You could also have a mechanic of: Being able to set your level to any arbitrary previous level, if you wanted a TLC mechanic to not apply to your kill(s).
Note: This is significantly different than mentoring, as you can do it alone. I also agree TLC shouldn't apply to quest/crafting drops, for historical reasons.
I really don't think a TLC mechanic is necessary. The "risk" of a high level player farming low level content should come down to "opportunity cost." The game can be designed so that any player can go anywhere at any time without being considered a disruption to others. Embrace competition for finite resources as an inherent aspect of open world game design. Create rules and systems that allow for fun/healthy/fair competition and let players figure out the rest. TLC wasn't used in FFXI and that's because competition was based on PVE (FTE / Encounter Locking) rather than Pseudo-PVP (MDD / DPS Racing) -- it didn't matter whether you or other players in the same area were level 20, 30, or 50. If you were capable of defeating content from 100-0 then you had a fair chance to demonstrate as much. If you were victorious then you would claim your bounty.
It wasn't super uncommon to a see a level 50 player hunting for the same boss as a level 25 player ... but here is the kicker ... it happened peacefully! The reason this happened is because players were given freedom to make a choice on how they spent their time, and that freedom was a universally respected privilege for all players. If the level 50 player wanted to spend their time camping for a rare helmet from a level 25 NPC, it was their choice and their choice alone. If a level 25 player decided that they wanted to do the exact same thing ... again, it was their choice and their choice alone. By allowing both players the option to make a decision on how they spend their time, it's possible that they end up running into each other while out and about in the open world ... ::gasp:: -- whatever will they do if that ends up happening?
The biggest issue I see here is that some players start viewing the world as a waiting line leading up to their favorite concession stand. If they see a piece of content that they want, or that they feel belongs to them, it's now considered a piece of merchandise in their shopping cart. This mindset puts the carriage before the horse and completely ignores the idea of "contested resources" -- if you want to put a piece of merchandise (loot) in your shopping cart (inventory) then you need to defeat the content that drops it fair and square. You should do this ... knowing that other players may be looking to accomplish the same thing as you, and that you aren't any more important or special than they are. You both share the same world/resources and follow the same rules. Sometimes you are in the right place at the right time ... sometimes you aren't. It is what it is.
If you want certain content to be exempt from "open world competition" then you should change the rules for that content, specifically. I think it's reasonable that players can earn "force-pop components" that they can use to spawn something that for all intents and purposes ... belongs to them. The game would recognize their "effort" of accumulating those resources and give them a fair opportunity to "cash-in" after they expend them, without competition. It sounds like this same concept is something that players decided to take into their own hands and then sprint to the finish line with in EQ. Some people believed that since they were the first to enter an area, it suddenly became their area (for an unlimited amount of time) and that "outside players" would now be considered an invasive species infringing on their entertainment. They felt that since they killed a place-holder ... all future place-holders (or bosses) of that same NPC belonged to them, until they decided to leave. They earned the right to say that after all.
And maybe they were right? This is why rules and systems are important. VR shouldn't need to have "on-demand" referees available 24/7 -- they shouldn't have to "review the play" in slow-motion and from 5 different angles to ensure they make the right call. (Take a lesson from the NFL ... it doesn't matter how many times you watch the replay, you're going to get certain calls wrong and if players feel they are getting screwed by a company representative, they will be livid.) I think it's far more realistic that VR creates a system that is self encompassing. EQ seemed to have a set of rules that included terms like "ownership" and "kill-credit" that were at direct odds with eachother. In other words ... "kill-stealing" was a self-induced ailment due to a lack of consistency within the rules and definitions ... and that single weak link in the chain ended up becoming the gateway for TLC.
Competition is either going to be a fun/healthy/fair aspect of gameplay or it's going to be weird and taboo. It's either going to be something that players can engage in peacefully, and with sportsmanship, or something that is reviled as bad/toxic behavior that must be abolished from the game. A lot of this comes down to how the game is designed, and how the competitive "Spirit of the Game" is ultimately defined. If "conflict" is alleviated through good game design, as has been suggested as the plan, competition can actually serve as a great catalyst for positive player interactions and comradery. Competition shouldn't be shunned as something on the agenda of an evil player, or as a byproduct of bad game design. That type of mindset is directly responsible for the outbreak and popularity of instancing, in my opinion. Establish the rules ... back them up with good game design and complimentary systems, and then set the players free.
**Edit -- I just wanted to add the disclaimer really quick that FFXI had over 150 "XP Camps" that were respected by players. They weren't officially recognized or enforced by GM's ... they were respected by the players in organic fashion. Hunting bosses was a different story and that's where competition was common. Bosses were rare and difficult ... no player could claim them as a "camp" -- players were nothing more than temporary visitors of their lair. Bosses were too dangerous and risky to consider them as the center-piece of an XP Camp. If you were trying to focus on XP you would spend time at one of the many known XP camps in the game, or go create one. Bosses usually had multiple spawn locations (in the general vicinity of their lair) and variance in their respawn timer. If a player outside of your group was lucky enough to get the rare item from a boss, even while competing, it was considered good sportsmanship to cheer for them. That was a good player interaction that I would like to see a return to rather than isolating people into their own private instances so that everybody can get a medal.
Questaar said:For me the problem of high level farmers is simple. If the mob is grey the PC gets no exp or loot. Simple.
So, what about those who dinged, but missed the chance to get the item? Now they can't have it because the mob turned grey? Also, are all grey mobs suddenly going to be one shot easy mobs now so any class can easily bypass the content or not have to deal with them? Are you going to make them non-agro?
What about mobs that vary in level through out the zone? What do you tell a player who is camping a mob and then the rare pops while they ding and it turns grey? Are they out of luck now?
All these "protection" mechanics don't keep the abusers from doing such. All they do is cause issues for honest players the mechanic was never intended to target in the first place.
EQ 2 had TLC and you know what? It stopped nothing. Farmers simply leveled up characters to the limit of a zones level and then perma farmed the zone with that secondary toon/group for selling rares and items. So the TLC didn't stop anything, it just became a BS mechanic that made a lot of content worthless for people unless they did the content at the theme park level.
Tanix,
Yes, we know from streams that there will be a mix of levels in any one zone. Example: Theres red, orange (?) yellow, white, blue, green, and grey, most groups are fighting yellows - red. If you’re soloing you’re fighting whites, blues. I believe I read that greens in Terminus already give no exp. I could be wrong on that. So if you’re camping greens, why are you doing that? VR is designing encounters to be challenging. If you’re (example) L 50 and you want to get a level 30 drop then you should be out of luck. Period. If there’s a deleveling mechanic then be level 30. Keep a guy at L30 to take out a level 30 mob. The last thing Terminus needs is a bunch of L50s hogging content made for L30s. People who farm items far below their level to sell are a blight on an mmo and should be discouraged. It’s not some complicated mechanic.
Questaar said:As far as OneADseven says let there be fun/healthy/fair competition between a L50 going for a mob and a L30. There is no such thing.
It happened all the time in FFXI. Again ... this is because competition was based on PVE (First-To-Engage / Encounter Locking) rather than Pseudo-PVP (Most-Damage-Done / DPS Racing). Player level had very little impact on competition. If you were capable of defeating content from 100-0% then you had a fair chance at doing it. MDD allows a single high level player to steamroll a full group of lower level players with ease. I have experience with both systems.
If you’re a L50 going after a L30 mob where everything is grey to you, those mobs aren’t attacking you. They are attacking the L30 player the content was designed for. It’s not hard for the level 50 to be first to engage because all the mobs are ignoring him. What possible use is a level 30 helmet for a L50 player. It’s a twink or farm/sell item. That quickly devolves into people leaving the game because the high levels are busy griefing everybody below them to block content, and competition.
Questaar said:It’s not hard for the level 50 to be first to engage because all the mobs are ignoring him.
This isn't entirely true. If a single level 50 player decides to camp an area full of level 25 content ... that happens to be occupied by a group of level 25 players ... that group has 6 chances to win the engage compared to just 1 for the high level player. That isn't what I would call a favorable opportunity cost. What this means for the high level player is that they are probably better off spending their time somewhere else that offers a better opportunity cost. They have a choice to make rather than the game telling them they don't belong in this area of the world.
In other words ... if no low level players are in the area, the higher level player is free to do as they please. They aren't disturbing anybody. If a low level group is in the area ... they automatically have the advantage against a single player, regardless of their level, and that's important in a group-centric game. Because those conditions are more favorable to the low level group, the high level player will generally move on ... and of their own volition. If they decide to stick around, that's fine. It's their time. The opportunity cost would be really bad but at least their freedom remains intact.
The MDD model gives an insurmountable advantage to the higher level players. It's easily abused and there is virtually no opportunity cost to consider while navigating through low level areas. High level players steamroll the lowbies with ease and that's exactly why TLC was clamored for in EQ.
In my experience (only EQ, Eq2,, never FFXI) there is no reason for that L50 to want that L30 helm. If there’s a L50 going after that L30 mob they (the l30s) know the same math you do. The L50 simply lay waste to the grey L30 mobs. Thus there is nothing for those level 30 s to do. IMO a level 50 wanting a L30 helm ruins the game. How many times have you seen a whole guild block content just so no other guild can challenge them. There is no need for GM monitoring, no arcane rules that are hard to explain. If the mobs grey it’s worthless, as it should be.
EQ2 and FFXI can't really be compared in this regard, unfortunately. Or many others, being perfectly honest. The main positive similarity I can see between EQ2 and FFXI is FTE / Encounter Locking. There were a few other elements beside that but they were mostly byproducts of that design choice. EQ2 was known for excessive use of BoE and BoP. The vast majority of good loot came from raiding with only a few outliers ... usually the heritage quest rewards. I played EQ2 for 5 years and in the grand scheme of my MMO experience ... I feel that game got more things wrong than it did right. Itemization was absolutely horrible. The economy was weak. There were a bunch of zones that eventually became ghost zones, partially because of TLC. The world felt really small when 90% of it was "worthless." Not as it should be, IMO.
oneADseven, if we're approaching this from an assumption that there will be meaningful loot to be had throughout all level ranges (and is loot that is worth keeping for a long time, maybe even at max level), that means there will be a high incentive (both in terms of power and monetarily) for players to farm the drops. Allowing high level players to kill mobs that offer absolutely no challenge and to be rewarded these drops is a recipe for disaster (note: I'm not talking about crafting materials, only rare gear).
The idea that a Lvl 50 and a Lvl 30 player (or even player vs group) is an equitable comparison is ridiculous. You can't seriously tell me that you genuinely think both sets of these players have a fair challenge for a rare drop, unless you're approaching this from the most absolutely isolated test lab environment: an empty dungeon, no adds/respawns, no wandering groups, with both the lvl 30 group and the level 50 solo waiting for the named to spawn. But even then, it's not fair: the group has to split the loot, the solo farmer gets it all (with brainless clicks of his hotbar vs a group having to work together to defeat the enemy). That's a very minor subset of the examples we're thinking of (and have experienced or seen others experience) where this is a major issue. I've personally been in situations where I'm working with my group through a dungeon, making a slow crawl through all the mobs only to see a high level shoot past us, uncontested by the grey-con mobs to the named in the room ahead, and then kills it with a few button clicks and leaves. And they get a rare drop from that? Come on.
There would be absolutely no meaningful difference between letting high levels farm grey-cons for loot to sell (which they will, denying this content to level-appropriate players who are wanting to do the content), vs having a special room unlock at lvl 50 in the cities for players to go into to play magic slot machines for the same drops. Same level of effort (mindless button click) and at least then the low level players won't have to worry about having their content denied.
And let's not pretend that this isn't actually an issue we've seen before
Questaar said:Tanix,
Yes, we know from streams that there will be a mix of levels in any one zone. Example: Theres red, orange (?) yellow, white, blue, green, and grey, most groups are fighting yellows - red. If you’re soloing you’re fighting whites, blues. I believe I read that greens in Terminus already give no exp. I could be wrong on that. So if you’re camping greens, why are you doing that? VR is designing encounters to be challenging. If you’re (example) L 50 and you want to get a level 30 drop then you should be out of luck. Period. If there’s a deleveling mechanic then be level 30. Keep a guy at L30 to take out a level 30 mob. The last thing Terminus needs is a bunch of L50s hogging content made for L30s. People who farm items far below their level to sell are a blight on an mmo and should be discouraged. It’s not some complicated mechanic.
First off, EQ had ranges of gear that were useful. In fact, it was not uncommon for a player up to 20+ levels to go back and camp an item that would help them. That was the nice thing about EQ, that gear was more useful for longer periods, that you didn't do a gear trade off every level like modern MMOs. So, it would be quite common for a player to want to go back and get gear from the lower levels.
Also, the content as I explained will have large disparity in the zones and if you played in EQ, content was not simply mob turns grey, it is now easy as this is a more modern MMO design due to power increase being dramatic level by level. So it would be quite normal for a player to still be doing content where the mobs are getting close to becoming less worthy for exp. In fact, in EQ it was not uncommon if you were seeking an item to have several no-exp mobs around the camp as you were trying to get the one boss mob to pop. Usually the boss was higher level, but there were times where the camp would have mobs that were still conning green, but the boss popped as grey.
TLC is horrible in the fact it does not stop anything anyway (players level up to cap, lock their exp and then farm the content like they did in EQ2), all it does is harm intended play. I can't tell you how many times my friends and I were messed over by EQ2s mechanics due to this. It is why they eventually added the ability to self mentor on an NPC because it became such a hassle to find others to mentor on.
TLC was massive mistake for EQ2 and for any game that implements it.
Talinor said:Hello all! I been looking and I have not found any info on this question.
Is VR looking at a way to cut down or prevent higher level players from farming content that is way below there lvl and preventing those groups that are of level from exploring or getting the drops that have a chance to drop from the area they are adventuring in?
Example lets say max level is 50, so; a lvl 50 or pair of lvl 50's go to a level 30 to 35 area and camp it because it is easy and they get no experience from it but they know some good drops have a chance of being found. then a group of adventures say between 28 and 32 come exploring in but there is nothing due to the lvl 50's in the area farming. That is a hinderence and it prevents those that actually need it at level from experienceing it and having a chance to progress.
I was wondering if there is any talk on like zone scaling to cutt back on this or to help deter this from happening. If I missed this conversation in the community please point me to the topic on the forums.
You must not have looked too hard, there's been extensive discussions on this topic already.
Sicario said:oneADseven, if we're approaching this from an assumption that there will be meaningful loot to be had throughout all level ranges (and is loot that is worth keeping for a long time, maybe even at max level), that means there will be a high incentive (both in terms of power and monetarily) for players to farm the drops. Allowing high level players to kill mobs that offer absolutely no challenge and to be rewarded these drops is a recipe for disaster (note: I'm not talking about crafting materials, only rare gear).
The idea that a Lvl 50 and a Lvl 30 player (or even player vs group) is an equitable comparison is ridiculous. You can't seriously tell me that you genuinely think both sets of these players have a fair challenge for a rare drop, unless you're approaching this from the most absolutely isolated test lab environment: an empty dungeon, no adds/respawns, no wandering groups, with both the lvl 30 group and the level 50 solo waiting for the named to spawn. But even then, it's not fair: the group has to split the loot, the solo farmer gets it all (with brainless clicks of his hotbar vs a group having to work together to defeat the enemy). That's a very minor subset of the examples we're thinking of (and have experienced or seen others experience) where this is a major issue. I've personally been in situations where I'm working with my group through a dungeon, making a slow crawl through all the mobs only to see a high level shoot past us, uncontested by the grey-con mobs to the named in the room ahead, and then kills it with a few button clicks and leaves. And they get a rare drop from that? Come on.
There would be absolutely no meaningful difference between letting high levels farm grey-cons for loot to sell (which they will, denying this content to level-appropriate players who are wanting to do the content), vs having a special room unlock at lvl 50 in the cities for players to go into to play magic slot machines for the same drops. Same level of effort (mindless button click) and at least then the low level players won't have to worry about having their content denied.
And let's not pretend that this isn't actually an issue we've seen before
I never suggested any sort of equitable comparison in regards to content being considered a "fair challenge" irrespective of player level or group size. I understand that a level 20 boss is going to be much easier for a level 50 player than it is for a level 20 group. It is what it is. My entire point was predicated around the idea that "open world competition" between players can be used as an organic deterrent to high level players going back and farming trivial content. With FTE, there is no advantage for being higher level. If you're by yourself, you're actually at a disadvantage. Rather than needing to implement a TLC (that players will find ways to work around anyway) I think it's best to just let people do what they want.
The situation you describe sounds like something that would have happened in EQ2. Most of that game was more catered to "crawling" than "camping" -- whether you were in Storm Hold, Fallen Gate, Ruins of Varsoon, Nektropos Castle, Runnyeye, Obelisk of Lost Souls, Cazic Thule, Solusek's Eye, Permafrost, etc. Players would kill a boss and then they would move to the next room. You would do "rotations" of the zone ... moving from one room to the next, always searching for that next named boss. Each zone might have 10-20 of them and they usually weren't all that far apart. When dungeons are built this way then yes, it's clearly an issue that high level players can run through grey content without being attacked and cherry pick the bosses. This is basically referred to as leap frogging.
In the end, I really don't want to see content (especially bosses) implemented the same way it was in EQ2. Not every interesting looking room needs to have a boss or placeholder in it. Content shouldn't be designed where players are encouraged to continually crawl through large areas of the zone and kill anything and everything in their path. The TTK (Time To Kill) for regular NPC's should be much higher. Navigating a dungeon should be highly dangerous. One of the main benefits of a "camp" is that you get to establish a foothold that offers some form of security. The game shouldn't be a walking/talking loot pinata filled with bosses in every other room that drops something shiny. That's what leads to 99% of the loot in the game being worthless or BoE/BoP ... there is no real risk vs reward or item rarity. Everybody kills everything on every trip to every dungeon.
Either way ... I totally understand your concern, and I see how my perspective might not make sense if you're looking at it through a non-FFXI lens. That game was unlike any other that I have ever played. It was the total opposite of EQ2 in almost every way that mattered. I had some good memories in EQ2 ... I played it for 5 years. But the 12-15 months I spent in FFXI were far more memorable and far more enjoyable. A lot of this was probably due to their "less is more" approach when it came to bosses and meaningful loot. One of the most iconic items in the game were the "Leaping Boots" -- a level 7 pair of boots with 3 defense, 3 AGI, 3 DEX. These boots were worth an absolute fortune. Stats didn't grow on trees. Players couldn't just lockdown a camp until they got what they wanted, either. There were hardships and challenges. The world was out to kill you ... not the other way around. If a max level player decided that they wanted to go farm a level 15 boss ... they earned the right to do that. Levels didn't grow on trees either ... and there was always an opportunity cost to consider, regardless of what level you were.
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? The L50 helm that VR has a mob for and a dungeon for Is better and level appropriate. 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. 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.
Questaar said:One ADSeven, a game where a L7 pair of boots is still lusted after by a max level player is a poorly designed game imo. I’m glad I didn’t waste my time on it.
You're jumping to conclusions. The reason the max level player wanted it was for their sub-class. It was very common for players to re-level ... so that same max level player would be using those boots on their level 7 class. The fact that the item was "lusted after" by max level players is what made that game so damn amazing. It allowed a new level 10-12 character (A level 7 character would have been destroyed by the boss) to potentially get their hands on something that was so rare, so valuable, so desired ... that a max level player would be willing to pay them a small fortune for it. If a newb was lucky enough to get their hands on those boots they could sell them for enough gold to help supplement their adventuring needs all the way to level 25 or 30. FFXI had an amazing player driven economy and the way that high/low level players could interact with each other on a consistent basis is something I haven't seen in any other game ... ever.
Before you jump to any more conclusions, please take the time to watch this design documentary video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVuqN0RBFcY
That video barely scratches the surface of how challenging FFXI was as a game. "The Dark Souls of MMO's" indeed ... but where reputation meant everything because of how reliant each and every player was on grouping with others. Everybody has their own tastes. FFXI was a hardcore game that wasn't for the faint of heart. Content was brutal ... the death penalty was severe ... leveling took forever ... travelling was meaningful. You know ... the total opposite of anything available today.
Questaar said:For me the problem of high level farmers is simple. If the mob is grey the PC gets no exp or loot. Simple.
I think this is a good rule, it can be tweaked around like: every level above 'grey' is 10% less to the drop etc.
but generally this is a good solution and it doesn't break my immersion. and it is less "fake" than top level griefers farm lowbie areas.
philo said: That video you keep posting isn't doing the game any favors...
It's the second time I have shared it and I think it would be good for community dialogue as a whole if people actually understood what kind of game FFXI was rather than jumping to conclusions and/or stereotyping it. I have been told countless times that I "just don't get it" when it comes to EQ design. (This usually comes up when discussing zerging, power-leveling, kill-stealing, content denial, malicious training, or FD pulling. I'm pretty sure every other aspect of old EQ aligns with my interests.) If anybody would be kind enough to share a video that goes through the same lengths to describe what made EQ so magical (as well as the pitfalls to keep things in perspective) I would gladly spend the time to watch it. FFXI was an oldschool/hardcore/group-centric/community-driven/open-world MMORPG that emphasized risk vs reward, meaningful travel, horizontal progression and challenging content. If people aren't in to that sort of thing, so be it ... but I'd rather not stand idly by and see them drag it through the mud unfairly.
Those are all from a quick Google search, they don't even begin to cover the numerous complaints I've seen elsewhere by those playing on EQ about how high levels come through wrecking entire dungeons, totally dominating content for the drops, etc. There is no "organic deterrent" to be had for this particular issue, unfortunately, not as long as we're talking about gear that is actually worth having, and keeping for a long time (even at max level). If that is true, then these issues will be present in the game. It doesn't matter if it's "camping" or "crawling" or whatever. Makes no difference when everything's dead before you even reach the dungeon. And that's fair? That's a good gameplay design? That's good for the in-game economy? I heavily disagree. Max level characters shouldn't be rewarded for brainlessly smashing buttons on their hotbar to get rare loot.
