Originally posted by Fendel84M Camelot Unchained sounds more your cup of tea if you want a game focused entirely on PVP.
Who said that? all i read was players not liking the decision for huge nerf to xp from PVP. And its a valid complaint because the nerf was un necessary. Questing is mind numbingly generic and boring however PVP is damn fun.
They should have kept PVE and PVP xp on par.
Again a person who doesn't seem to consider the whole game when talking about XP.
First welcome to the sub conundrum, they need to keep players, that's the chief reason behind this disparity, if it were F2P or B2P this wouldn't be as much of an issue. PVP oriented players are kinda covered in this regard, at least as much as can be expected for a themepark game at launch.
ON the other hand PVE content always becomes an issue as far as retention is concerned (more so at launch), hence why many still prefer the EQ method of setting you back during your progression. It fleshes out the journey for them.
IF all xp was equal the person doing all forms of content would out-level the content, they'd finish the game (what's there) too fast. We've seen this time and time and time again.
Does this suck for some playstyles? I'm sure it does. Does it make sense why they're doing it the way they are? Yes it does.
I guess you miss one major point.
IF a developer would balance xp that way, they would only please ONE very minor group. The group of people that do everything equally.
That would be really dumb to be honest. Having MORE ways to reach endcontent is ALWAYS preferable. Outleveling content is a non issue, since barly anyone "cries" if he is skipping content due to having "too much to do". Simply add a xp stop button and that other minor group is settled.
What game do you think pleases more people and keeps more people subbed? The game that offers exactly ONE strict way of advancing, or the one where you can choose from pvp, pve questing, pve dungeons, ect. ?
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Originally posted by Fendel84M Camelot Unchained sounds more your cup of tea if you want a game focused entirely on PVP.
Who said that? all i read was players not liking the decision for huge nerf to xp from PVP. And its a valid complaint because the nerf was un necessary. Questing is mind numbingly generic and boring however PVP is damn fun.
They should have kept PVE and PVP xp on par.
Again a person who doesn't seem to consider the whole game when talking about XP.
First welcome to the sub conundrum, they need to keep players, that's the chief reason behind this disparity, if it were F2P or B2P this wouldn't be as much of an issue. PVP oriented players are kinda covered in this regard, at least as much as can be expected for a themepark game at launch.
ON the other hand PVE content always becomes an issue as far as retention is concerned (more so at launch), hence why many still prefer the EQ method of setting you back during your progression. It fleshes out the journey for them.
IF all xp was equal the person doing all forms of content would out-level the content, they'd finish the game (what's there) too fast. We've seen this time and time and time again.
Does this suck for some playstyles? I'm sure it does. Does it make sense why they're doing it the way they are? Yes it does.
Good points but their solution seems odd. If one of your concerns was PvE players running out of content too quickly why nerf dungeons and PvP into the ground and leave questing untouched? Wouldn't the more effective solution be to nerf all forms of exp evenly by a lower amount?
Because open dungeons and mobs xp were broken, it was on the point you coud sit there farming bosses and level faster than people questing.
Questing = Soloplay... this is considered a MMO, right? So groupgame should provide benefits to make people WANT to interact with eachother.
Grouping and dungeons should ALWAYS outperforme solo questing, id even go as far and say it should at least be 2x as fast. That is enough to ensure groups have an advantage and creating a group is a valid way of playing. Yet you could still advance if you just don't want to communicate.
The "soloplay should offer the same (or greater?!) reward then groupplay" - sentiment has to die in a fire, really. Worst thing to happen to MMOs since FTP.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Originally posted by Fendel84M Camelot Unchained sounds more your cup of tea if you want a game focused entirely on PVP.
Who said that? all i read was players not liking the decision for huge nerf to xp from PVP. And its a valid complaint because the nerf was un necessary. Questing is mind numbingly generic and boring however PVP is damn fun.
They should have kept PVE and PVP xp on par.
Again a person who doesn't seem to consider the whole game when talking about XP.
First welcome to the sub conundrum, they need to keep players, that's the chief reason behind this disparity, if it were F2P or B2P this wouldn't be as much of an issue. PVP oriented players are kinda covered in this regard, at least as much as can be expected for a themepark game at launch.
ON the other hand PVE content always becomes an issue as far as retention is concerned (more so at launch), hence why many still prefer the EQ method of setting you back during your progression. It fleshes out the journey for them.
IF all xp was equal the person doing all forms of content would out-level the content, they'd finish the game (what's there) too fast. We've seen this time and time and time again.
Does this suck for some playstyles? I'm sure it does. Does it make sense why they're doing it the way they are? Yes it does.
Good points but their solution seems odd. If one of your concerns was PvE players running out of content too quickly why nerf dungeons and PvP into the ground and leave questing untouched? Wouldn't the more effective solution be to nerf all forms of exp evenly by a lower amount?
I don't disagree with your assessment there may be better ways to do this. I'll attempt an answer since you asked me, although I'm not saying it's the right answer.
I'd assume they accounted for the length of a quest and the xp you gain, in comparison for killing so many mobs and the time that takes. I can't recall right now how much xp I got per quest, nor how much I got per mob, so I'm not sure if they do in fact account for that or whether it evens out or not, per average time of the average quest. There's a lot that happens in between in many cases (killing and filler one off tasks).
Now if it doesn't even out that could be because of an oversight on their part or an intended push to encourage questing as a chief progression route. The latter would seem they want to push players to do the activity that takes the longest and they can control the flow of the longest. Corresponding with what I said about the payment model.
It could eb the same intention behind PVP progression, IE they want to slow those guys down too.
Those are my thoughts on it. THere are better ways to do this, I agree..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't disagree with your assessment there may be better ways to do this. I'll attempt an answer since you asked me, although I'm not saying it's the right answer.
I'd assume they accounted for the length of a quest and the xp you gain, in comparison for killing so many mobs and the time that takes. I can't recall right now how much xp I got per quest, nor how much I got per mob, so I'm not sure if they do in fact account for that or whether it evens out or not, per average time of the average quest. There's a lot that happens in between in many cases (killing and filler one off tasks).
Now if it doesn't even out that could be because of an oversight on their part or an intended push to encourage questing as a chief progression route. The latter would seem they want to push players to do the activity that takes the longest and they can control the flow of the longest. Corresponding with what I said about the payment model.
It could eb the same intention behind PVP progression, IE they want to slow those guys down too.
Those are my thoughts on it. THere are better ways to do this, I agree..
Ah right, it actually all does make sense if they see questing as their bread and butter time sink and want to make sure almost no one will skip it.
Originally posted by Fendel84M Camelot Unchained sounds more your cup of tea if you want a game focused entirely on PVP.
Who said that? all i read was players not liking the decision for huge nerf to xp from PVP. And its a valid complaint because the nerf was un necessary. Questing is mind numbingly generic and boring however PVP is damn fun.
They should have kept PVE and PVP xp on par.
Again a person who doesn't seem to consider the whole game when talking about XP.
First welcome to the sub conundrum, they need to keep players, that's the chief reason behind this disparity, if it were F2P or B2P this wouldn't be as much of an issue. PVP oriented players are kinda covered in this regard, at least as much as can be expected for a themepark game at launch.
ON the other hand PVE content always becomes an issue as far as retention is concerned (more so at launch), hence why many still prefer the EQ method of setting you back during your progression. It fleshes out the journey for them.
IF all xp was equal the person doing all forms of content would out-level the content, they'd finish the game (what's there) too fast. We've seen this time and time and time again.
Does this suck for some playstyles? I'm sure it does. Does it make sense why they're doing it the way they are? Yes it does.
I guess you miss one major point.
IF a developer would balance xp that way, they would only please ONE very minor group. The group of people that do everything equally.
That would be really dumb to be honest. Having MORE ways to reach endcontent is ALWAYS preferable. Outleveling content is a non issue, since barly anyone "cries" if he is skipping content due to having "too much to do". Simply add a xp stop button and that other minor group is settled.
What game do you think pleases more people and keeps more people subbed? The game that offers exactly ONE strict way of advancing, or the one where you can choose from pvp, pve questing, pve dungeons, ect. ?
I didn't miss it I avoided trying to add so much conjecture and claim a majority opinion, I have no idea who the bigger group is, no one here does. Yet I would assume it's the more general audience, the dabblers who make up a majority of those in an MMO. Exactly who such a type of game (XP ratio) benefits. The other choices are there to supplement the main course, which is obviously questing. PVP is handled in another way entirely it's general design supports a more jump in whenever attitude which makes it less progression based. WHich may hurt it's appeal for a certain audience, yet it broadens it to a larger audience.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't disagree with your assessment there may be better ways to do this. I'll attempt an answer since you asked me, although I'm not saying it's the right answer.
I'd assume they accounted for the length of a quest and the xp you gain, in comparison for killing so many mobs and the time that takes. I can't recall right now how much xp I got per quest, nor how much I got per mob, so I'm not sure if they do in fact account for that or whether it evens out or not, per average time of the average quest. There's a lot that happens in between in many cases (killing and filler one off tasks).
Now if it doesn't even out that could be because of an oversight on their part or an intended push to encourage questing as a chief progression route. The latter would seem they want to push players to do the activity that takes the longest and they can control the flow of the longest. Corresponding with what I said about the payment model.
It could eb the same intention behind PVP progression, IE they want to slow those guys down too.
Those are my thoughts on it. THere are better ways to do this, I agree..
Ah right, it actually all does make sense if they see questing as their bread and butter time sink and want to make sure almost no one will skip it.
Precisely my point. Although I'd add they leave the option to do what a person typically does to powergrind (mobs) they just don't allow it to speed up progression. AS it stands this is one of the first of this generation of games I've seen take a combative stance against powerleveling. Could backfire, but It may turn out to be a smart decision.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Fendel84M Camelot Unchained sounds more your cup of tea if you want a game focused entirely on PVP.
Who said that? all i read was players not liking the decision for huge nerf to xp from PVP. And its a valid complaint because the nerf was un necessary. Questing is mind numbingly generic and boring however PVP is damn fun.
They should have kept PVE and PVP xp on par.
Again a person who doesn't seem to consider the whole game when talking about XP.
First welcome to the sub conundrum, they need to keep players, that's the chief reason behind this disparity, if it were F2P or B2P this wouldn't be as much of an issue. PVP oriented players are kinda covered in this regard, at least as much as can be expected for a themepark game at launch.
ON the other hand PVE content always becomes an issue as far as retention is concerned (more so at launch), hence why many still prefer the EQ method of setting you back during your progression. It fleshes out the journey for them.
IF all xp was equal the person doing all forms of content would out-level the content, they'd finish the game (what's there) too fast. We've seen this time and time and time again.
Does this suck for some playstyles? I'm sure it does. Does it make sense why they're doing it the way they are? Yes it does.
Good points but their solution seems odd. If one of your concerns was PvE players running out of content too quickly why nerf dungeons and PvP into the ground and leave questing untouched? Wouldn't the more effective solution be to nerf all forms of exp evenly by a lower amount?
Because open dungeons and mobs xp were broken, it was on the point you coud sit there farming bosses and level faster than people questing.
Questing = Soloplay... this is considered a MMO, right? So groupgame should provide benefits to make people WANT to interact with eachother.
Grouping and dungeons should ALWAYS outperforme solo questing, id even go as far and say it should at least be 2x as fast. That is enough to ensure groups have an advantage and creating a group is a valid way of playing. Yet you could still advance if you just don't want to communicate.
The "soloplay should offer the same (or greater?!) reward then groupplay" - sentiment has to die in a fire, really. Worst thing to happen to MMOs since FTP.
It was bad because you could sit on a dungeon, alone, and farm the last boss and get xp faster than you could quest.
"In order to address some XP grinding exploits, we have reduced the XP received from kills in certain areas of the game:
Significantly reduced the XP from monster kills in Public Dungeons. Slightly reduced the XP from monster kills in Explorable Caves."
Could this game have been done in a way where groupplay has more room? Sure it could, albeit too complex and unnecessary for me to think too much on it, the balance is everything, and it all depends on what the developers wants us to focus. Right now group play is being focused on other things, AvA and adventure zones for example, questing is more of a single-player experience where you build your character storyline. The developers spent a huge mount of time on questing, they want to make sure that content is being put to good use before any other.
EDIT: Also Distopia explains my point of view of this situation on a better way on the posts above me, I'm too lazy to articulate better
Since I love PVE and I'm not an altaholoc, I'm obviously a happy camper. Regardless there are so ,any options for what to do in this game it should really make just about everyone happy who isn't upset it's not a sandbox. Cant wait to see the Adventure Zone stuff.
"There is an progression at end game for every type of game play, because that's Elder Scrolls, you should be able to play and continue to play excactly how you wanted to the entire time. So, if you want to start in pvp, and level in pvp, you can absolutely do that, theres rewards and skill points, you can advance all your skills, theres no restrictions on that. And then you can get to the end, and theres an entire end game to that" ~~ "the point is that there is a progression to that and an end game to that"
-Nick Konkle
So they basicly said you can level from in PVP from 10-R10. What exactly are you guys all complaining about?
Are you trying to say you cannot level up to max level in PVP?
"There is an progression at end game for every type of game play, because that's Elder Scrolls, you should be able to play and continue to play excactly how you wanted to the entire time. So, if you want to start in pvp, and level in pvp, you can absolutely do that, theres rewards and skill points, you can advance all your skills, theres no restrictions on that. And then you can get to the end, and theres an entire end game to that" ~~ "the point is that there is a progression to that and an end game to that"
-Nick Konkle
So they basicly said you can level from in PVP from 10-R10. What exactly are you guys all complaining about?
Are you trying to say you cannot level up to max level in PVP?
... Just read the second post. They are saying it's extremely slow compared to questing. Some people are claiming 1/10th of the speed. Some people obviously don't like this. Specifically, people that don't like questing all that much and people that like to PvP.
"There is an progression at end game for every type of game play, because that's Elder Scrolls, you should be able to play and continue to play excactly how you wanted to the entire time. So, if you want to start in pvp, and level in pvp, you can absolutely do that, theres rewards and skill points, you can advance all your skills, theres no restrictions on that. And then you can get to the end, and theres an entire end game to that" ~~ "the point is that there is a progression to that and an end game to that"
-Nick Konkle
So they basicly said you can level from in PVP from 10-R10. What exactly are you guys all complaining about?
Are you trying to say you cannot level up to max level in PVP?
... Just read the second post. They are saying it's extremely slow compared to questing. Some people are claiming 1/10th of the speed. Some people obviously don't like this. Specifically, people that don't like questing all that much and people that like to PvP.
Well if that's the case, which I wouldn't know, I don't have access to the closed beta. But I would say its going to be balanced before launch and if it is not, we can easily force them to balance it based on this interview and Nick Konkles words saying... "You should be able to play and continue to play excactly how you want to the entire time" (in PVP).
I wouldn't even sweat this one, its a given it will be balanced and forced if it isn't.
Still doesn't address the issue of fighting in Cyrodiil for hours and getting crap XP.
You have the people who recently made threads in reddit, here, at the TF, everywhere.... about how they had figured out the best way to level through PVP and make enough gold in a weekend to buy a horse.... or did you miss that post here a couple of weeks back?
People find weaknesses or advantages and developers read it as "exploit" and nerf it.
I'm sure when the dust settles, leveling through RvR will be perfectly viable...minus the extra sky shards and skill point quest rewards of course... but if your goal is to get to 50 ASAP to have an RvR advantage over bolstered scrubs, you'll get that.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Still doesn't address the issue of fighting in Cyrodiil for hours and getting crap XP.
I understand nerfing public dungeon XP exploits - but why does XP gains in Cyrodiil from killing other players give so little XP?
Powerleveling in keep sieges isn't exactly going to happen.
The quest to kill 20 enemy players apparently gives more XP now - do you know how long it takes my group to kill 20 players? Like 90 seconds tops - so what are we going turn in and take the quest again every 5 minutes?
It makes NO sense. Why not just keep a tally of how many players we've killed in like 3 hours and then divide it by 20 and give us the reward that many times - or something. There's gotta be a better way!
Also they changed Cyrodiil PvE quests to dailies to prevent farming exploits - again fine - but killing enemy players needs a serious XP boost.
I kinda mentioned this above but I didn't go into any detail. It seems to me that their PVP implementation doesn't really require them to offer fast progression, in that A you're already doing your endgame activity, B you're bolstered to 50. So they slow you down with this nerf. I really do believe that's the main goal of these XP nerfs, they're trying to remove the ability to circumvent the time they want it to take to LVL.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Knotwood Are they taking into account that there will be action nonstop when it launches in pvp, or did they just do one small battle and say its crap?
Yeah that's why I wish I could see for myself the exact rate. I Wish I didn't remove the beta client I could have tonight.
That's my main question, compared to say completing a typical quest line (when you're given xp from it) how much XP could you have gained straight grinding mobs in that time? A lot of these quests have you running all over the place, which can take a lot of time. Could I have just grinded in that time and got at least close to the same amount of xp?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Knotwood Are they taking into account that there will be action nonstop when it launches in pvp, or did they just do one small battle and say its crap?
Yeah that's why I wish I could see for myself the exact rate. I Wish I didn't remove the beta client I could have tonight.
That's my main question, compared to say completing a typical quest line (when you're given xp from it) how much XP could you have gained straight grinding mobs in that time? A lot of these quests have you running all over the place, which can take a lot of time. Could I have just grinded in that time and got at least close to the same amount of xp?
Right now they are just plugging the holes that people have found and then bragged about in forums. Their goal is pretty clear though: they want the leveling in PVP and in PVE to happen at a roughly equal rate.
A problem that will always exist though is that player kill XP / hour played can't be controlled to the same extent that PVE content can. You get bursts of activity followed by some down time and both have variable time out of their control.
XP gain rates is something that will get tuned continuously. It's happened in every MMO I've ever played at launch. And when the corrections are made, people will bitch--especially if their preferred leveling way is affected.
In Warhammer at launch, scenario PVP XP gain was way out of control and pretty well all players who got to 50 quickly did it that way.
They were also incredibly slow to respond and adjust it. They seem to be a bit more proactive here so maybe they'll get the balance right in weeks instead of months.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I kinda mentioned this above but I didn't go into any detail. It seems to me that their PVP implementation doesn't really require them to offer fast progression, in that A you're already doing your endgame activity, B you're bolstered to 50. So they slow you down with this nerf. I really do believe that's the main goal of these XP nerfs, they're trying to remove the ability to circumvent the time they want it to take to LVL.
One small correction - you're bolstered to lvl 49 effectively - when you hit lvl 50, your stats in Cyrodiil get uncapped.
Yeah, and isn't the difference enormous? Like a 50 can take on up to 3 bolstered players or something?
Originally posted by Knotwood Are they taking into account that there will be action nonstop when it launches in pvp, or did they just do one small battle and say its crap?
Yeah that's why I wish I could see for myself the exact rate. I Wish I didn't remove the beta client I could have tonight.
That's my main question, compared to say completing a typical quest line (when you're given xp from it) how much XP could you have gained straight grinding mobs in that time? A lot of these quests have you running all over the place, which can take a lot of time. Could I have just grinded in that time and got at least close to the same amount of xp?
Right now they are just plugging the holes that people have found and then bragged about in forums. Their goal is pretty clear though: they want the leveling in PVP and in PVE to happen at a roughly equal rate.
A problem that will always exist though is that player kill XP / hour played can't be controlled to the same extent that PVE content can. You get bursts of activity followed by some down time and both have variable time out of their control.
XP gain rates is something that will get tuned continuously. It's happened in every MMO I've ever played at launch. And when the corrections are made, people will bitch--especially if their preferred leveling way is affected.
In Warhammer at launch, scenario PVP XP gain was way out of control and pretty well all players who got to 50 quickly did it that way.
They were also incredibly slow to respond and adjust it. They seem to be a bit more proactive here so maybe they'll get the balance right in weeks instead of months.
I agree, that would be the end goal, as they can't really gimp one side too much for too long and get away with it. Plugging the holes is exactly what I meant about slowing people down in my earlier posts. I'm sure this was accounted for during the testing events while they had mass numbers to evaluate.
You're also correct about past games. They didn't account for this in any way, they tried nothing to slow people down. WAR and TOR both suffered from this, well the companies/company suffered anyway. IF you PVPd in TOR for any length of time you'd completely outlevel the content you were doing prior. WHich hey that's great for PVPer's ( well it would have been if Ilium worked). Problem is it completely devalues the PVE game in the process. YOu have no reason to go back to the areas you were in besides your class quest, which is a push over now.
There's far more to balancing all of this out than people realize. ESO would have thesame problem for it's PVE content that we saw in SWTOR , with equal PVP pay out. I don't think they'll allow that at launch. WHen they get some actual end-game PVE in place like craglorn things might change.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I kinda mentioned this above but I didn't go into any detail. It seems to me that their PVP implementation doesn't really require them to offer fast progression, in that A you're already doing your endgame activity, B you're bolstered to 50. So they slow you down with this nerf. I really do believe that's the main goal of these XP nerfs, they're trying to remove the ability to circumvent the time they want it to take to LVL.
One small correction - you're bolstered to lvl 49 effectively - when you hit lvl 50, your stats in Cyrodiil get uncapped.
Yeah, and isn't the difference enormous? Like a 50 can take on up to 3 bolstered players or something?
Ah yes the inevitability of bolstering. if it weren't the case there would never be a reason to hit 50 and progress upward in your specialization.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I kinda mentioned this above but I didn't go into any detail. It seems to me that their PVP implementation doesn't really require them to offer fast progression, in that A you're already doing your endgame activity, B you're bolstered to 50. So they slow you down with this nerf. I really do believe that's the main goal of these XP nerfs, they're trying to remove the ability to circumvent the time they want it to take to LVL.
One small correction - you're bolstered to lvl 49 effectively - when you hit lvl 50, your stats in Cyrodiil get uncapped.
Yeah, and isn't the difference enormous? Like a 50 can take on up to 3 bolstered players or something?
Ah yes the inevitability of bolstering. if it weren't the case there would never be a reason to hit 50 and progress upward in your specialization.
Yeah, bolstering is a fundamentally flawed system. And now with a serious lack of XP in PVP, the prospect of going into Cyrodil to have your ass handed to you at a lower level is even less appealing. The road to 50 is apparently, as of right now, favoring in a much larger than normal ratio, the PvE questing portion. Many players would like to have more options open to them for realistic progression.
We'll see how it all works out. If they keep it the way it is, people will just feel forced to go through the quests till endgame. That's fine. People that like what they offer at endgame will go through it just to get there anyway. It's just too bad that people don't have another realistic option that they might find far more interesting than PvE questing.
I kinda mentioned this above but I didn't go into any detail. It seems to me that their PVP implementation doesn't really require them to offer fast progression, in that A you're already doing your endgame activity, B you're bolstered to 50. So they slow you down with this nerf. I really do believe that's the main goal of these XP nerfs, they're trying to remove the ability to circumvent the time they want it to take to LVL.
One small correction - you're bolstered to lvl 49 effectively - when you hit lvl 50, your stats in Cyrodiil get uncapped.
Yeah, and isn't the difference enormous? Like a 50 can take on up to 3 bolstered players or something?
Ah yes the inevitability of bolstering. if it weren't the case there would never be a reason to hit 50 and progress upward in your specialization.
Yeah, bolstering is a fundamentally flawed system. And now with a serious lack of XP in PVP, the prospect of going into Cyrodil to have your ass handed to you at a lower level is even less appealing. The road to 50 is apparently, as of right now, favoring in a much larger than normal ratio, the PvE questing portion. Many players would like to have more options open to them for realistic progression.
We'll see how it all works out. If they keep it the way it is, people will just feel forced to go through the quests till endgame. That's fine. People that like what they offer at endgame will go through it just to get there anyway. It's just too bad that people don't have another realistic option that they might find far more interesting than PvE questing.
Incoming cries of 'this game isn't designed for you' and 'go play something else then!'.
Yeah, bolstering is a fundamentally flawed system. And now with a serious lack of XP in PVP, the prospect of going into Cyrodil to have your ass handed to you at a lower level is even less appealing. The road to 50 is apparently, as of right now, favoring in a much larger than normal ratio, the PvE questing portion. Many players would like to have more options open to them for realistic progression.
We'll see how it all works out. If they keep it the way it is, people will just feel forced to go through the quests till endgame. That's fine. People that like what they offer at endgame will go through it just to get there anyway. It's just too bad that people don't have another realistic option that they might find far more interesting than PvE questing.
Giving all things a bit more thought I don't think this will be much of a problem at launch (at least for a month or so) especially if they do indeed succeed in slowing people down,, which is what I see most of these XP nerfs being about. It's a way to hold people back until endgame is a bit more fleshed out. They don't have the start of their PVE endgame in place as of yet Craglorn. WIth those things in place we may see a different approach by zenimax.
You are right that over time the bolstering will be redundant given vertical skill progression at endgame. AT launch though there aren't going to be many if any 50's running around.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So we have PVP'ers whining because they're "forced" to PVE to get the maximum amount of possible skyshards ?
And we have PVE'ers whining because they're "forced" to PVP to get the maximum amount of possible skyshards ?
Game sounds quite balanced to me !
The same problem occurs in EVERY SINGLE level-based MMO with a strong PVP component:
The "pure" PVP'ers want to get to level-cap as fast as possible whatever it takes. It's quite logical, because at level cap you are at your most powerful and therefore you have no more level-based disadvantages to worry about. And as an added bonus you get to wtfpwn lowbies...
Comments
I guess you miss one major point.
IF a developer would balance xp that way, they would only please ONE very minor group. The group of people that do everything equally.
That would be really dumb to be honest. Having MORE ways to reach endcontent is ALWAYS preferable. Outleveling content is a non issue, since barly anyone "cries" if he is skipping content due to having "too much to do". Simply add a xp stop button and that other minor group is settled.
What game do you think pleases more people and keeps more people subbed? The game that offers exactly ONE strict way of advancing, or the one where you can choose from pvp, pve questing, pve dungeons, ect. ?
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
And what about that situation is bad?
Questing = Soloplay... this is considered a MMO, right? So groupgame should provide benefits to make people WANT to interact with eachother.
Grouping and dungeons should ALWAYS outperforme solo questing, id even go as far and say it should at least be 2x as fast. That is enough to ensure groups have an advantage and creating a group is a valid way of playing. Yet you could still advance if you just don't want to communicate.
The "soloplay should offer the same (or greater?!) reward then groupplay" - sentiment has to die in a fire, really. Worst thing to happen to MMOs since FTP.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
I don't disagree with your assessment there may be better ways to do this. I'll attempt an answer since you asked me, although I'm not saying it's the right answer.
I'd assume they accounted for the length of a quest and the xp you gain, in comparison for killing so many mobs and the time that takes. I can't recall right now how much xp I got per quest, nor how much I got per mob, so I'm not sure if they do in fact account for that or whether it evens out or not, per average time of the average quest. There's a lot that happens in between in many cases (killing and filler one off tasks).
Now if it doesn't even out that could be because of an oversight on their part or an intended push to encourage questing as a chief progression route. The latter would seem they want to push players to do the activity that takes the longest and they can control the flow of the longest. Corresponding with what I said about the payment model.
It could eb the same intention behind PVP progression, IE they want to slow those guys down too.
Those are my thoughts on it. THere are better ways to do this, I agree..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ah right, it actually all does make sense if they see questing as their bread and butter time sink and want to make sure almost no one will skip it.
Awesome, love PvE. That works well for me!
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
I didn't miss it I avoided trying to add so much conjecture and claim a majority opinion, I have no idea who the bigger group is, no one here does. Yet I would assume it's the more general audience, the dabblers who make up a majority of those in an MMO. Exactly who such a type of game (XP ratio) benefits. The other choices are there to supplement the main course, which is obviously questing. PVP is handled in another way entirely it's general design supports a more jump in whenever attitude which makes it less progression based. WHich may hurt it's appeal for a certain audience, yet it broadens it to a larger audience.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Precisely my point. Although I'd add they leave the option to do what a person typically does to powergrind (mobs) they just don't allow it to speed up progression. AS it stands this is one of the first of this generation of games I've seen take a combative stance against powerleveling. Could backfire, but It may turn out to be a smart decision.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It was bad because you could sit on a dungeon, alone, and farm the last boss and get xp faster than you could quest.
"In order to address some XP grinding exploits, we have reduced the XP received from kills in certain areas of the game:
Significantly reduced the XP from monster kills in Public Dungeons.
Slightly reduced the XP from monster kills in Explorable Caves."
http://sacredhaven.org/forumsh/showthread.php?11692-Eso-latest-patch-notes-182-Mar-19-(f**k-me-Khajit-nerf)
Could this game have been done in a way where groupplay has more room? Sure it could, albeit too complex and unnecessary for me to think too much on it, the balance is everything, and it all depends on what the developers wants us to focus. Right now group play is being focused on other things, AvA and adventure zones for example, questing is more of a single-player experience where you build your character storyline. The developers spent a huge mount of time on questing, they want to make sure that content is being put to good use before any other.
EDIT: Also Distopia explains my point of view of this situation on a better way on the posts above me, I'm too lazy to articulate better
There Is Always Hope!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80mHQNA45js 1:30:45
Interview with Nick Konkle. ESO developer.
In the words of the Master Dev himself.
"There is an progression at end game for every type of game play, because that's Elder Scrolls, you should be able to play and continue to play excactly how you wanted to the entire time. So, if you want to start in pvp, and level in pvp, you can absolutely do that, theres rewards and skill points, you can advance all your skills, theres no restrictions on that. And then you can get to the end, and theres an entire end game to that" ~~ "the point is that there is a progression to that and an end game to that"
-Nick Konkle
So they basicly said you can level from in PVP from 10-R10. What exactly are you guys all complaining about?
Are you trying to say you cannot level up to max level in PVP?
... Just read the second post. They are saying it's extremely slow compared to questing. Some people are claiming 1/10th of the speed. Some people obviously don't like this. Specifically, people that don't like questing all that much and people that like to PvP.
Well if that's the case, which I wouldn't know, I don't have access to the closed beta. But I would say its going to be balanced before launch and if it is not, we can easily force them to balance it based on this interview and Nick Konkles words saying... "You should be able to play and continue to play excactly how you want to the entire time" (in PVP).
I wouldn't even sweat this one, its a given it will be balanced and forced if it isn't.
You have the people who recently made threads in reddit, here, at the TF, everywhere.... about how they had figured out the best way to level through PVP and make enough gold in a weekend to buy a horse.... or did you miss that post here a couple of weeks back?
People find weaknesses or advantages and developers read it as "exploit" and nerf it.
I'm sure when the dust settles, leveling through RvR will be perfectly viable...minus the extra sky shards and skill point quest rewards of course... but if your goal is to get to 50 ASAP to have an RvR advantage over bolstered scrubs, you'll get that.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I kinda mentioned this above but I didn't go into any detail. It seems to me that their PVP implementation doesn't really require them to offer fast progression, in that A you're already doing your endgame activity, B you're bolstered to 50. So they slow you down with this nerf. I really do believe that's the main goal of these XP nerfs, they're trying to remove the ability to circumvent the time they want it to take to LVL.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yeah that's why I wish I could see for myself the exact rate. I Wish I didn't remove the beta client I could have tonight.
That's my main question, compared to say completing a typical quest line (when you're given xp from it) how much XP could you have gained straight grinding mobs in that time? A lot of these quests have you running all over the place, which can take a lot of time. Could I have just grinded in that time and got at least close to the same amount of xp?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Right now they are just plugging the holes that people have found and then bragged about in forums. Their goal is pretty clear though: they want the leveling in PVP and in PVE to happen at a roughly equal rate.
A problem that will always exist though is that player kill XP / hour played can't be controlled to the same extent that PVE content can. You get bursts of activity followed by some down time and both have variable time out of their control.
XP gain rates is something that will get tuned continuously. It's happened in every MMO I've ever played at launch. And when the corrections are made, people will bitch--especially if their preferred leveling way is affected.
In Warhammer at launch, scenario PVP XP gain was way out of control and pretty well all players who got to 50 quickly did it that way.
They were also incredibly slow to respond and adjust it. They seem to be a bit more proactive here so maybe they'll get the balance right in weeks instead of months.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Yeah, and isn't the difference enormous? Like a 50 can take on up to 3 bolstered players or something?
I agree, that would be the end goal, as they can't really gimp one side too much for too long and get away with it. Plugging the holes is exactly what I meant about slowing people down in my earlier posts. I'm sure this was accounted for during the testing events while they had mass numbers to evaluate.
You're also correct about past games. They didn't account for this in any way, they tried nothing to slow people down. WAR and TOR both suffered from this, well the companies/company suffered anyway. IF you PVPd in TOR for any length of time you'd completely outlevel the content you were doing prior. WHich hey that's great for PVPer's ( well it would have been if Ilium worked). Problem is it completely devalues the PVE game in the process. YOu have no reason to go back to the areas you were in besides your class quest, which is a push over now.
There's far more to balancing all of this out than people realize. ESO would have thesame problem for it's PVE content that we saw in SWTOR , with equal PVP pay out. I don't think they'll allow that at launch. WHen they get some actual end-game PVE in place like craglorn things might change.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ah yes the inevitability of bolstering. if it weren't the case there would never be a reason to hit 50 and progress upward in your specialization.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yeah, bolstering is a fundamentally flawed system. And now with a serious lack of XP in PVP, the prospect of going into Cyrodil to have your ass handed to you at a lower level is even less appealing. The road to 50 is apparently, as of right now, favoring in a much larger than normal ratio, the PvE questing portion. Many players would like to have more options open to them for realistic progression.
We'll see how it all works out. If they keep it the way it is, people will just feel forced to go through the quests till endgame. That's fine. People that like what they offer at endgame will go through it just to get there anyway. It's just too bad that people don't have another realistic option that they might find far more interesting than PvE questing.
Incoming cries of 'this game isn't designed for you' and 'go play something else then!'.
Giving all things a bit more thought I don't think this will be much of a problem at launch (at least for a month or so) especially if they do indeed succeed in slowing people down,, which is what I see most of these XP nerfs being about. It's a way to hold people back until endgame is a bit more fleshed out. They don't have the start of their PVE endgame in place as of yet Craglorn. WIth those things in place we may see a different approach by zenimax.
You are right that over time the bolstering will be redundant given vertical skill progression at endgame. AT launch though there aren't going to be many if any 50's running around.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
looks like eso will be good enough to sub. and the price we pay.
maybe its an AAA+ if we get new content for free,dlcs.
So we have PVP'ers whining because they're "forced" to PVE to get the maximum amount of possible skyshards ?
And we have PVE'ers whining because they're "forced" to PVP to get the maximum amount of possible skyshards ?
Game sounds quite balanced to me !
The same problem occurs in EVERY SINGLE level-based MMO with a strong PVP component:
The "pure" PVP'ers want to get to level-cap as fast as possible whatever it takes. It's quite logical, because at level cap you are at your most powerful and therefore you have no more level-based disadvantages to worry about. And as an added bonus you get to wtfpwn lowbies...