Thinking on this, I go back to another method of leveling I have in some MMOs... When I want some variety, I'll make an alt and level them purely through dungeons. This is similar to just grinding mobs, but there are a few key differences...
- There's variety from encounter to encounter.
- Boss mechanics! Far more engaging than regular mob mechanics.
- There's a sense of structure and accomplishment. You go in with the task of clearing the trash, killing the bosses, completing the dungeon. When you're done, you've completed the task and possibly even earned some nice reward (depending on the dungeon it could be gear, a crafting recipe, even a pet or mount, though of course none of this is guaranteed).
Dungeons are like quests without an NPC with a mark over their head giving you something to do.
If VR wants to make "grinding" more enjoyable for people like me, they need to give me the dungeon experience from beginning to end.
Here is an excerpt from one of Brad's blogs on grinding:
"Really, if you look at almost any game, MMO or otherwise, you can boil down 'how to play the game, how to progress in the game, and even how to 'beat' the game) to some pretty simplistic systems and mechanics. The 'trick' is to create a game where while the players are accomplishing these core tasks, there is enough variety and variation intermixed with these mechanics that it doesn't feel to the player that he's really doing the same thing over and over again. You create a great story behind why the player is doing something. You create context. You vary the situation -- you create interesting and different mobs to defeat, you create an interesting virtual world to explore, you create a sufficiently rich atmosphere around the player such that character advancement doesn't feel the same, feel repetitive, even though, fundamentally, he or she is doing the same sort of thing over and over again.
This is simply good game design. And it's certainly easier said than done. It takes real effort. And the better you do it, the better the game is. The more immersive the experience, the more the player will enjoy the variety of scenarios, necessary tactics, needed items, and the need to travel around an interesting world. If they are caught up in a great game, a great world, a great story and setting, a changing environment, then it won't matter to him that, ultimately, if boiled down and simplified, he's really doing the same sort of thing over and over again. To me, this is one way to sum up or define good game design and implementation. If you can pull this off, you've made a compelling game. If you fail and the average player isn't caught up in an immersive experience, then he will see through it all and likely become quite bored at some point."
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/blogs/151/173/grinding-good-or-bad
Sadly I must say that grinding XP in most games I have played felt boring and repetitive. FFXI was the exception because they added a "video game mechanic" called "time" to the grind. Time, quite simply, helped create context. It helped vary the situation. It added spice and flavor to something that was otherwise considered monotonous in other games. If adding a time variable to grinding is going to make it too gamified then I seriously need to reconsider the idea that playing an MMO is also playing a video game. I'm not interested in Sims Online or Minecraft. I want to play a challenging game where the journey matters more than the destination. Grinding XP should be dynamic. If people want to look up a leveling guide they might be able to find a range of zones where they should consider going for various tiers but nothing more than that.
You can't look up a guide on how to XP efficiently with XP chains because it's playing a video game rather than running around on rails. That's what I miss. Good old fashioned risk vs reward and coordinating team effort while playing a video game. I understand that people have different motives when they play MMO's. This younger generation that hasn't experienced something like Pantheon before ... you better have a damn good video game experience if you want to attract them and retain them. I chose Pantheon because I want to be challenged and engaged while playing as a member of a team. I want to see tension filled moments where a single decision is the difference between a clutch victory or a bitter defeat. I don't care about graphics. I care about gameplay.
I challenge everybody to think outside the box and offer feedback that can make grinding more difficult, more fun, and less tedious. That's all I'm after. It's unfortunate that after 15+ years of MMO Gaming I have only had a single experience where grinding XP was challenging and enjoyable at the same time. It's a little crazy to think that something as simple as a time restriction (and minimum con level) could be so impactful. I can't think of any reason why Square Enix did those things other than to make the game more challenging and engaging.
As an aside, I will offer this post from Eriugena who made an effort to break down the FFXI combat system. This post in particular really resonates with me and will hopefully highlight some of the meaningful details that I may have skipped over:
"In FFXI XP chains (along with skill chains and a couple other twists) added some spice to an otherwise slow-paced combat system. This spice inlcuded:
- encouraging groups to perform the best they can, leading to a heightened sense of accomplishment.
- enhancing the combat experience by adding time-to-kill as a variable; an important addition to a slow-paced system
- providing a tangible way of measuring group performance.
The points above are stating the obvious, but there are more subtle ways in how it played out. For those who never played FFXI, let me paint a picture of how XP chains enhanced the combat.
Let's say we've killed a sequence of mobs and we're now pulling for XP chain #4. We have 120 seconds from the time of the last mob's death to pull it off.
- the mages immediately rest after the last mob's death while the thief runs off to find another mob to pull.
- with a new mob found, the thief now has to make a decision on whether or not the mages have enough magic points to win the fight.
- he descides they do, pulls the mob to camp.
- the white mage (healer) knows that he doesn't have enough MP to heal through this fight, plus conserve enough MP for XP chain #5, so he stays resting while the tank starts to take a beating.
- the red mage (jack of all trades magic class) notices that the white mage is still resting, so he provides secondary heals to the tank.
- tank almost dies.
- white mage stops resting to blast off a couple of well-timed heals, then immediately starts resting again to get MP for chain #5.
- thief disengages when mob isn't yet dead, looking to make a perfectly-timed pull for chain #5.
- chain #4 mob dies just as the thief arrives back at camp with chain #5 mob.
- chain #5 fight starts, with different variables at play (white mage MP half full, red mage MP almost gone, black mage MP almost gone, etc.), creating different conditions than the previous fight.
The above example could have gone many different ways. Perhaps in chain #5 the white mage had almost full MP, while the other mages had very little. Perhaps the black mage (squishy damage dealer) pushed a little too hard in his eagerness to get chain #5 and pulled hate, throwing the group into scramble mode.
Without the incentive that XP chains provide, it is much more likely that the average PUG would take the conservative, kill-one-thing-slowly-and-rest-up-fully, non-emergent sad-face :( method of snoring combat. I'm only joking, of course - nothing is wrong with fighting that way - but I think that these systems should be designed in a way to encourage the kind of combat outlined above, as it undoubtedly makes for a more engaging and replayable system.
The point is, XP chains encourage truely emergent gameplay, where down-to-the-wire player made judgements/decsicions (facilitated by the XP chain time restraint) make the difference between a group-wide wipe and a very successful XP party. This helped to transform the slow-paced combat system in FFXI into a dynamic, not-really-sure-what's-going-to-happen-next system.
My championing of FFXI's combat system is a bit surprising considering I come from a compeititive FPS background. I suppose that says the devs got something crucially right, especially considering the years of involvement of the hundreds of thousands of players who participated in its seemingly molasses-slow combat. Seriously, if you watch old videos of FFXI the combat seems to move like molasses. But, with a well put together group who were pushing against the boundaries of what was possible (encouraged to do so by the XP chain system), it didn't feel like molasses!"
Again ... this post isn't meant to focus exclusively on XP Chains. More than anything I am just curious whether or not the type of scenario outlined above has been enjoyed in other MMO's. That's the kind of combat that I want to see in an MMO -- fun, engaging, and replayable ... especially if we're going to be grinding XP the old fashioned way rather than running through quest hubs.
Your XP chain is already built into the game...be quicker and more efficient than other groups killing the same mobs...viola your XP will be higher.
You do not need a mechanism to give someone bonus XP because they killed a certain number of mobs in a certain timeframe....skilled players already do that for themselves.
And make no mistake the XP chain you are talking about is for skilled players not casuals(and skilled players already kill mobs faster than casuals...so)...why would we even want to further increase the difference in XP rates for skilled players vs casuals???
No thanks.
K
dorotea said:I am the first type of player and I have repeated quests dozens of times on different characters. Maybe not hundreds.
I *like* quests.
I do *not* like to grind.
When I discuss group versus solo my hope is that there will be quests that require a group and their will be quests that do not. I consider grinding a last resort.
I think the "no solo" argument is more about not specifically creating content for soloing (or extremely limited amounts), not that it shouldn't be possible. I think the same would apply to quests as well, any level appropriate quests would likely be group endeavors but anyone could solo the quests if they outlevel it by a certain amount.
Personally I hope quests give very little experience as a reward beyond early levels so they don't have to gate most quests by player level, the experience from a quest in most cases should come from whatever was done along the way and the item or currency received should be the main reward.
As for xp chains, I still just don't think it would work without changing everything about grouping. Most notably by highly incentivizing specific "perfect" groups but also by making grouping for higher end exp require a very tight level spread, can't chain well if one or two members are 2 levels lower than the highest person since those even-yellow cons required for chains would be orange/reds to them.
Nephele said:I have limited time this morning so I can only post a portion of what I'd like to add to the discussion right now. But up above I broke onead's post down into 5 areas that I think he's talking about:
1) Rate and mechanics of XP gain (and loss)
2) Encounter design
3) Area design
4) Group synergies
5) Components of challenging combat
I'd like to talk about these in reverse order.
Components of challenging combat
What makes combat challenging? I think we all agree that it's not just about mobs having more hit points or doing more damage. I tried to think about some statements that might explain it.
- It's really encounters that need to be challenging, not individual mobs. An encounter might be a single mob or it might be multiple mobs that are close to each other
- Individual mobs should have unique abilities and characteristics that players must adapt their strategy to. Ideally, no fight should just be "tank n' spank"
- When an encounter contains multiple mobs, the abilities of those mobs should support each other in some way, adding an additional tactical element.
- Each fight should involve both strategic choices (preparing correctly) and tactical choices (reacting correctly). For example, using a blunt weapon against something that's resistant to slashing is a strategic choice. Stunning the mob to prevent it from casting a spell is a tactical choice. A defensive example: Bumping up your fire resist to better mitigate against an attack is a strategic choice. Swapping who's tanking because the tank just got hit with a vulnerability debuff is a tactical choice.
- Fights should take long enough to complete that there's room for choices to happen and to matter.
- There should be enough randomness involved in the different aspects of combat that players may need to react differently depending on how things are progressing. Critical hits, spell fizzles, misses, and so on all add an element of chance. Howeve, these elements should work both for and against players.
- There should be enough variety and randomness in the different attacks and abilities that mobs use that players can still be surprised if they're not paying attention. If every orc shaman always casts the same spells at the same time in the same way, then players will quickly learn the best method to counter that and simply perform it by rote every time they fight an orc shaman.
I'll try to get more up about the other stuff tonight when I get done with work. Like I said in my post above, I think it's important to think about all these areas separately, and really flesh them out - but they do work together to build the overall experience for players which is what 1AD7 was getting at in his post.
I like where you are going with this and I'll make an effort to respond to each section later. Everything you have said so far is spot on. I am particularly interested in the difference between strategy and tactic because I feel that both are incredibly important when it comes to combat. Overall, you did a great job breaking things down into different sections and I look forward to hearing more of what you come up with. Thank you.
oneADseven said:Finally, I wanted to touch on this comment. "As an aside, I'd rather have less features that lessen the time to achieve max level than more." The implementation of XP chains does not have to speed up the leveling process. This is a common misconception. Adding XP chains can actually slow the overall leveling speed down if balanced properly. As a quick example, imagine VR saying that they envision the average time to max level being 1,000 hours. Then they add the XP chain feature but reduce overall XP by 25% to compensate. You can earn that 25% back if (big if) you make the most of the XP chain feature but that shouldn't always be possible. There is a reason why getting chain #4's and 5's felt so awesome ... the game was balanced so incredibly well that they were truly difficult to pull off.
I can appreciate that you bleed passion for this system and I can tell you really do enjoy it/want whats best for Pantheon, but I disagree that what I claimed would be a misconception and I'd argue your example helped me prove my point - I realize your numbers were fictitious, but the point still stands. I'll use some estimated statistics to describe what I mean.
1. No exp chains exist = everyone at even playing field at mobs awarding 100% exp and player skill determines perhaps a 15%-20% greater chance at increased exp (or even could reduce it 5-10% with poor groups/players, etc.). You still have the risk/reward as players that are more skilled would have to live on the edge of balancing being oom/continous pulls versus being cautious/safe and resting more between pulls. In EQ, we even used to call them chain pulls, where the puller would continously pull and the clerics and enchanters would be mad being near OOM and continously sweating.
2. Exp chains exist, as in your example = everyone is at 75%. Using exp chains to achieve back to a possible 100%. And, factor in player skill (or lackthereof), which ultimately would be better at players not only getting experience faster due to being better at chaining (up to 100%), but maintaining resources better and being better players overall which would give an overall increase like #1 in addition to the potential for chaining - say another 15-20% chance at greater exp. I realize there'd be some diminishing returns from the player skill interaction with the chaining, but the skilled players would still have a double benefit versus the normal/average/casual/less skilled (insert word) player.
Anyway, the experience of risk/reward you describe and obviously are passionate about I could share the exact same experiences of living on the edge and nearly dying in every pull in Gukbottom (insert other zone) in EQ because our puller wanted to eek out the most experience possible. I haven't experienced that feeling in any game since EQ either (even VG since it had quicker resource management). I really think it's more of a factor of forced downtime, lack of fast regeneration outside of combat, and painfully slow progression moreso than any external system. People wanted to optimize their time to level as it really was difficult near launch. Just my thoughts though - obviously, I don't have the strong attachment to the system since I didn't play FFXI, but ultimately we want to achieve the same "feeling" in combat again and we'll probably agree to disagree that the feeling can exist without the need for exp chains.
I think the "no solo" argument is more about not specifically creating content for soloing (or extremely limited amounts), not that it shouldn't be possible. I think the same would apply to quests as well, any level appropriate quests would likely be group endeavors but anyone could solo the quests if they outlevel it by a certain amout
You are absolutely right - this is the argument.
And this is precisely what I feel would be a disasterous mistake - lowering the player base perhaps beyond the numbers needed for the game to prosper.
People should be able to solo at-level to the same extent they can group at-level. Soloing should not be limited to overleveled characters. Soloing should not be limited to certain classes with special abilities to break groups of mobs and fight one at a time. Soloing should be a normal means of progression. Inferior to group progression for the reasons I have elaborated earlier, but always available and normal. Partly because some of *us* like to solo on occasion. Partly because some of *us* will often not have the uninterrupted time to group. But also and more important to VR - part of their target market is younger or less MMO savvy people that like the basic concepts of this game. You won't get and keep those people by telling them before they even get acclimated that they can only play in blocks of 2+ hours and only with other people. You will get them by letting them play the way they like and showing them by example within the game (not advertising outside of it) that grouping gets them more xp and better loot and we are not all evil demons that eat newcomers and spit out the bones. A definite lie - many of us don't spit.
@Raidan -- I guess my point was that you can achieve whatever baseline you want. It can take 1,000 hours to get to max level without XP chains and 10,000 hours with them. It's all relative. They don't inherently speed anything up. If they are balanced in as a calculated variable (with the expectation that players will achieve them sometimes but not always) I think it's pretty easy to create an XP curve where leveling would, in fact, be slower. The opposite could just as easily be true if that's the goal. There is no hard rule that they have to speed up leveling. It took more than a year for the average player to get to max level in FFXI and that's a big part of why the "journey" felt so meaningful. I don't think a chaining mechanic is absolutely necessary for grinding to be enjoyable but it certainly brought on a massive amount of emergent gameplay and replay value. I want to see some sort of curveball added to the mix that encourages people to take more risks (even though the punishment is severe if they mess up) rather than always playing it safe. A time limit and XP modifier accomplished that. Sounds really simple but it added a lot of complexity to combat and made teamwork feel much more impactful.
dorotea said:And this is precisely what I feel would be a disasterous mistake - lowering the player base perhaps beyond the numbers needed for the game to prosper.
People should be able to solo at-level to the same extent they can group at-level. Soloing should not be limited to overleveled characters. Soloing should not be limited to certain classes with special abilities to break groups of mobs and fight one at a time. Soloing should be a normal means of progression. Inferior to group progression for the reasons I have elaborated earlier, but always available and normal. Partly because some of *us* like to solo on occasion. Partly because some of *us* will often not have the uninterrupted time to group. But also and more important to VR - part of their target market is younger or less MMO savvy people that like the basic concepts of this game. You won't get and keep those people by telling them before they even get acclimated that they can only play in blocks of 2+ hours and only with other people. You will get them by letting them play the way they like and showing them by example within the game (not advertising outside of it) that grouping gets them more xp and better loot and we are not all evil demons that eat newcomers and spit out the bones. A definite lie - many of us don't spit.
People would generally be soloing low con ("light blue") creatures I imagine. I don't understand what the problem would be with that for solo-minded players, definitely less efficient exp than grouping but otherwise not awful.
yea the downtime of soloing, if you were melee, was pretty long to. As a paladin I would barely take out an even con. Would fight it for awhile and then root it and stand back and heal myself all the way up and repeat.Lol took forever and would be out of mana by the time I was done fighting it. Then right beside me I would see a druid going by kiting 4 red cons to me.
Group Synergies
I called this out in my breakdown above so this morning I wanted to talk a little bit about it.
The idea of synergy is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - or essentially, that classes should have abilities that play off each other and make each other stronger. I think we all sort of already grok this concept so it may seem redundant for me to be talking about it.
However I think the thing we don't want is lopsided synergy - where it's only certain combinations of classes that really benefit. I saw a lot of people worrying about whether 1AD7's proposed XP chains would push players to start requiring "perfect" groups. I think that's a valid concern. While there's people like myself who tend to rebel against theorycrafting or template play out of pure idealism, there's a great many more people who will buy into whatever they think is the "best" or most efficient approach to the game. If that says that warriors should always dual wield, that's what they'll do. If that says that dire lords should always have a shaman accompanying them in group, they'll turn it into a law and try to force it on other players. Obviously that's an extreme case but we can count on it to happen.
At the same time I think it's unrealistic to expect every class to have explicit synergies with every other class. Not only would trying to do that make all the classes feel the same, but trying to make everyone's abilities play off everyone else's abilities would likely result in none of it being balanced at all. Sure, a wizard can benefit from having a druid in party, because of ability X, but he benefits more from having a cleric because of ability Y.
So the right answer for group synergy I think is just to insure that each class has explicit synergies with ~4 other classes. That way, when players do their build-a-group logic in their heads, they have options instead of their being one single path that builds the most synergy. For example, if warrior synergizes cleric, rogue, and monk, and rogue synergizes with dire lord, enchanter, and druid, and dire lord synergizes with shaman, rogue, and ranger, and ranger synergizes with paladin, summoner, and shaman..... what's the best group makeup?
Doing it this way will mean that if a group is at 5/6 members they might be looking for a specific additional class based on who they already have - but it will also make it much more likely that a group will be able to take any class and see some real benefit from it. Even multiples of the same class.
Anyway, all this is to say that I think insuring that group synergy is present but isn't too restrictive is a critical component of the combat experience we want the game to drive. It's what helps mitigates the obvious problems with other systems and mechanics that push players to play as efficiently as possible.
There's another side to this which plays into challenging combat as I described above as well. Namely - if player characters get group synergies based on the range of classes in a group.... monsters should as well. If you're fighting an orc warlord on his own, he should be challenging in his own right. But if he's got an orc firecaller with him... his behavior should change to take advantage of what the firecaller will be doing. As you add in more classes to the equation, ideally, the mob AI should recognize the capabilities of its allies and make choices appropriately. For example, if the warlord is with the firecaller, maybe the warlord will try to protect the firecaller, since it knows that the firecaller will do more damage. If there's an orc mendicant present who can heal, maybe the warlord will use more offensive abilities, since it's counting on heals coming from the mendicant.
If this can be executed on, it forces players to adapt their tactics to every encounter based on mob composition, moreso than many of us are probably used to. The idea of a mob ignoring its hate list and going to rescue an ally, for example, is something that not many games have done. So when we talk about group synergy, we should think about it both in terms of us as players, as well as the monsters we're fighting - because that will make for a much more interesting and challenging game all around.
I'll continue the breakdown when I have more time. Sorry, it's a busy week at work for me this week :(
oneADseven said:@Raidan -- I guess my point was that you can achieve whatever baseline you want. It can take 1,000 hours to get to max level without XP chains and 10,000 hours with them. It's all relative. They don't inherently speed anything up. If they are balanced in as a calculated variable (with the expectation that players will achieve them sometimes but not always) I think it's pretty easy to create an XP curve where leveling would, in fact, be slower. The opposite could just as easily be true if that's the goal. There is no hard rule that they have to speed up leveling. It took more than a year for the average player to get to max level in FFXI and that's a big part of why the "journey" felt so meaningful. I don't think a chaining mechanic is absolutely necessary for grinding to be enjoyable but it certainly brought on a massive amount of emergent gameplay and replay value. I want to see some sort of curveball added to the mix that encourages people to take more risks (even though the punishment is severe if they mess up) rather than always playing it safe. A time limit and XP modifier accomplished that. Sounds really simple but it added a lot of complexity to combat and made teamwork feel much more impactful.
It's really not that relative. If XP chains are implemented but marginally beneficial (1% per mob in a timeframe stacking up to 5%), it's marginal and better not even implemented.
If it's 10% per mob in a timeframe, stacking up to 100%, it's beneficial, extremely, and will be the norm and the way how groups are attended. Whatever you do, you can't make it "relative", if it takes 1,000 hours withouth them, and 999 with them, the benefit is marginal and it falls in the first case. If you make it 1,000 hours withouth but 900 with them, it's already good enough to make it mandatory for most players while killing downtime, socialization and such to push thoses 10% discount.
To summarize : You cherish a mechanic over the argument it can be implemented withouth beeing game breaking, but as long as it is implemented, it's worth nothing if it's impact is marginal. In this case, either the game should be built around it as an arcade pulling systemic game, or it's worth nothing to even consider coding it as the benefits would be so thin they will be useless and considered a chore for most.
Thank you for summarizing. I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was saying. My point was that the "baseline" was relative regardless of whether or not a chaining mechanic is implemented -- it is a misconception that adding a feature like this to the game will "speed up leveling." It had nothing to do with comparing potential XP gain between those who do leverage them vs those that do not while operating under the assumption that they are available.
oneADseven said:Thank you for summarizing. I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was saying. My point was that the "baseline" was relative regardless of whether or not a chaining mechanic is implemented -- it is a misconception that adding a feature like this to the game will "speed up leveling." It had nothing to do with comparing potential XP gain between those who do leverage them vs those that do not while operating under the assumption that they are available.
Since we are in "relative", it will "relatively" speed up levelling if you do it, or not. The fact is if that relative amount is either significant enough to be considered a norm for player (and I'm not talking about VR's stance here), it will change how people work and see their efforts well spent, or not.
If VR states that it takes 1.000 hours to reach max, but with Xp chains it's around 900 or less, whatever VR said won't be considered as valuable and player will end up stating : "If you're good you will take 900 hours, if not well better stop playing because no one will want to loose a fraction of 100 hours because you suck."
That's really not a matter of what VR states but what will stand out when players will experiment and find out.
I reaaaally don't like how XP chains are an artificial way to double dip the reward of good / well geared players, as I said multiple times before (almost as much as you pushed your XP chain love ! ), beeing fast is already a reward by itself. No need to inflate it. I'm not gonna bug you anymore with this, I don"t think we might reach a concensus anytime. It's probably a visceral like / dislike of a specific mechanic that will never sort out.
We're still talking about different things when it comes to the "relative baseline." Your perspective revolves around the assumption that chaining would be in the game and then you're comparing players who utilize it and those who do not. My perspective revolves around a pre-determined baseline (with or without chaining) which can be whatever number VR wants. The baseline without chaining could be 1,000 hours while the baseline with chaining can be 2,000 hours. I'm not saying that people who utilize the feature aren't going to level faster than those who do not, of course they would. I'm saying that adding this feature to the game isn't going to affect the "baseline" because it can be adjusted to compensate for it's inclusion. The idea that leveling is going to be a faster process just because of chaining is invalid ... the exact opposite can be true, and FFXI is a good testament to that because it took longer to level in that game than almost any other MMO I can think of. At any rate, it's okay to disagree. I understand what you are saying about "double dipping" and I explained how I felt about that in the OP. Rather than having a "passive bonus" for simply adding someone to group (which violates a game tenet) I would like to see an "earned bonus" that rewards positive actions. I would rather see no bonus at all than a freebie. Earned bonuses feel meaningful because you work for them and it feels gratifying when a group of players take teamwork and coordination to the next level.
oneADseven said:Rather than having a "passive bonus" for simply adding someone to group (which violates a game tenet) I would like to see an "earned bonus" that rewards positive actions. I would rather see no bonus at all than a freebie. Earned bonuses feel meaningful because you work for them and it feels gratifying when a group of players take teamwork and coordination to the next level.
That was only ever for balancing reasons promoting grouping vs solo. Multiple times they adjusted for higher bonuses for grouping and for filling a party in particular, to try and curb the rise of soloing (particularly how incredibly efficient it was for some classes) and half filled groups making way more xp than full ones.
I do not think that groups should receive ANY XP bonus of any kind. The bonus that they get is the fact that they ARE in a group. They are able to get a LOT more XP than someone who is not. There really is VERY LITTLE "RISK vs. reward" when there is a group of players than when there is only a soloing person going it alone. You are making the same mistake that we have seen time and again, piling bonus XP on folks that simply do not need it. I would be much more interested in seeing things that REDUCE the XP for groups. We have all seen what happens on release these days: a few super-talented groups get together and race to max level. Then, 5 days after release, there are maxed out players running around. This is a horrible idea. We should nto be sitting here discussing how to make those levels go faster - we should be discussing how to make the game survive longer by creating a system where players become more relatable with their characters that took a good while to level up. How many times do we see these grouping super-users play a week on their free month and then never play again? Instead they start posting in every place available how easy the game was and therefor holds no more interest for them than any other game.
I have said it before and most of you won't like my idea, but there needs to be a system that stops XP gain over time. This does NOT mean NO XP. It means there should be ways that get players to play other parts of the game as well. Super Group Users seem to be interested in grinding and max-leveling. I am against that in every way.
Someone said they were against XP gains for questing. Let me explain something to you. When grinding on the same daggum mobs for hours on end just to gain XP you are going to get a return that you find acceptable (otherwise you wouldn't do it). You are willing to sit there and devote your game time to absolute tedium. A quester is someone that is willing to use their game-time devoted to learning the world and the lore. Why in the world do you think your game-time is more valuable than theirs? A quester should have the same kind of XP return over time as someone who is grinding.
Honestly, if we DID put a limit on XP gain/time it would force those pro-grinders into actually playing the GAME once they maxed out their KillGainXP. Because then they could gain XP via questing etc.
Iksar -- Sounds great. FFXI never had that issue because playing in a group was always ideal. There was never a need to curb the rise of soloing because the game was truly group-centric. NPC's were balanced for groups of players and if you wanted the best XP you needed a good group. I totally understand that some people prefer the easy route where you can just throw together a hodge podge composition and make it work -- I placed a ton of value in the game actually being difficult and requiring players to overcome challenges while they leveled up. Groups would generally keep a tight level spread (which helped ensure that the white-con and above content was actually challenging) and that went a long way toward balancing the bonus. I will admit that it made finding a group difficult at times because of how strict things were but I think a "level sync" option would be a great way to address that issue. As long as everybody in the group is within 5 levels then they are sync'd to the average. The game wouldn't do this automatically but I think it would be helpful if the game allowed players to opt-in to something like this to make grouping more accessible and flexible.
Nephertiti -- I just want to share a comment with you really quick that will hopefully resonate. My championing of XP Chains is based entirely around the idea of making it more difficult to level up. I feel like the baseline could be adjusted in order to compensate for their inclusion. Quick math says you reduce the total XP by 50% and then make it theoretically "possible" to earn that back by playing at a high level. Realistically it should be impossible for players to earn that full 50% back unless they never make a single mistake while they are leveling. I am of the mindset that leveling should be a part of the journey and that doing it should be challenging and fun. I completely understand what you are saying about absolute tedium when it comes to grinding mobs for XP -- again, this is why I am such a fan of how grinding played out in FFXI. It wasn't so mind numbingly monotonous. Players were incentivized to take risks and the element of time kept things in flux while adding flair and spice to something that has otherwise been extremely repetitive in every other game I have played.
oneADseven said: Stuff about xp chains
I think that VR will not choose to use xp-chains in Pantheon. But the reason VR will not likely include xp chains is not due to the rate of leveling. As you've explained, the rate at which people can gain experience can be balanced seperate from xp chains. The real reason they won't include xp-chains (imo) is because of the way it effects the grouping dynamic that they want to promote. I'm not saying that an xp-chain group dynamic isn't valid, but rather that it differs from the intention VR has towards the grouping experience in Pantheon.
Joppa explained this a little bit in the Dire Lord Cohhcarnage stream (source) when asked about long downtimes.
Joppa said:
"We don't want overly long downtime just to do it... What we want to do is find a sweet spot between never ending combat where you are moving from one thing to the next to the next to the next because that promotes linear progression through areas. When you are able to kill things at a certain rate and you are able to sustain your resources from fight to fight without any downtime then you are essentially endlessly moving through an area and it doesn't facilitate the kind of camping, the kind of setting up in an area the way we are wanting you to for the sake of socialization, for the sake of social contracts forming where you get to know the people you are grouping with. That's kinda the ideology behind what we are doing. That said, we don't want to artificially slow it so far down that after every fight you are sitting down and taking forever to med. We are looking for that sweet spot. If I had to put it in as general terms as possible, I would have to say: Not overly long, but enough to promote socialization and to to be able to move through areas in a non-linear fashion."
Now I do realize that you may argue that xp-chains can still be balanced into the above dynamic that Joppa is searching for, but I think (my personal opinion) that having xp-chains in Pantheon will create a certain attitude that players will have towards the groups progression where they are trying to 'overcome' the slower dynamic that Joppa is trying to promote. There will still be players that will push to maximize their pulling and progression even without an xp-chain system, but VR doesn't want to purposely promote this style of playing. And xp-chains is a feature that 'promotes' that.
It's similar to the 'solo' vs 'group' debate. VR doesn't want to prevent solo'ing, but they don't want to promote solo'ing.
From Cohhcarngage Monk gameplay stream (source)
when asked: How will the game play out for a solo player?
Joppa said:
"So Pantheon is a group centric game, at it's heart our goal is to make it a group centric game. You can however solo in Pantheon, it will just be extremely challenging."
when asked: Will certain classes be better at soloing?
"We are not necessarily designing those types of classes in that way. As always we fully expect to be surprised by how players figure out how they can play their class and things they are able to do. But it's not that any one class is being designed to excell at soloing above any other. You are welcome to solo if you can, but it will be very challenging."
So as we see. VR is not specifically trying to deny people the choice to play the game in any specific way, but there is a basic vision and goal to the normal dynamic that they want to promote. They want players to group and they want there to be a socializing tempo to the group.
So the features they choose to implement will be with those goals in mind. Features that promote grouping, and features that promote time for socialization in the game. They will thus avoid adding features that actively work against those ideologies.
As I said... in my opinion having xp-chains creates an attitude in players that works against that 'slower progression to allow for socialization' that VR wants to promote. So it is my guess that VR will not choose to use xp-chains in Pantheon.
More of me breaking down what I think 1AD7 and others really want to get at here. The "journey" isn't just about how you gain XP - there's a lot more to it than that. For anyone keeping track, I've been taking it in bits from the bottom of this list up:
1) Rate and mechanics of XP gain (and loss)
2) Encounter design
3) Area design
4) Group synergies
5) Components of challenging combat
So...
Area Design
What's the difference between a dungeon and everywhere else in an open-world game? It's probably a question we should all talk about a lot more. In most current MMOs, dungeons are instances that are designed to take players through a narrative combat experience. You follow a path from encounter to encounter to encounter, you fight minibosses along the way, and the whole thing culminates in a big boss battle. The trip yields you experience, loot, and probably quest objectives. Overland areas in those games tend to be more about micro-objectives. Go kill ten of this or collect 3 of that, with just enough filler mobs around to make you feel like there's more to the zone than just the quests in it.
But in an open-world, non-instanced game? That's harder to define. Dungeons in open world games aren't linear experiences. They might have some parts of them that generate a narrative experience, but those parts are small and isolated. Instead the dungeon ends up being about micro-objectives. You're headed to a specific part to complete a quest, collect a drop, or just get some experiences. Much like how overland areas work.
So if dungeons in an open-world game don't change the experience, then what do they actually do? My opinion is that they amp up the challenge. In an "overland" area (and yes that's in quotes for a reason), generally, players have lots of room to maneuver. They can split stuff apart, take things from different angles, try different tactics. They might have to think about roaming enemies or respawn timers but in general, they have a lot of freedom in terms of when and how they engage the mobs that are present.
Dungeons, on the other hand, take away some of that freedom. The classic "dungeon" consists of rooms and corridors, and encounters are built to take advantage of those rooms and corridors, and natural choke points. Instead of being able to easily circle around a tough enemy and kill its friends first, like you probably can in an overland area, in a dungeon you may have to actually try to handle everything at once. This makes group synergy, both for players and for mobs, matter a lot more in dungeon areas.
In addition to that, dungeon areas often involve environmental hazards as part of the encounter. A room that's half a lava pool, or that's covered in ice, or that has spike traps at the entry points, is a lot tricker to fight in than a field with a few trees scattered around. So, in a dungeon area, players have to take the environment into account, a lot more than they might in an overland zone.
All of this is to say that area design is a core component of challenging combat for players - as much, or even potentially more, as the abilities of those mobs are. Fighting a mob with a knockback attack in an open field might be interesting tactically because it pushes you out of position and forces everyone to move back in to re-engage in melee. Doing the same thing on a narrow path where one side is a 200-foot drop might radically change how you approach the fight.
I started this off asking about dungeons, because dungeons in other games give us the best examples of area design adding to challenge. The truth is though, in an open-world, non-instanced game like Pantheon, the idea of using area design to add to the challenge of encounters isn't just something that's found in dungeons. And there's no rule that a "dungeon" has to be enclosed or below ground either. Walls and corridors can be formed by terrain, like a path through a series of rocky canyons, or the ruins of an ancient city.
So for those keeping track - if I think about the "journey" that players go on through the game, and the type of experience that 1AD7 (and many others) are advocating for, I think it starts with building a combat system that challenges players. Group synergy both works to make players more effective when together, and also to make encounters with multiple enemies more challenging. Area design allows for the challenge of individual mobs and encounters to be amplified by conditions imposed by the terrain around them. If these three things are done right you have the beginnings of a challenging, compelling adventure-combat experience, from level 1 until level whatever. I think there's a little more to really doing it though, and I'll try to talk about that tomorrow morning in my next reply.
@Goofy -- I don't disagree that XP chains most likely won't be a thing in Pantheon. I got over that a long time ago. That said, I will respectfully disagree with your assessment and say that in my opinion, the XP chain feature would play perfectly into what Joppa described. As I mentioned in the OP chaining isn't something that happens non-stop. It's usually 2-3 mobs, sometimes 4-5 if you have a really good group. There is consistent downtime in between chains which offers plenty of time for players to socialize. Most importantly, XP chaining was heavily reliant on "camping" as opposed to "crawling." There are unfortunately a lot of misconceptions about XP chains. The majority of people commenting on what they will or will not do haven't even experienced them personally. Find me a single person who leveled to max in FFXI that has something bad to say about XP chains. I haven't seen one yet. I have seen, however, at least 25 FFXI veterans who have vouched for the effectiveness of this feature. (Not limited to this thread, of course.) It is what it is. I have tried my best to articulate the benefits of this feature but a lot of what I say doesn't even seem to register. Several people on this thread have already commented saying something similar to what you did Goofy ... how Pantheon is supposed to include downtime and how chaining would go against it. I addressed this in the OP. Pilch is a former FFXI player and specifically mentioned how the feature would promote the following tenet:
10) A mindset that some degree of downtime should be part of a game, ensuring players have time to form important social bonds.
These words fall upon deaf ears because the feature is foreign to EQ. I recently joined a couple FFXI Discord channels to talk to people who were still actively playing FFXI and those who remembered the golden years. I wanted to hear more perspectives from other people who have real experience with this feature. It's mind boggling how it's so widely embraced by those who were able to experience it first hand yet shunned by those who haven't. At the end of the day, the intent behind this post expands way beyond XP chains. I think they are a great feature and they are aligned with any related tenets and dozens of comments I have seen from the developers. I still have yet to see a single logical explanation on why they shouldn't be considered for Pantheon. I have accepted internally that it's because Pantheon is going to be more of an EQ emulator than what I was lead to believe. It's disappointing in some ways but I'm still holding out hope that I'll be pleasantly surprised when I get to see some of the "magic" that the EQ crowd was able to enjoy. It's too bad you guys won't see much of anything from FFXI. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is regional auction houses. I'm hoping progeny will offer the same replay value of the sub-class system from FFXI but that is still a big unknown.
**Just as a quick edit** I really do appreciate Neph taking the time to share his thoughts on the bigger picture that I wanted to discuss here. I get sidetracked with the XP Chain comments because of how off-base the speculation is surrounding them but I still hold out hope that eventually things will make a little more sense. Again, I understand that they most likely won't be a thing in this game. That's fine. Hopefully we'll have some other evolved feature that captures what they did for FFXI. I have followed this game very closely and am confident that Pantheon seeks some of the same values that were observed with the FFXI combat system. Slow paced ... strategic, and with a heavy emphasis on teamwork and awareness. High replay value ... amazing risk vs reward (that isn't entirely centered around names or loot) ... the list goes on. It was really good stuff. I plan on responding to Neph's post because I feel it's much more interesting to talk about than rebutting all of the false narratives surrounding XP Chains.
oneADseven said: There are unfortunately a lot of misconceptions about XP chains.
This is quite possible since I have not actually played in a game that had xp-chains. So I might have wrong information about how they work.
I was under the impression that the chain gave you more experience in a progression as you killed each monster within a set time window after the previous monster died up to a set limit on the bonus.
So let's say that time window was 30 seconds and a 100% bonus maximum. From my understanding it would work something like this.
Kill first mob, gain 50 exp points.
Kill second mob within 30 seconds of first, gain 60 exp points.
Kill third mob within 30 seconds of second, gain 70 exp points.
Kill fourth mob within 30 seconds of third, gain 80 exp points.
Kill fifth mob within 30 seconds of fourth, gain 90 exp points.
Kill sixth mob within 30 seconds of fifth, gain 100 exp points.
Kill seventh mob within 30 seconds of sixth, gain 100 exp points.
Kill eighth mob within 30 seconds of seventh, gain 100 exp points.
Etc…
100 exp would be the top end, as long as you maintained the chain of killing mobs within 30 seconds of the last one that died. As soon as you break the chain, by not killing the next target within the 30 second window, it resets the chain and you start at base exp again for that kill and need to build it back up again.
If this is how xp-chains work then this would cause a constant anxiety to keep the chain going and maintain the 100% bonus on each mob. Thus why I felt this would never fit within VR's vision for a slower paced grouping experience where people have time to chat and socialize.
If this is NOT how xp-chains work, then I appologize for my misunderstanding. It might help if you clarified how it actually works.
It works similar to how you described but the game was so challenging, and resource management so meaningful, that chaining more than 3-4 mobs was highly unlikely. The time limit between kills was somewhere between 60-120 seconds and that number reduced the further along you got in your chain which eventually made it impossible to continue even if you did have crazy regen. Downtime was much more consistent (and meaningful) because you wanted to start the process with full resources in order to make the most of each opportunity. They didn't work on weaker mobs (they had to be equal level or higher) which helped with keeping the "downtime" balanced. It wasn't really possible to try and focus on keeping the chain going forever because eventually you would run out of resources or not have enough damage to kill the next mob before time expiered. I don't think I ever saw a chain higher than #6 or #7 and this was with a level cap of 75. Combat was balanced incredibly well. Downtime was really consistent. Most important of all ... "grinding" was actually fun and had extremely high replay value because of all the emergent gameplay that only became possible because of this feature. If you scroll further up the page you'll see a typical "XP Chain" experience referenced by Eriugena. (I quoted them.)