I apologize if someone suggested this already, but I didn't have time to finish reading the whole thread before I had to leave for work. I would like to see a hybrid type system that incorporated AAs. Just as a thought, you could display AA's like EQ does, but earning points wouldn't be through grinding mobs. I think it could be fun to tie it to "achievements" of sorts such as visit all the zones in the game and complete an explorer achievement that grants 5 AA points. Max out a tradeskill and get 2 AA points. Complete an epic quest and get 5 AA points. Kill all the named bosses in a zone (EQ hunter achievement) and get 3 AA points. You could list all these basic achievements for people to go after, but you could also have hidden achievements to encourage player exploration and attempting new things. You could also have Raid Achievements that granted AA points or even special AA skills, which could allow you to slow mudflation. Raid gear would not have to be leaps and bounds better than group gear if raiders also had access to some special AA points.
This would allow a player to be rewarded from tackling a wide variety of content types and would hopefully keep all zones "on the beaten path". It would also allow players to earn AAs as they levelled up, without having to take their focus off of gaining regular exp.
So the bottom line is, you are rewarded for doing all the content in the game, earn AA points and get to spend them as you see fit. The downside is that some players may feel disadvantaged if they don't like crafting or raiding and complain they are being forced into a playstyle they don't like to progress. I say tough luck to that.
Kilsin said:What are your thoughts on Alternate Advancement (AA's) and do you have experience with that system?
I don't mind AA - but I do think there should be a "cap". Definitely a good way to advance your character when you are already at max lvl. i have experience with AA through eq2.
Nayrue
I didn't think it was super appropriate for this thread, given that the thrust of my point is not AA specific, but I can't (literally =P) disagree with the mods. Just copying and pasting this post from a closed thread.
The achievement and feats threads had me thinking about what I would like to see for content incentives. We as a community are a machine of cost benefit trading and in a world of static incentives, we quite quickly and accurately determine the most effective approaches to maximize benefits. This results in competition over the known the highest exp spots and ignoring the known worst spots (some may see this as a wonderful free-market-esque system). However, I would like to see a system that encourages balance throughout the world without demanding participation.
The following idea is designed for AA experience, but could readily be applied to regular experience gain, item drop rates, or nearly all incentives. Basically I'm just trying to bring up the idea of dynamically incentivizing players to keep the many populations (and by extension factions) of Terminus in balance and to branch out on a personal level to participate in new content. The key point of this thread is found in the population health metric for scaling of rewards.
AA Experience broken into 4 categories:
Regular experience: Determined by whether the mob is level-appropriate to you. This is as it was in previous MMOs and remains unchanged.
Population health (absolute): How healthy the mob's population is. This is a metric of how hunted a given population is. If the giants that rampage the commonlands have not been hunted in 2 days, then their healthy population yields a hefty bonus when killed.
Population health (relative): How healthy a contested mob type (e.g. goblin vs. owlbear) population is. This is a metric of how frequently goblins are killed relative to how frequently their compeition (owlbears?) are killed. If everyone hunts the goblins, then the owlbear population will run rampant and require killing, providing a bonus for those who do.
Mob type novelty: A slowly draining bonus based on mob type. If you've never killed skeletons, then skeletons give you a big bonus and vice versa. This should be a smaller portion by comparison to the other two factors. This should reset (and also increase?) for Progeny.
Pros:
Cons:
This idea may or may not be suitable for Pantheon and given that we have very limited information on the game (and even less information on the specifics factions, mob populations, incentives, etc.), this discussion should probably try to be focused on the abstract concept of population health guiding rewards.
Ainadak I like the idea but it seems overly complex and not necessarily intuitive to me. Are these factors obvious to the player? Is there a massive list in a UI somewhere of relative bonuses? It seems like a system that would require parsing way too many numbers. If it's not visible, then it seems to me the typical result will be that people will just go down a list of monsters and hope that one of them isn't on the low end of the bonus. The relative to player level one is of course different, but that's because it's a static exp fluctuation that's also universal, so there's no surprises.
I'm hoping AA experience parties come in a few flavors:
Let's say, hypothetically, a job required about 500~ AA points to max out. If a typical max level grind party could get 1~3 AA points/hour, then defeating a raid boss might yield 1 AA point and a new player bonus story fight clear could yield 1 AA point (up to some cap per week to prevent inflated AA rates). So it would be worthwhile to exp at max level, but you wouldn't need to do it if you were willing to help new players out and/or raid.
As for how to spread out the population? I imagine Pantheon is going to leverage its acclimatization, living codex and colored mana systems to make different monster targets desirable to different classes at different points in progression. Add in notable monster resistances to certain damage and magic types and player resistances and you have the basics to make a scenario in which, for example, a paladin/cleric/monk team prefers a very different monster type to dire lord/druid/rogue.
Jimmayus, I certainly hope you're right that Pantheon can incentivize utilizing all of the content it creates, but I have not seen any evidence of previous games being able to do that with static incentives. I would also point out the downside to your x team comp does better at y spot. In my experience that has led to a situation where 90% of "a" class goes to the aoe farm spot, 90% of "b" class goes to solo kite a particular mob type, and so on. I think that type of system works great when you have multiple static incentives (like needing gear from different spots, forcing overlap between the groups), but for a single static incentive (rate of experience gain), the system just gets too stagnant for my liking.
I think the complexity issue you addressed is entirely valid, and most people wouldn't like the info to be hidden away, while others wouldn't want to be bombarded by a slew of unintelligible numbers. I would implement a hover-over system, where the experience is provided in the log in the standard fashion, but you can hover over to see the split.
"A Skeleton Commander gives you 243 experience"
----Then hover over for a box showing----
"147 experience +
72 Vae Wood Skeleton bonus +
24 Skeleton bonus"
I agree it's important to consider how players would react to the system. Perhaps they would just kill one of each of the nearby candidate mobs to see which has the best bonus. On the other hand, you might have players doing exactly that in less frequently visited areas, where high bonuses are more likely to be found. If people very infrequently kill archai and their faction is commonly seen as useful, then perhaps a group of players would take the faction hit to go and kill off the archai for large experience gains. Perhaps it would be better if the bonus system were restricted mobs which provide positive/negative faction on being killed? I know I don't have the ability to create a foolproof mechanic on paper with no testing, but I think incentivizing people to do what others haven't can be applied in some fashion.
Two essential keys to AA I think...
1) Limited amounts. You should not be able to get them forever and ever and get every single one.
2) Carefully designed variety so that they are ALL useful so that there is no "best" or "desired" path for any class. If it becomes "tanks for raid X only with XYZ AA's" then it is a failure. If you have to pick a certain group to be useful or desired or competitive, then do not do it. HAS to be a system where any number of AA's can be picked and are all wanted and useful, so that people can truly customize.
I didn't read all the posts but when I first saw EQ launch AAs, my initial thought was that they should make them quested. Assuming that an AA takes a specific amount of XP, time that amount and make a quest that takes about the same amount of time to complete.
Wrap some lore around the AA. For rangers headshot, find some old arse Ranger on a mountain top and have him teach you the knowledge to master the headshot through a series of missions.
Just my thoughts.
I really like Everquests AA system to a point. I like the gaining of passive abilities and early AA stuff they did, but the later stuff (meaning omens and beyond) was garbage.
I want something to use EXP for at max level. AA points fit that void. Come up with some other system for the exploration thing people are talking about like the guy above me.
AA's are cool, but something needs to be done to keep the system from getting out of hand. The AA system in EQ these days is a cluster****. There are literally tens of thousands of AA's, including dozens of ranks for many of the same line. There should probably be a cap that increases with expansions. This also prevents the gap between the haves and have nots from getting too big. A low AA character in EQ has been useless for years.
I would also like to see some "special" AA lines that are acquired from things other than raiding. EQ implemented a few of these - AA lines earned from beating the MPG trials and completing DoN progression. Something like this could certainly be expanded upon.
Agree with snrub. Can also apply exponential regression techniques to make the last 20% as long as the first 80%, or whatever. So like the HP slot is up to +200 more hp, with +20 at each rank. First 3 ranks are 1 AA each, then 2, 3, 4, 5 for each rank to 7, then 8 is 10, 9 is 15 and 10 is 25. That's a little harsh, but you get the idea: you can acquire most of the power relatively quickly, but then the last little bit takes so long even in a single category that capping is not an immediate priority. Just recalculate required AAs whenever you do a new cap and voila.
Also second the limitation of new spells through AAs. I like that Pantheon wants to use fewer skills during individual encounters, but it seems too tempting to make AA skills more powerful/useful and drown out other things. Would prefer the Living Codex be fleshed out through Perception-related jaunts instead.
snrub said:AA's are cool, but something needs to be done to keep the system from getting out of hand. The AA system in EQ these days is a cluster****. There are literally tens of thousands of AA's, including dozens of ranks for many of the same line. There should probably be a cap that increases with expansions. This also prevents the gap between the haves and have nots from getting too big. A low AA character in EQ has been useless for years.
I would also like to see some "special" AA lines that are acquired from things other than raiding. EQ implemented a few of these - AA lines earned from beating the MPG trials and completing DoN progression. Something like this could certainly be expanded upon.
To be fair, EQ has been around for what, 18 years? Not really fair to compare a brand new game with EQ, especially in regards to an ever-growing AA system. It took a long long time for that system to get to the point where it is now. I am not a big fan of the idea of imposing an artificial gap reducer on veteran players and new players. If Pantheon is a game with meaningful content in all tiers, that shouldn't be too much of a concern. New players shouldn't be worried about end-game when they first enter the world of Terminus. They should enjoy all that the game has to offer while they level up just like those who came before them. It isn't a race to play catch-up. I would like to cite this particular tenet, which is very important to me:
"An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses."
In my opinion, an artificial gap closer between new and seasoned players goes against this tenet. If I play the game from the very start, I should be rewarded for my commitment. Likewise, if someone else starts the game 2 years later, they shouldn't get a "bonus" on playing catch-up. I understand the argument that new players shouldn't be discouraged from starting the game because of the huge gap, but again, I think that's better solved by having meaningful and enjoyable content throughout all stages of the game. If I start the game at launch and decide to skip out on crafting for 2 years, and then decide that I want to start crafting ... I should have to go through the same arduous crafting labors as those before me if I want to reach max level crafting.
I am fine with the idea that Jimmayus proposed with the AA points getting progressively harder as you get deeper into the AA system. I don't think they should be regressed to quite that degree though. I think they should use the same curve with AA's as they do with leveling. If leveling 40-50 takes the same amount of time as leveling 1-40, then fine, I would be okay with it. But let's not get out of hand and exacerbate the AA tree for no apparent reason. Positive actions are to be rewarded ... lack of actions should have consequences. Player involvement is required to progress. If someone is delivering on all of those, let's not impose the same penalties on them as you would to someone who was inactive or apathetic.
AA's (or something similar) are a must for me. I love constant player progression. Your toon should get slightly better every time you play even if its 0.1% better. I think AA's need to be implimented in the right way and they should be small increases so over the years you can increase them in ranks through expansions.
I'd like to see AA's that are quest related also. Somethink like a Ranger's Pack Hunt AA where you have to do a quest in order to unlock the ability.
Any non-level based advancement system would provide the gamer with a more meaningful progression that ties them deeper to the world I believe
Just like how death could impact experience,I believe the whole journey should impact experience and the options that become available to the player
Solely a level based progression actually dissociates from the actual game experience and the decisions of the player during the journey has no real impact
They get experience anyway.
I believe AA connects the actual experience with journey.Meaning that it makes the content matter instead of the levels
Kilsin said:What are your thoughts on Alternate Advancement (AA's) and do you have experience with that system?
snrub said:AA's are cool, but something needs to be done to keep the system from getting out of hand. The AA system in EQ these days is a cluster****. There are literally tens of thousands of AA's, including dozens of ranks for many of the same line. There should probably be a cap that increases with expansions. This also prevents the gap between the haves and have nots from getting too big. A low AA character in EQ has been useless for years.
I don't like the capping. ESO has caps in Champion Points which is similar to AAs and I'm maxed out until the next expansion so I unsubscribed for a few months...maybe more. I think capping AAs is only useful in PvP games not PvE games. Those that play more should get rewarded more. I don't want to play for few years and have someone come in and grind for a few months and catch up to me, which happens in ESO.
"Stagnation" is inevitable when progression is expressed in a liniar path with that clear begin and end point
AA are a fix to give the impression that you have meaningful progression after you reached that end point
to make up for the often used level system that isn't optimal if you want to go for a deeper,more meaningful progression system that ties player to the world and the interaction with it.
Indeed,how you spend time is more important ,so experience should have ties to what exactly you do in the world ,in order to let players value the time spend in each area.
One of the huge problems in these games is that anything gives experience anyhow,thus time invested/gain in power is a guarantee because power is linked to experience and levels ups mean guaranteed increase in power
(and anything you do gains you that experience in these games)
There is need for a more horizontal progression,but I think more meaningful progression might require different type of experiences to exist
Which means they probably shouldn't cumulate in one bar like we are used to.Because then time player is guaranteed gain in character power for anything you do.
Hopefully there will be lots of quests available that can only be done at max level giving players who have already reached max level lots of extra content to complete. I liked AAs in EQ and think it would be a nice addition to have but there is something extra nice about having something like a quest series to work on since that could give you a nice reward for your character.
The only thing I worry about AAs though is if players who are max level with no AAs at all are compared with players at max level with hundreds of AAs. I don't want it to become necessary to have loads of AAs to get a group or to join a raid. That would make me sad if that happened.
I loved AA in EQ, until the numbers got truly silly, like into the thousands, and the xp rates for earning AA got ramped up. The system got a bit bloated then. But hey if Pantheon makes it 18 years I guess I'd be okay with some bloat.
For me the cool part about AA, in the early EQ expansions, was that there were core AA that everyone was motivated to get, and then there were some AA that only the best xp grinders could really hope to max out in era, like innate spell resists or innate stat boosts. Those more difficult-to-attain AA probably should have been tuned a little better (for example the stat increases were pointless for many because of the hard caps on stats, which I thought was an awful game design, btw, but that's another thread). Overall it was a cool system though and gave a good reason to keep logging in, grouping, and investing time in a character that had hit the level cap. Also I don't see why this system cannot coexist alongside mentoring and progeny as long as the tuning is right.
Liav said:Time played alone should never guarantee character power imo. Time invested is only as important as how you spend that time.
AAs are a decent horizontal progression mechanism. I don't see why they shouldn't be there to supplement the post-max-level experience.
Totally agree with this... I'd like to see players with bad planning and execution not even be able to make it to max level.
AA are great... I would prefer a system with choices instead of like eq1 where eventually you just grinded them all out.
Kiz~
Sarim said:I wonder how an AA system would work alongside the progeny system though...who would retire/throw away a high level character with many AA's for some obscure/unspecified bonus they may get when they start over?
We have to know how progeny is going to work to know. I suspect they are going to hold that close to their chest for quite while though.