have a helm that drops at level 40. It may be a helm that dropped at 28 or 30. Even if there is a better item out there for that slot, they may not have the means to get it and so picking up the less effective (but better than nothing) item from the lower dungeon becomes a solution.
As I said, games today have it where the world is saturated with gear all over the place and so there is essentially numerous selections of gear at every level for all slots. I don't think that will be the case with this game, though I could be mistaken.
Litter ally no where in my post did I say put a crap load of gear into the game I said have enough to where lvl 50 character stay at level 50 dungeons, and not take away the experiences away from lower level players simply becuase you want a price of gear, and even worse just to sell to the people that are trying to camp it. So how about you find a solution that might solve both problems instead of just saying mine doesn't work, it's getting old
You asked why a level 50 would want a level 30 item. I explained that there may not be a level 50 item in that slot because gear is not available at every level for every slot. That is why I said "littered the game with gear". To essentially meet your point, you would have to have gear for every slot, every class, every focus at each specified level range. This would substantially increase the amount of gear in the game. This is also the aproach most modern games take and why in those games you end up having to upgrade every time you level.
In a game like I am explaining, upgrading every level would not exist and so it may be very likely that you can be wearing gear that is spread out over a range of many levels because that is all that is available.
Do you understand what I mean? That is, that level 50 dungeon may not have an item for that slot for that level, making the other lesser dungeons item essentially the best selection for that class/player.