Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Experience modifiers

    • 3237 posts
    June 24, 2019 1:17 PM PDT

    This won't be the first, second, or last time that I share my thoughts on this topic.  Experience modifiers are extremely important as they are supported by both the game tenets and the concept of risk vs reward in general.  There are a lot of people who suggest that there shouldn't be any XP modifiers but I can't help but think that they are overlooking what that would actually mean.  When it comes to MMORPG's ... XP modifiers have always existed in the form of "relative con level."  Without modifiers, a level 25 Kobold would always give a flat amount of XP.  If we want that kobold to give more XP as a yellow/orange mob than it would as a green/blue mob, a modifier would be necessary.  I think most people would agree that this sort of modifier is important, almost to the point where the "relative con level modifier" has been assumed as a standard rule of the XP algorithm.  

    At the end of the day, risk vs reward is paramount.  Some modifiers are going to work extremely well (relative con-level) while others might be considered an "arbitrary bonus" that encourage players to game the system in ways that have negative consequences for the game world.  ZEM from EQ1 is a notorious example of an idea that might sound good on paper, but in practice, it results in certain zones being prioritized over others.  This can lead to excess competition and undesired amounts of conflict as players go out of their way to prioritize the same content for the sake of efficiency.  Conversely, it can also lead to other zones becoming barren and desolate as players avoid them ... once again, for the sake of efficiency.  Time is one of the most important resources we have while being immersed in a virtual world and it's completely natural for players to try and be as efficient with their time as possible.

    The key to getting all of this right is aligning the concept of risk vs reward with mathematical efficiency.  (This is why relative con-level works so well ... unless your game is busted to the point where it's ideal to destroy huge swarms of blue content with AoE destruction, or where it's possible for solo players to kite a dozen NPC's that are supposed to be "challenging" to a group of the same level.)  In the context of Pantheon, I think it's entirely reasonable to create a system that encourages players to group up and go on a dangerous adventure.  Some may consider this an attempt to "socially engineer" player behavior and in many ways, I agree with them.

    Isn't that why we are here?  Think about all of the games out there that avoid the emphasis on challenging group play ... where you can be "efficient" as a solo-player that runs around completing an endless supply of mundane tasks.  Think about the difference between overcoming obstacles that require teamwork/coordination/synergy from a group (dynamic, involved, social) and compare that to completing a task from an NPC (linear, prescribed, simple)  --  many of us crave that human element!  Do we want to put our thinking cap on and play a role in a team that is dependent on us making good choices?  That is where the magic is, for me, and why I have been so convicted in my stance in these other threads:

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/9383/the-xp-journey

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/6403/xp-bonus-chains

    If the game is designed in such a way where efficiency goes hand in hand with boring/easy/monotonous content consumption, that is what the majority of your players will experience.  If the game is designed in such a way where efficiency goes hand in hand with engaging/challenging/dynamic content consumption, many players will strive for that efficiency, and it will feel extremely gratifying when they are successful.  Infantilization has ruined our gaming.  I miss the good old days when bonuses were earned rather than given, and where it was widely believed that this was "fair."  


    This post was edited by oneADseven at June 24, 2019 1:56 PM PDT
    • 193 posts
    June 24, 2019 1:22 PM PDT

    Slydog75 said:

    dorotea said:

    There should be a substantial bonus for playing solo. Since the game will be designed for group play with no specifically solo content it should reward the few that are able to somehow manage to kill things and do quests on their own with at least double experience. Maybe more.

     

     

    So, I know you were joking, but IMO this should work like this:  A group kills mob X, mob X is worth 1000exp, the 1000exp is divided equally amongst the party members.  

    Our favoite PC, Loaden Pleaswait, solos the same mob.  He gets all 1000exp just to himself.  

     

    This is, in a way, what you are saying, but said this way sound perfectly fair.

    I think there's a part to this you're missing. A mob worth 1000 exp for a group would more than likely be worth less (500-700ish?) for a solo player, as groups will get an xp bonus. It seems this whole thread comes down to pretty much one thing, like so many other threads. Remember the thread about ways to replace group members? There were arguments for, against, beside, over, under, it was game-breaking, it was necessary...you get the idea. The thing about xp modifiers, whether they take the form of group bonuses (which rewards you for playing with others), rested xp, mentoring bonus xp, potions, bonus zones, whatever, is they move you faster toward the 'end' game and max level. Personally, it doesn't matter to me if someone gets to max level before I do. I'm more about the journey than the perceived destination of the end game. If there are bonuses for experience, they should be pro-active ones, like bonus xp for groups, perhaps even for mentoring. You could argue that rested xp helps keep friends together level-wise if one or more has to be away for a while due to real life. In that case, I think I'd rather have a way to slow or disable my xp gain rather than have mechanics in place for faster levelling.

    • 1584 posts
    June 24, 2019 1:51 PM PDT

    No exp bonuses for anytbing cept maybe full grp to encourage grping even more than it alrdy is, even though honestly  I wouldn't even mind of it didn't have it, just that if their would be one it would be the only one I would agree with.


    This post was edited by Cealtric at June 24, 2019 1:59 PM PDT
    • 2419 posts
    June 24, 2019 3:18 PM PDT

    oneADseven said:

    When it comes to MMORPG's ... XP modifiers have always existed in the form of "relative con level."  Without modifiers, a level 25 Kobold would always give a flat amount of XP.  If we want that kobold to give more XP as a yellow/orange mob than it would as a green/blue mob, a modifier would be necessary.  I think most people would agree that this sort of modifier is important, almost to the point where the "relative con level modifier" has been assumed as a standard rule of the XP algorithm. 

    But the effective value of a level 25 Kobold for a level 22 character is greater than that for a level 29 character specifically because the total amount of XP needed in level 22 is much less than that needed in level 29.  Therefore there is no need to further modify the experience earned.  Kill it earlier and you gain a greater percentage of your level than you would from the same mob killed later at a much higher level.

    That said, I'm not 100% against such modifiers if they were to be implemented because my playstyle alone naturally puts me up against the harder content so I benefit either way, moreso with modifiers.  I'll just get to max level faster which is fine with me.

    But when it comes to race/class XP penalties/bonuses I adamantly oppose either.  I suffered through the idiotic EQ1 racial/class penalties and they sucked...hard.  Every race and every class, regardless of the combination, should both earn the same XP per kill (if at the same level) and require the same amount of XP for the same level. As much as people whine about the options on race/class combinations, do not compound that by tacking on some stupid XP modifications.

    • 3237 posts
    June 24, 2019 3:28 PM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    But the effective value of a level 25 Kobold for a level 22 character is greater than that for a level 29 character specifically because the total amount of XP needed in level 22 is much less than that needed in level 29.  Therefore there is no need to further modify the experience earned.  Kill it earlier and you gain a greater percentage of your level than you would from the same mob killed later at a much higher level.

    While this is true, without a modifier, that level 25 Kobold would continue to give the same amount of XP even after it becomes grey.  Players would be able to get to maximum level (eventually, regardless of the curve) by focusing on nothing but grey-content.  That kind of system would create conditions that are primed for soloing and boxing.  Pet classes would go AFK in low-level zones while their pet behavior is set to aggressive.  Max-level players would be able to power-level with insane efficiency by allowing their low-level friends to enjoy XP gain from mobs 25+ levels above them.  It would be extremely difficult to balance risk vs reward (XP, specifically) let alone any sense of meaningful progression without modifiers.

    Vandraad said:

    But when it comes to race/class XP penalties/bonuses I adamantly oppose either.  I suffered through the idiotic EQ1 racial/class penalties and they sucked...hard.  Every race and every class, regardless of the combination, should both earn the same XP per kill (if at the same level) and require the same amount of XP for the same level. As much as people whine about the options on race/class combinations, do not compound that by tacking on some stupid XP modifications.

    I agree with this completely.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at June 24, 2019 3:43 PM PDT
    • 1785 posts
    June 24, 2019 4:01 PM PDT

    Here are my thoughts :)

     

     

    Lots of years of gaming have taught me that there are different ways to handle experience earned by a player character, whether solo or in a group.  We don't yet know what method Pantheon will really be employing here, so many of us make an assumption that it will be as it was in EverQuest or even old tabletop RPGs:  Monsters have an "experience value", and when killed, that value is earned/split by players involved in killing them.  It's a simple system and a simple assumption to make.  But as I mentioned there are other ways to handle earned experience that have been used successfully in many games over the years.

    For the sake of argument though, if experience is earned at a set amount per kill, and if that experience is then split equally between members of a group - I do feel that there *must* be a bonus applied based on group size.  The reason for this is simply that players will always try to find the optimal rate of experience gain.  In practical terms, it means they'll figure out the minimum number of people needed to kill those monsters, and for the most part, stick to that minimum.  If that means that it's faster to duo or trio for experience than to bring a full group, that's what they'll do.  In order to encourage people to bring more players along, there would have to be some kind of a bonus to offset the lost "efficiency".

    I want to be clear though - I think that a group experience bonus is a bandaid solution for a system that's not well thought out to begin with.  A flat experience rate per kill leads to all sorts of player behavior that can cause problems in the long run - favoring specific group makeups such as tank+healer+four DPS.  Favoring specific tactics such as mass pulls and AoE burn-downs.  Even favoring specific hunting grounds where mobs are more plentiful or easier to kill.  All of these are player reactions to an overly simplistic system of earning experience that I believe will harm the game in the long run.

     

    Here are some examples of other imperfect systems just to reinforce my point:

    - What if XP gain is normalized based on player level vs. mob level?  How many other players you're with doesn't matter - you, personally, will always get the same experience per kill.  So now, you want to group as big as you can to kill as fast as possible.  This insures players will be social but it doesn't fix the other problems I mentioned above.

    - What if XP gain is modified by how the the mob was killed?  If you AoE down 5 mobs at once, you get full value for the first but take a penalty on the others?  This might serve to slow down people doing burn or spin groups but it won't stop them unless the penalty is greater than the gain - at which point you're back to the first problem of people only bringing the minimum number of players required.

    - What if XP gain is modified by factors other than mob level vs. your level?  For example, if you got a small XP boost with every critical hit, or by "fighting smart" and using abilities that the mob was weak to.  Sounds interesting on paper, but if the modifiers are potent enough, eventually players will figure them out and guides will be posted on how to optimize XP gain vs. every mob in the game.

    - What if XP gain is based partially or entirely on something else, such as quests completed, or new areas explored?  This encourages players to spread out and do these things, yes, but at the same time it also penalizes players who aren't as interested in doing those things, and also promotes a speedrun mentality.  Why bother killing the guards when only the boss matters?

    I don't have the right answer here, but I believe very strongly that Pantheon needs to have a system for awarding experience that is nuanced and has multiple factors.  The system needs to encourage players to do more challenging things, and discourage them from resorting to speedrun or AoE burn tactics as the most optimal method to grind out levels.  The system needs to encourage diverse groups and sub-optimal groups without simply changing the math on what's a "perfect" group.  And finally, the system needs to be set up so that XP gain rates are normalized across the entire world, so that there's no real difference between leveling in one zone or dungeon vs. leveling in another of the same general level.

    If this can be done right, there will little to no need for artificial experience modifiers in the game.  It's my hope that the team can take all the lessons learned from 20 years of MMOs, both good and bad, and set this system up right.  Because in my experience, slapping band-aids on a broken system only makes things worse over time.

    • 5 posts
    June 24, 2019 4:02 PM PDT
    Only exp modifier there should be is bonus for grouping
    • 372 posts
    June 24, 2019 4:18 PM PDT

    Welcome to the forums!   ....yeah.  That's all I've got. Welcome.

    • 372 posts
    June 24, 2019 4:18 PM PDT

    double posting like a pro


    This post was edited by Tigersin at June 24, 2019 4:18 PM PDT
    • 259 posts
    June 24, 2019 4:52 PM PDT

    Not for me!

    • 1399 posts
    June 24, 2019 5:56 PM PDT

    I'm really interested in this option to turn experience off to prevent you from out leveling friends or zones your enjoying. This could be taken a step further and a player could bank experience that could be reapplied if there was a death just after leveling. 

    Savings experience as opposed debt experience.

     

    This is still about experience modifiers, I'm just against positive modification, but not necessarily against negative experience modification.

    • 945 posts
    June 24, 2019 6:13 PM PDT

    How about putting experience durations on areas?  i.e. When a player first enters an area, they get a 10% xp bonus for X hours of gameplay (say 8-10), then their xp is normalized for X (24-36) hours of online gameplay, then their xp is penalized until they go xp somewhere else for X hours, at which point they go back to the 10% xp bonus.  This would promote exploration and cycling of players through areas allowing other players to get "camps" (instead of finding one area that yields exp and staying there for 3-4 weeks, promoting sharing of camps, and preventing players from never seeing any of the other areas that were of appropriate level).

    I remember having to get my name on "lists" in order to get into xp camps... I remember one time specifically in HHK I waited like 6 hours while running around doing other things until I finally went to bed at like 1am because I was on the list behind classes like Enchanter or really whatever the "list holder" wanted to invite.  When I woke up the next morning around 8am hoping to get into a camp, the same people that were on the day before were still on, but when I put my name back on the list there were only a couple of people ahead of me but none were healers... which is who left with the tank I replaced (because they both outleveled the content - they went from like 20-30 or something ridiculous in 2 days) and then we couldn't find a healer. 

    There will be many players burning through the content, playing for 12-20 hours straight, resting for a few hours and then doing it again in the same spot until they get no more xp from an area.  These groups of people will hold "camps" for days if not encouraged to venture forth; and those that are forced to explore new areas (because they can't get into the camps) or just choose to be adventurous should be rewarded for it (and not punished because they didn't get to log on when the other people did unless the area has explicit login times and if they are "late" to the camp then its their own fault).

    • 3237 posts
    June 24, 2019 6:37 PM PDT

    I know that many folks correlate the concept of an "XP Bonus" with speeding up the leveling process or rushing to end-game and bypassing the journey.  When bonuses are designed around the idea of being earned through overcoming something challenging, they can actually slow down the leveling process considerably when their inclusion is factored into the baseline objective.  Quick example:

    You're playing a game of basketball where every shot is worth 2 points and you play to 50.

    Compared to:

    You're playing a game of basketball where most shots are worth 2 points, but far shots (behind the 3 point line) are worth 3 points (bonus), and you play to 100.

    In the above two scenarios ... the second example would actually extend the duration of the game.  When it comes to a rested XP bonus, it's more similar to:

    You're playing a game of basketball where every shot is worth 2 points and you play to 50.  After coming out of the game and sitting on the bench for an extended period of time, your next X shots are worth 3 points, while still playing the game to 50.  It's possible that the baseline could be extended to compensate for the inclusion of the rested bonus, but that's mostly smoke and mirrors (similar to what WoW did), and would still create a variety of indirect consequences.

    I am all about having a meaningful journey and extending the amount of time that it takes to get to max level.  This wouldn't happen arbitrarily, though, as players would be able to offset the extension (to a degree) by taking risks and trying to overcome challenges that are inherently more difficult.  Even though 3 pointers have a lower success rate (risk), the increased difficulty of having the shot go down can justify the extra point (reward).  Grinding is a lot more engaging, and has a lot more replay value, when this kind of dynamic exists, IMO.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at June 24, 2019 7:48 PM PDT
    • 388 posts
    June 24, 2019 7:13 PM PDT

     

     

    I am in favor of Nothing. Never any exps bonuses. I truely hope there is AA and you can start getting AA at like lev 10-20. I would then split 50/50 with AA. 

    I don't want to care about levels so much. I want to care about the game. The experiences I am having. The places I am going. 

    I want to level Very Slowly. I don't want to race to max level. I don't want to get a group in Zone A and get 5 levels in one night and now not be able to see zone B because I outleveled it in one night. 

    in the streams it seemed like everyone was getting a level 2 hours. That exps is WAY TOO FAST. it should be 10+ hours per level. 2 hours a night means a level Per week

     

    edit: to not add another whole post. NO RESTED exps bonus. I don't care if you have friends that have no life and play 60 hours a week and you play 2 hours a week. No exp bonuses of any kind, ever. That is WHY brad wants to do a mentoring system (that will suck, but that's a discussion for another day) get your friends to mentor you and they can PL you doing that. 

     

     

     


    This post was edited by Flapp at June 25, 2019 10:39 AM PDT
    • 372 posts
    June 25, 2019 7:45 AM PDT

    Shyin said:

    Not for me!



    Will you consider this? 

    If I love Pantheon and I want to join a guild with you and to adventure with you... but you play 20-40 hours per week while I play 10 hours a week.

    If you reach level 20 and obtain a mount in one weeks time, I might reach level 20 and obtain a mount in four weeks time. 

    However, if a limited rest xp pool (earned only while offline) could help me reach level 20 and obtain a mount in three weeks time, instead of four, how would you feel?

    Does that still sound bad?

    NOTE: There are many variables that are not being discussed  in this example and this is not a technical, detailed post about any real mechanic so... please don't read this and think anything like "is that a 25% xp bonus?!"   ...it isn't anything other than a question about a desired outcome and whether or not you'd be OK if you saw it happen.

    Thanks for noting. 


    This post was edited by Tigersin at June 25, 2019 7:49 AM PDT
    • 36 posts
    June 25, 2019 8:39 AM PDT

    Tigersin said:

    Shyin said:

    Not for me!



    Will you consider this? 

    If I love Pantheon and I want to join a guild with you and to adventure with you... but you play 20-40 hours per week while I play 10 hours a week.

    If you reach level 20 and obtain a mount in one weeks time, I might reach level 20 and obtain a mount in four weeks time. 

    However, if a limited rest xp pool (earned only while offline) could help me reach level 20 and obtain a mount in three weeks time, instead of four, how would you feel?

    Does that still sound bad?

    NOTE: There are many variables that are not being discussed  in this example and this is not a technical, detailed post about any real mechanic so... please don't read this and think anything like "is that a 25% xp bonus?!"   ...it isn't anything other than a question about a desired outcome and whether or not you'd be OK if you saw it happen.

    Thanks for noting. 

     

    Holy cow, you're crazy to give a 25% exp bonus!!!

     

    Just kidding. With your scenario I would make a specific character with my friend and level them together. We would each have our other toons to level when one another aren't online. This would be the best solution in my eyes. Reason being, I do agree with the concept that players should not be provided a handicap to gameplay. Trust in Pantheon means much more then trusting they'll release the game. It's based around a concept of a good, fun and fair game. Challenges will be part of that game but we each are excited to play the game. With that, if the game is built around content that is streamlined across throughout the game then there should be no need for experience modifiers. Adding an experience modifier accelerates an aspect of the game that was designed in a specific way. Keep in mind, if the game is designed in with experience modifiers, in any area, then VR feels it necessary for players to have this acceleration because of how they designed the area. The real question is, will VR be developing the entire game with an expectation of providing any acceleration to players? If they are, then what are the roadblocks in developing a game that doesn't require any "artificial acceleration"? The last question, which is better for the community and the game while keeping it aligned with the vision, immersion?

    I find it very difficult to validate any experience modifiers in Pantheon because it starts pigeon holing how the community will play the game instead of letting the community decide how to play the game. I understand the argument for experience modifiers but I bet if they didn't exist in the game then we would all play and not know any different. I would postpone any attempt to add in "artificial" gameplay until deemed absolutely necessary. Absolutely necessary means that VR and the Pantheon Dev team couldn't figure out how to avoid that scenario with adequate development and implementation.

    Just my personal opinion. I would actually enjoy experience modifiers quite a bit but would still prefer to not have them in game.

    • 696 posts
    June 25, 2019 8:41 AM PDT

    I think the only exp modifier is group exp modifier, since this is a grouping game. Other than that I don't really want any other modifier since they usually make me play a certain way in the game. Any type of modifier that makes me play differently isn't fun. Anything that makes me go to a certain zone for exp isn't fun either. Any type of combo exp bs is stupid also. It is bad enough there will be boxers in the game. That in itself is borderline pay to win and gets you groups and exp faster.

     

    As for rested exp I find it stupid. If there is going to be a rested exp bonus then it will most definetly have to have a cap. Since it will have a cap then what is the cap? Can I get to cap if I play 8 hours of the day and I get rested exp for the remaing 16 hours? If so then does it actually help those who play less? If I can get rested exp capped at 16 hours lets say...then it won't matter in the end will it since I can play 8 hours and then get rested to full exp. So I guess it depends on how much time rested exp  takes until cap.

     

    Anyways...exp modifiers are dumb. They are just feel good measures to people.

    • 560 posts
    June 25, 2019 10:09 AM PDT

    When I first thought about rest experience, I was thinking about how I mostly did not use it in past games that have had it. But that is only for my main. What I have done in the past and will likely do again is make a few alts that I play a lot less then my main. I would assume each time I pick up an alt it would be fully rested. I am not sure this would be good or bad but its dose seem to be contrary to the reason for having rest experience.

    • 2419 posts
    June 25, 2019 10:58 AM PDT

    oneADseven said:

    While this is true, without a modifier, that level 25 Kobold would continue to give the same amount of XP even after it becomes grey.  Players would be able to get to maximum level (eventually, regardless of the curve) by focusing on nothing but grey-content.  That kind of system would create conditions that are primed for soloing and boxing.  Pet classes would go AFK in low-level zones while their pet behavior is set to aggressive.  Max-level players would be able to power-level with insane efficiency by allowing their low-level friends to enjoy XP gain from mobs 25+ levels above them.  It would be extremely difficult to balance risk vs reward (XP, specifically) let alone any sense of meaningful progression without modifiers.

    Tthere can be a server-side check whereby it compares your level to the mob level and if the result returns 'grey' then XP =0 and I do not see this as a modifier.  The point of my post was that there should not be modifiers for when you should be getting experience (green-red con).  Your example about using pets on aggressive is easily solved whereby the pet owner must contribute at least some damage to the NPC to then earn XP.  This eliminates the issue you describe.  I think EQ1 and 2 both had this implemented.  WoW didn't and it was easily abused.


    This post was edited by Vandraad at June 25, 2019 10:58 AM PDT
    • 1584 posts
    June 25, 2019 12:09 PM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    oneADseven said:

    While this is true, without a modifier, that level 25 Kobold would continue to give the same amount of XP even after it becomes grey.  Players would be able to get to maximum level (eventually, regardless of the curve) by focusing on nothing but grey-content.  That kind of system would create conditions that are primed for soloing and boxing.  Pet classes would go AFK in low-level zones while their pet behavior is set to aggressive.  Max-level players would be able to power-level with insane efficiency by allowing their low-level friends to enjoy XP gain from mobs 25+ levels above them.  It would be extremely difficult to balance risk vs reward (XP, specifically) let alone any sense of meaningful progression without modifiers.

    Tthere can be a server-side check whereby it compares your level to the mob level and if the result returns 'grey' then XP =0 and I do not see this as a modifier.  The point of my post was that there should not be modifiers for when you should be getting experience (green-red con).  Your example about using pets on aggressive is easily solved whereby the pet owner must contribute at least some damage to the NPC to then earn XP.  This eliminates the issue you describe.  I think EQ1 and 2 both had this implemented.  WoW didn't and it was easily abused.

    Yeah I don't see the consideration system as a modifier either, it simply just that a consideration system white =100% and yellow, red, blue, light blue, green, and gray have their own % to justify what exp you get depending on level but not as a modifier, and doing so goes in a different direction than what the OP was talking about since he was mentioning Hot zones, and things like this, not the consideration system.

    • 1479 posts
    June 25, 2019 12:14 PM PDT

    Tigersin said:

    Shyin said:

    Not for me!



    Will you consider this? 

    If I love Pantheon and I want to join a guild with you and to adventure with you... but you play 20-40 hours per week while I play 10 hours a week.

    If you reach level 20 and obtain a mount in one weeks time, I might reach level 20 and obtain a mount in four weeks time. 

    However, if a limited rest xp pool (earned only while offline) could help me reach level 20 and obtain a mount in three weeks time, instead of four, how would you feel?

    Does that still sound bad?

    NOTE: There are many variables that are not being discussed  in this example and this is not a technical, detailed post about any real mechanic so... please don't read this and think anything like "is that a 25% xp bonus?!"   ...it isn't anything other than a question about a desired outcome and whether or not you'd be OK if you saw it happen.

    Thanks for noting. 

     

    Yep, it's still bad. The conveniency of easing your journey in favor of a supposed "busy life" is pointless in a game based around the journey. No amount of bonus XP can be reasonable as long as it makes a significative difference in your invested time to reward ratio. The point is : the game is based around enjoying the time you spend in it, not to make it the shortest possible. If your friends play 10% 100% or 400% more than you do, then they have the option to mentor you and help you catching up while downgrading their level. If they don't want to, hell honestly theses aren't friends.

     

     

    However, on a side subject brought by 1AD :

     

    oneADseven said:

    This won't be the first, second, or last time that I share my thoughts on this topic.  Experience modifiers are extremely important as they are supported by both the game tenets and the concept of risk vs reward in general.  There are a lot of people who suggest that there shouldn't be any XP modifiers but I can't help but think that they are overlooking what that would actually mean.  When it comes to MMORPG's ... XP modifiers have always existed in the form of "relative con level."  Without modifiers, a level 25 Kobold would always give a flat amount of XP.  If we want that kobold to give more XP as a yellow/orange mob than it would as a green/blue mob, a modifier would be necessary.  I think most people would agree that this sort of modifier is important, almost to the point where the "relative con level modifier" has been assumed as a standard rule of the XP algorithm.  

    At the end of the day, risk vs reward is paramount.  Some modifiers are going to work extremely well (relative con-level) while others might be considered an "arbitrary bonus" that encourage players to game the system in ways that have negative consequences for the game world.  ZEM from EQ1 is a notorious example of an idea that might sound good on paper, but in practice, it results in certain zones being prioritized over others.  This can lead to excess competition and undesired amounts of conflict as players go out of their way to prioritize the same content for the sake of efficiency.  Conversely, it can also lead to other zones becoming barren and desolate as players avoid them ... once again, for the sake of efficiency.  Time is one of the most important resources we have while being immersed in a virtual world and it's completely natural for players to try and be as efficient with their time as possible.

    The key to getting all of this right is aligning the concept of risk vs reward with mathematical efficiency.  (This is why relative con-level works so well ... unless your game is busted to the point where it's ideal to destroy huge swarms of blue content with AoE destruction, or where it's possible for solo players to kite a dozen NPC's that are supposed to be "challenging" to a group of the same level.)  In the context of Pantheon, I think it's entirely reasonable to create a system that encourages players to group up and go on a dangerous adventure.  Some may consider this an attempt to "socially engineer" player behavior and in many ways, I agree with them.

    Isn't that why we are here?  Think about all of the games out there that avoid the emphasis on challenging group play ... where you can be "efficient" as a solo-player that runs around completing an endless supply of mundane tasks.  Think about the difference between overcoming obstacles that require teamwork/coordination/synergy from a group (dynamic, involved, social) and compare that to completing a task from an NPC (linear, prescribed, simple)  --  many of us crave that human element!  Do we want to put our thinking cap on and play a role in a team that is dependent on us making good choices?  That is where the magic is, for me, and why I have been so convicted in my stance in these other threads:

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/9383/the-xp-journey

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/6403/xp-bonus-chains

    If the game is designed in such a way where efficiency goes hand in hand with boring/easy/monotonous content consumption, that is what the majority of your players will experience.  If the game is designed in such a way where efficiency goes hand in hand with engaging/challenging/dynamic content consumption, many players will strive for that efficiency, and it will feel extremely gratifying when they are successful.  Infantilization has ruined our gaming.  I miss the good old days when bonuses were earned rather than given, and where it was widely believed that this was "fair."  

     

    I wouldn't be that much against any defined modifier for theses reasons :

     

    Group bonus : If an area is mastered by a group of let's say, 3 players, and no more spawn is avaliable, or bringing 1, 2 or 3 players more only assure around 10/20% more experience due to beeing fast enough to kill, that's against grouping (and maybe a bad design overall, but that's not yet a subject to open). A group bonus guarantee you will favor quasi or full groups as they won't take much experience because they also bring more. Overall I think players should be rewarded for grouping even if the group is not perfectly oiled. But not to the point being 6 is mandatory to do anything. The game should be hard enough for 6 players to be a goal for efficiency, but not the minimal to advance.

     

     

    Zone bonus : This point is tricky because EQ1 made it too harsh. But let's say you have a normalized bonus everywhere. Killing lvl 25 bears will  reward you the same as killing lvl 25 Mummy fighters in the Crypt of dark insanity. Why going in the crypt, where spaces are narrows, mobs have a big social radius and come as packs, control role is pretty much mandatory ? If beeing in a plain where you can see everything before it happens is as efficient as dungeon crawling, why even taking the risk ?

     

    The problem is EQ brought a terrific delta, with Lake of ill omen beeing worth 60% experience and Kurn's tower beeing worth 150%. That's a whopping 250% more experience for the same level mob killed in kurn's than in the lake of ill omen. On the side, I felt WAY safer in kurn's tower where patrols were extremely easy to understand, and ledges allowed you to jump and juke mobs before running away than in LOIO where everything was plane, big, and zonelines where far from where you had to fight. That's the point, the bonus was too big, and the area was not judged as hard as it really was.

     

    But since human will choose the least resistance path, all the time, how could you motivate them to try a hard area if not for the rewards ? There must be something to incentive people to form parties would they be to hunt in a deep dungeon, or attack a bandit fort in plains instead of just killing shy bears all along.

    The only solution is the rewards, but it must be well weighted and not absurdly.

    • 1584 posts
    June 25, 2019 12:24 PM PDT

    To me the biggest reason why I would choose a dungeon crawl of any kind over a wide open plain would be one the experience of learning a new place and 2 knowing more than likely the items that drop in there are way better, there for your risk vs reward might not be exp but could be gear.  And honestly I'm fine with that but that's just me now if they did a touch of exp bonus to where it isn't all that noticeable sure I would be fine with it for as long it really wasn't no huge change, but I believe the grping exp bonus should be the reason for it not so much the zone itself.

    • 3237 posts
    June 25, 2019 12:37 PM PDT

    Riahuf22 said:

    Yeah I don't see the consideration system as a modifier either, it simply just that a consideration system white =100% and yellow, red, blue, light blue, green, and gray have their own % to justify what exp you get depending on level but not as a modifier, and doing so goes in a different direction than what the OP was talking about since he was mentioning Hot zones, and things like this, not the consideration system.

    It's a conditional modifier.  If each color has their own percentage, depending on the level of the player ... it means that the "flat value" is being modified based on a variable.  As I said, it seems obvious that this sort of modifier has been accepted as "default" for the XP algorithm.  Suggesting that the colors "simply" generate different percentages, that are justified, shows this.

    • 1584 posts
    June 25, 2019 12:39 PM PDT

    oneADseven said:

    Riahuf22 said:

    Yeah I don't see the consideration system as a modifier either, it simply just that a consideration system white =100% and yellow, red, blue, light blue, green, and gray have their own % to justify what exp you get depending on level but not as a modifier, and doing so goes in a different direction than what the OP was talking about since he was mentioning Hot zones, and things like this, not the consideration system.

    It's a conditional modifier.  If each color has their own percentage, depending on the level of the player ... it means that the "flat value" is being modified based on a variable.  As I said, it seems obvious that this sort of modifier has been accepted as "default" for the XP algorithm.  Suggesting that the colors "simply" generate different percentages, that are justified, shows this.

    Yeah, I get that which is why people don't see it as a modifier because it's literally been in very single mmorpg that as ever been made.

    • 372 posts
    June 25, 2019 12:41 PM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    The conveniency of easing your journey in favor of a supposed "busy life" is pointless in a game based around the journey. No amount of bonus XP can be reasonable as long as it makes a significative difference in your invested time to reward ratio. The point is : the game is based around enjoying the time you spend in it, not to make it the shortest possible. If your friends play 10% 100% or 400% more than you do, then they have the option to mentor you and help you catching up while downgrading their level. If they don't want to, hell honestly theses aren't friends.

    I dislike the seeming flippancy of this reply. Demanding them to dedicate time to me or risk losing my friendship? I dislike extreme posts like this.   I do get the point you made... I just wanted to take a minute to reply that more thoughtfulness would have been appreciated.  

    It will not be down to players managing their expectations in the end.  The rules of the game will have something to do with individual enjoyment.  Even in a group-centric game.


    This post was edited by Tigersin at June 25, 2019 12:48 PM PDT