This assumes that a characters stats have nothing to do with their damage/defense. If a weapon is magically imbued to be better then it wouldn't matter who used it. If one sword uses better steel and is sharper than another, it doesn't matter who uses it, it will still cause more damage.
The chance of hitting your opponent should be based on the player, not the weapon. The strength of a character should also be a determining factor in how hard they hit.
For the record, I am for twinking. But, if a compromise, solution, etc. was implemented, I would want it believable.
I don't disagree with your point on the actual weapon, which is why a twink magical weapon should be better than a rusty sword and I would be opposed to a hard coded % per level. If a level 1 was as proficient in weapons as a level 50, then the weapon should have max stats, but they wouldn't be or at least it's not unrealistic to assume that most, if not all wouldn't be as proficient. My argument wouldn't be to artificially diminish the weapon based off player level, it would be to lower the weapon's stats based off the player's ability to use that weapon at that level. Basically does the same thing, but it's a more believable scenario.
RL example: I'm trying to fence aganist an Olympian. Same weapon, but they would get better benefits out of that weapon.
Another alternative: Even if you use EQ as an example, they still had artificial restrictions on twinking, with hard damage/haste caps at level 10, 20, etc., you just ultimately leveled so fast with items like a fungi tunic that you blew by the caps. After thinking about the level caps again, maybe an easier solution would be just to implement more caps at level 10/20/30/40/50 (as expansions increase) as no one seems to remember/be concerned with those.
A level 1 will not hit with that magic sword as much as a level 50. But if he hits, why would that sword do less damage? The only reason for less damage would be less STR value maybe. But that is down to your STR stat and not the weapon itself.
It is perfectly fine if a level 1 (or 10 for that matter) does less damage then a level 50 with the same weapon. But that should result from skillcaps, attribute values ect. not from making the same weapon a weaker weapon.
Same for armor. A level 1 may be bad at handling a full plate armor. But it would not protect him worse then it would protect a level 50. The level 1 would be worse at using his WEAPONS in said armor tho. This is down to a "use that full plate armor"-skill i guess. Reducing the actuall armor value? Nah.
In a well designed game, downsampling of equipment is not needed. Just think about driving a Lambo as soon as you get a licence. You won't be good at handling the car, but it would still be the same Lambo.
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?
This assumes that a characters stats have nothing to do with their damage/defense. If a weapon is magically imbued to be better then it wouldn't matter who used it. If one sword uses better steel and is sharper than another, it doesn't matter who uses it, it will still cause more damage.
The chance of hitting your opponent should be based on the player, not the weapon. The strength of a character should also be a determining factor in how hard they hit.
For the record, I am for twinking. But, if a compromise, solution, etc. was implemented, I would want it believable.
I don't disagree with your point on the actual weapon, which is why a twink magical weapon should be better than a rusty sword and I would be opposed to a hard coded % per level. If a level 1 was as proficient in weapons as a level 50, then the weapon should have max stats, but they wouldn't be or at least it would not be unrealistic to assume that most, if not all would not be. My argument wouldn't be to artificially diminish the weapon based off player level, it would be to lower the weapon's stats based off the player's ability to use that weapon at that level. Basically does the same thing, but it's a more believable scenario.
RL example: I'm trying to fence aganist an Olympian. Same weapon, but they would get better benefits out of that weapon.
Another alternative: Even if you use EQ as an example, they still had artificial restrictions on twinking, with hard damage/haste caps at level 10, 20, etc., you just ultimately leveled so fast with items like a fungi tunic that you blew by the caps. After thinking about the level caps again, maybe an easier solution would be just to implement more caps at level 10/20/30/40/50 (as expansions increase) as no one seems to remember/be concerned with those.
The benefit the Olympian gets from the sword itself pales in comparison from his skills. He would be able to demolish you with a willow branch. Just saying :P
Items are just .. objects. They're static and shouldn't be able to change in any way. I think of the base damage that a weapon can do as the equivalent of how well it was made, the quality of steel and how well it was sharpened.
The magic used to imbue and object however could have their effects affected by the characters stats. Magic itself typically uses either intelligence or wisdom for the effectiveness, so why not make those stats change how well those "enchantements" work. This could put an interesting twist on it too. Casters using weapons that proc because their int or wis causes serious damage.
It is perfectly fine if a level 1 (or 10 for that matter) does less damage then a level 50 with the same weapon. But that should result from skillcaps, attribute values ect. not from making the same weapon a weaker weapon.
I'm ok with this solution as well.
For weapons, you could base it off of weapon skill percentage and max damage %. with attributes being factored into the equation as well
Example: 1h slash skill: 200. Weapon is 10/20 with a max damage of 20. 50% chance to hit for 20 and a <5% chance to hit for 10.
1h slash skill: 20. Same weapon - 10/20. <5% chance to hit for 20 and a 50% chance to hit for 10.
Where it would become difficult is for armor/regen items, etc. Without scaling back AC on armor, I'm unsure how you could create a %chance to mitigate more damage, and maybe with armor, it shouldn't scale back as you are wearing it versus becoming more proficient with it like dodge/parry/block, etc.
And, with magical bonuses/procs there's no way to scale it back based off skill unless weapon skill (or if there was a light/chain/plate armor skill) that created a message similar to EQ's if your skill was <the required limit like... "Your will is not sufficient to command this weapon." It could be a similar message on equip for items like a fungi, "Your will is not sufficient to obtain the magical benefits."
It is perfectly fine if a level 1 (or 10 for that matter) does less damage then a level 50 with the same weapon. But that should result from skillcaps, attribute values ect. not from making the same weapon a weaker weapon.
I'm ok with this solution as well.
For weapons, you could base it off of weapon skill percentage and max damage %. with attributes being factored into the equation as well
Example: 1h slash skill: 200. Weapon is 10/20 with a max damage of 20. 50% chance to hit for 20 and a <5% chance to hit for 10.
1h slash skill: 20. Same weapon - 10/20. <5% chance to hit for 20 and a 50% chance to hit for 10.
Where it would become difficult is for armor/regen items, etc. Without scaling back AC on armor, I'm unsure how you could create a %chance to mitigate more damage, and maybe with armor, it shouldn't scale back as you are wearing it versus becoming more proficient with it like dodge/parry/block, etc.
And, with magical bonuses/procs there's no way to scale it back based off skill unless weapon skill (or if there was a light/chain/plate armor skill) that created a message similar to EQ's if your skill was
Every stat a character has effects one (or more) of what you mentioned above. Intelligence/Wisdom effects how much damage magic spells do, Str effects how much damage your melee weapons do and how much dmg one can absorbe, dex to archery and perhaps damage mitigation, quickness for dodging/damage mitigation, char perhaps to something else, etc, etc, etc.
Every stat a character has effects one (or more) of what you mentioned above. Intelligence/Wisdom effects how much damage magic spells do, Str effects how much damage your melee weapons do and how much dmg one can absorbe, dex to archery and perhaps damage mitigation, quickness for dodging/damage mitigation, char perhaps to something else, etc, etc, etc.
I would be ok with adding stats to the skill formula as well then.
Weapon: 10/20 1h slash. Max damage 20. Warrior max at 100 str and 200 weapon skill. Max weapon skill gives 50% chance to hit for max damage if successful, max strength gives an additional 10% chance.
Armor: 100 AC Breastplate. Max Mitgation 20%. Warrior max at 100 str and 200 heavy armor skill. Max armor skill gives 50% chance to mitigate 20% damage with max strength giving an additional 10%.
Procs/Magical Gear. 75 damage proc or 15 regen/tick. Warrior max at 100 int and 200 magical knowledge skill (or some other cheesy name). Max knowledge skill gives 50% chance to proc at max damage or regen at max hps, with max intelligence giving an additional 10% chance. etc.
And, with 20 skill, 1h slash would be 5% chance to hit for max damage, if successful hit, and if maximum strength, still would give the additional 10%. So a 15% chance versus 60%.
Obviously I'm just throwing out formulas as examples, but you could create scaling based off stats/skills to still allow for twinking, but the weapons wouldn't be as powerful as a max level character using them.
The other question that would be raised though if you had a skill/stat based proficiency, it would ultimately effect all other weapons as well, basically scaling appropriate level gear back and still creating the same gap and advantage between level appropriate gear and twink gear, unless there was some restriction placed that all gear X number of levels above character level has this formula.. etc.
I sure hope the devs don't scale everything with formulas. Simple weapon and armor skills are enough in my eyes. Getting the FULL regen out of a fungi tunic made it really memorable, valuable and most importantly: FUN.
Every form of twinking will be overpowered in one way or the other. Giving too much emphasis on reducing that fun factor seems like a waste of time for no good reason. The goal of twinking is to blitz trough levels faster for whatever reason, usually not with your first toon (and depending on the value of items not even with your second or third). Don't forget we are talking about temporary "issues" here that are hardly real issues.
Imbalance will fix itself after a few levels anyways and not affect highlevel at all. Trying too hard to offset this only costs dev time without any real value for the game. People WILL find a way to level faster with a future toon, no matter how hard you try. There is always a "best" way. Trying to balance that is an uphill battle noone can win, so might just as well keep the fun of twinking in the game and let people enjoy their twinks, without having to abuse worse forms of fast leveling.
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 want the artificial restrictions, I think the drawback of having lower weapon and defensive skills should be enough. In EQ there were actually damage caps as you leveled. You probably notice at like level 20 and 40 (I think were the big ones) your weapons suddenly hit much harder (level 20 and 40 were were you went over 100-200 skill in a weapon, respectively).
Beyond that, even the way your stats effected you changed over time. You gained more benefit from stats, which gave you higher attack, higher AC, and benefited your defense and virtually everything about your character. Basically EQ already had a scaling system built in, so twinking was awesome, but the difference between a level 10 using a great item and a level 50 using that same item was considerable.
I don't want the artificial restrictions, I think the drawback of having lower weapon and defensive skills should be enough. In EQ there were actually damage caps as you leveled. You probably notice at like level 20 and 40 (I think were the big ones) your weapons suddenly hit much harder (level 20 and 40 were were you went over 100-200 skill in a weapon, respectively).
Beyond that, even the way your stats effected you changed over time. You gained more benefit from stats, which gave you higher attack, higher AC, and benefited your defense and virtually everything about your character. Basically EQ already had a scaling system built in, so twinking was awesome, but the difference between a level 10 using a great item and a level 50 using that same item was considerable.
Agreed with this, which is why in my original novel I had discussed testing and potentially restricting the gamebreaking items like a Fungi tunic, rather than making some wide swoop to say absolutely no twinking. With built in caps like EQ + restricting the items like a Fungi that did trivialize downtime and group dynamics, I think you can avoid having twinking be an issue altogether.
I'm pro-twinking, but I can see the argument that items like a Fungi tunic trivialize low level content and potentially damage a new player's experience who may group with a twink as they wouldn't have near the challenge.
If it was all or nothing decision, I would most definitely be for twinking - fungi tunics and all.
I don't want the artificial restrictions, I think the drawback of having lower weapon and defensive skills should be enough. In EQ there were actually damage caps as you leveled. You probably notice at like level 20 and 40 (I think were the big ones) your weapons suddenly hit much harder (level 20 and 40 were were you went over 100-200 skill in a weapon, respectively).
Beyond that, even the way your stats effected you changed over time. You gained more benefit from stats, which gave you higher attack, higher AC, and benefited your defense and virtually everything about your character. Basically EQ already had a scaling system built in, so twinking was awesome, but the difference between a level 10 using a great item and a level 50 using that same item was considerable.
Agreed with this, which is why in my original novel I had discussed testing and potentially restricting the gamebreaking items like a Fungi tunic, rather than making some wide swoop to say absolutely no twinking. With built in caps like EQ + restricting the items like a Fungi that did trivialize downtime and group dynamics, I think you can avoid having twinking be an issue altogether.
I'm pro-twinking, but I can see the argument that items like a Fungi tunic trivialize low level content and potentially damage a new player's experience who may group with a twink as they wouldn't have near the challenge.
If it was all or nothing decision, I would most definitely be for twinking - fungi tunics and all.
Fungi twinking is ultra powerful, but at what point in time did that even become a thing? Fungi was one of the most contested camps in the game (if not THE most) for a long time. I'm sure there were a few people with fungi twinks early on, but it was a rare thing.
Seems like people compare classic EQ to P99 too much. P99 has been in kunark for over 4 years. Of course everyone has everything. Not only is there no mystery surrounding items and dungeons, but they are stuck in time and have no other alternative than farming the same old content.
I sure hope the devs don't scale everything with formulas. Simple weapon and armor skills are enough in my eyes. Getting the FULL regen out of a fungi tunic made it really memorable, valuable and most importantly: FUN.
Every form of twinking will be overpowered in one way or the other. Giving too much emphasis on reducing that fun factor seems like a waste of time for no good reason. The goal of twinking is to blitz trough levels faster for whatever reason, usually not with your first toon (and depending on the value of items not even with your second or third). Don't forget we are talking about temporary "issues" here that are hardly real issues.
Imbalance will fix itself after a few levels anyways and not affect highlevel at all. Trying too hard to offset this only costs dev time without any real value for the game. People WILL find a way to level faster with a future toon, no matter how hard you try. There is always a "best" way. Trying to balance that is an uphill battle noone can win, so might just as well keep the fun of twinking in the game and let people enjoy their twinks, without having to abuse worse forms of fast leveling.
I agree with you on the formula piece; however, I wasn't meaning that the player see the formulas, but that the formulas would be hidden like EQ (like Dullahan said, they exist in any game). I'm sure players would ultimately figure them out, or guess like they did in EQ.
And you're right, people would power level regardless; however, you wouldn't potentially ruin a new player's experience by having an uber twink in your group if scaled gear existed. The druid that was power leveling his buddy with thorns and regen wouldn't be grouping with you.
You're also correct in that the imbalance would correct itself at end-game - however, twinking and grouping with twinks quickens the journey for a race to the end-game.
I'm with you though that the fungi tunic was memorable, but, it was memorable in a God-Mode type way that you could plow through mobs as a twink. If the scaling was done appropriately, it would still be beneficial and memorable, it just may not be as game-breaking.
Fungi twinking is ultra powerful, but at what point in time did that even become a thing? Fungi was one of the most contested camps in the game (if not THE most) for a long time. I'm sure there were a few people with fungi twinks early on, but it was a rare thing.
Seems like people compare classic EQ to P99 too much. P99 has been in kunark for over 4 years. Of course everyone has everything. Not only is there no mystery surrounding items and dungeons, but they are stuck in time and have no other alternative than farming the same old content.
This is true. Definitely more on P1999. I know I had one on my twink in Kunark and Velious though on EQlive and many in my guild did (I'll admit, I was in a higher-end guild though).
I know that I preferred twinking in EQ; however, if twinking never had existed in EQ as we knew it and it had been scaled gear instead, I don't think I would have had any less fond memories of experiences on my alts, but, intstead, it may have taken me longer to get to max level and I would have experienced the journey more. I do know that when I did have a fungi tunic, it became more of a race to get my character to max level, soloing usually, to group with my higher level friends.
Either way, again, I'm ok with it. Just enjoying the discussion
Either way, again, I'm ok with it. Just enjoying the discussion
Agreed.
If this forum is any indicator on who i will be playing Pantheon with in the future,... i will enjoy that company. A lot of good and friendly discussion going on here. Far from the toxic waste that makes up the other game forums on mmorpg.
Very happy about what i see here.
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 want the artificial restrictions, I think the drawback of having lower weapon and defensive skills should be enough. In EQ there were actually damage caps as you leveled. You probably notice at like level 20 and 40 (I think were the big ones) your weapons suddenly hit much harder (level 20 and 40 were were you went over 100-200 skill in a weapon, respectively).
Beyond that, even the way your stats effected you changed over time. You gained more benefit from stats, which gave you higher attack, higher AC, and benefited your defense and virtually everything about your character. Basically EQ already had a scaling system built in, so twinking was awesome, but the difference between a level 10 using a great item and a level 50 using that same item was considerable.
This is basically what I'm hoping will happen. If I max level a character and have the coin to spend twinking an alt I would expect it to increase my very low level (1-10) mob kill time significantly. This is already the shortest level curve in the game so even if you're killing mobs x3 faster it wont last that long. As you level, twinks quickly start to level out from being borderline OP, to just strong at mid-level, and eventually as they get closer to max combat becomes normal.
People have made arguments in relation to trivializing group content/experience, and in my experience it has enriched the group content/experience. I always thought is was really cool when a twink joined the group and helped us work a little faster. It also gave me something to be excited about working towards once I had a max level character. From my perspective, having twinks in the world makes sense. I read fantasy novels so I equate this to their being more/less powerful adventurers in the world, and I don't think that level should be used as the only differentiator. Additionally, for the people that feel like grouping with a twink ruins their experience, is that any different than someone that is rude or terrible at the game joining your group? Pantheon is designed to be a social game, so next time you'll avoid grouping with whomever it is that lessened your experience whatever the reason. That's almost inevitable in my opinion.
At the end of the day, as long as they follow similar formulas that Dullahan mentioned that came from the original EQ, as well as make the most powerful gear in the game no drop, then things will be fine IMO. I'll keep my fingers crossed, and like all of you I'm excited for Pantheon's development one way or the other.
People have made arguments in relation to trivializing group content/experience, and in my experience it has enriched the group content/experience. I always thought is was really cool when a twink joined the group and helped us work a little faster.
My experience has always been the opposite. Twinks, in my experience, ruin my enjoyment of the game be trivializing encounters.
I tend to leave the group and go elsewhere when twinks show up and start dominating everything,
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Comments
For the record, I am for twinking. But, if a compromise, solution, etc. was implemented, I would want it believable.
I don't disagree with your point on the actual weapon, which is why a twink magical weapon should be better than a rusty sword and I would be opposed to a hard coded % per level. If a level 1 was as proficient in weapons as a level 50, then the weapon should have max stats, but they wouldn't be or at least it's not unrealistic to assume that most, if not all wouldn't be as proficient. My argument wouldn't be to artificially diminish the weapon based off player level, it would be to lower the weapon's stats based off the player's ability to use that weapon at that level. Basically does the same thing, but it's a more believable scenario.
RL example: I'm trying to fence aganist an Olympian. Same weapon, but they would get better benefits out of that weapon.
Another alternative: Even if you use EQ as an example, they still had artificial restrictions on twinking, with hard damage/haste caps at level 10, 20, etc., you just ultimately leveled so fast with items like a fungi tunic that you blew by the caps. After thinking about the level caps again, maybe an easier solution would be just to implement more caps at level 10/20/30/40/50 (as expansions increase) as no one seems to remember/be concerned with those.
A level 1 will not hit with that magic sword as much as a level 50. But if he hits, why would that sword do less damage? The only reason for less damage would be less STR value maybe. But that is down to your STR stat and not the weapon itself.
It is perfectly fine if a level 1 (or 10 for that matter) does less damage then a level 50 with the same weapon. But that should result from skillcaps, attribute values ect. not from making the same weapon a weaker weapon.
Same for armor. A level 1 may be bad at handling a full plate armor. But it would not protect him worse then it would protect a level 50. The level 1 would be worse at using his WEAPONS in said armor tho. This is down to a "use that full plate armor"-skill i guess. Reducing the actuall armor value? Nah.
In a well designed game, downsampling of equipment is not needed. Just think about driving a Lambo as soon as you get a licence. You won't be good at handling the car, but it would still be the same Lambo.
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?
The benefit the Olympian gets from the sword itself pales in comparison from his skills. He would be able to demolish you with a willow branch. Just saying :P
Items are just .. objects. They're static and shouldn't be able to change in any way. I think of the base damage that a weapon can do as the equivalent of how well it was made, the quality of steel and how well it was sharpened.
The magic used to imbue and object however could have their effects affected by the characters stats. Magic itself typically uses either intelligence or wisdom for the effectiveness, so why not make those stats change how well those "enchantements" work. This could put an interesting twist on it too. Casters using weapons that proc because their int or wis causes serious damage.
I'm ok with this solution as well.
For weapons, you could base it off of weapon skill percentage and max damage %. with attributes being factored into the equation as well
Example: 1h slash skill: 200. Weapon is 10/20 with a max damage of 20. 50% chance to hit for 20 and a <5% chance to hit for 10.
1h slash skill: 20. Same weapon - 10/20. <5% chance to hit for 20 and a 50% chance to hit for 10.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Where it would become difficult is for armor/regen items, etc. Without scaling back AC on armor, I'm unsure how you could create a %chance to mitigate more damage, and maybe with armor, it shouldn't scale back as you are wearing it versus becoming more proficient with it like dodge/parry/block, etc.
And, with magical bonuses/procs there's no way to scale it back based off skill unless weapon skill (or if there was a light/chain/plate armor skill) that created a message similar to EQ's if your skill was <the required limit like... "Your will is not sufficient to command this weapon." It could be a similar message on equip for items like a fungi, "Your will is not sufficient to obtain the magical benefits."
Every stat a character has effects one (or more) of what you mentioned above. Intelligence/Wisdom effects how much damage magic spells do, Str effects how much damage your melee weapons do and how much dmg one can absorbe, dex to archery and perhaps damage mitigation, quickness for dodging/damage mitigation, char perhaps to something else, etc, etc, etc.
I would be ok with adding stats to the skill formula as well then.
Weapon: 10/20 1h slash. Max damage 20. Warrior max at 100 str and 200 weapon skill. Max weapon skill gives 50% chance to hit for max damage if successful, max strength gives an additional 10% chance.
Armor: 100 AC Breastplate. Max Mitgation 20%. Warrior max at 100 str and 200 heavy armor skill. Max armor skill gives 50% chance to mitigate 20% damage with max strength giving an additional 10%.
Procs/Magical Gear. 75 damage proc or 15 regen/tick. Warrior max at 100 int and 200 magical knowledge skill (or some other cheesy name). Max knowledge skill gives 50% chance to proc at max damage or regen at max hps, with max intelligence giving an additional 10% chance. etc.
And, with 20 skill, 1h slash would be 5% chance to hit for max damage, if successful hit, and if maximum strength, still would give the additional 10%. So a 15% chance versus 60%.
Obviously I'm just throwing out formulas as examples, but you could create scaling based off stats/skills to still allow for twinking, but the weapons wouldn't be as powerful as a max level character using them.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The other question that would be raised though if you had a skill/stat based proficiency, it would ultimately effect all other weapons as well, basically scaling appropriate level gear back and still creating the same gap and advantage between level appropriate gear and twink gear, unless there was some restriction placed that all gear X number of levels above character level has this formula.. etc.
I sure hope the devs don't scale everything with formulas. Simple weapon and armor skills are enough in my eyes. Getting the FULL regen out of a fungi tunic made it really memorable, valuable and most importantly: FUN.
Every form of twinking will be overpowered in one way or the other. Giving too much emphasis on reducing that fun factor seems like a waste of time for no good reason. The goal of twinking is to blitz trough levels faster for whatever reason, usually not with your first toon (and depending on the value of items not even with your second or third). Don't forget we are talking about temporary "issues" here that are hardly real issues.
Imbalance will fix itself after a few levels anyways and not affect highlevel at all. Trying too hard to offset this only costs dev time without any real value for the game. People WILL find a way to level faster with a future toon, no matter how hard you try. There is always a "best" way. Trying to balance that is an uphill battle noone can win, so might just as well keep the fun of twinking in the game and let people enjoy their twinks, without having to abuse worse forms of fast leveling.
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?
Everything has formulas, even EQ did.
I don't want the artificial restrictions, I think the drawback of having lower weapon and defensive skills should be enough. In EQ there were actually damage caps as you leveled. You probably notice at like level 20 and 40 (I think were the big ones) your weapons suddenly hit much harder (level 20 and 40 were were you went over 100-200 skill in a weapon, respectively).
Beyond that, even the way your stats effected you changed over time. You gained more benefit from stats, which gave you higher attack, higher AC, and benefited your defense and virtually everything about your character. Basically EQ already had a scaling system built in, so twinking was awesome, but the difference between a level 10 using a great item and a level 50 using that same item was considerable.
Agreed with this, which is why in my original novel I had discussed testing and potentially restricting the gamebreaking items like a Fungi tunic, rather than making some wide swoop to say absolutely no twinking. With built in caps like EQ + restricting the items like a Fungi that did trivialize downtime and group dynamics, I think you can avoid having twinking be an issue altogether.
I'm pro-twinking, but I can see the argument that items like a Fungi tunic trivialize low level content and potentially damage a new player's experience who may group with a twink as they wouldn't have near the challenge.
If it was all or nothing decision, I would most definitely be for twinking - fungi tunics and all.
Fungi twinking is ultra powerful, but at what point in time did that even become a thing? Fungi was one of the most contested camps in the game (if not THE most) for a long time. I'm sure there were a few people with fungi twinks early on, but it was a rare thing.
Seems like people compare classic EQ to P99 too much. P99 has been in kunark for over 4 years. Of course everyone has everything. Not only is there no mystery surrounding items and dungeons, but they are stuck in time and have no other alternative than farming the same old content.
I agree with you on the formula piece; however, I wasn't meaning that the player see the formulas, but that the formulas would be hidden like EQ (like Dullahan said, they exist in any game). I'm sure players would ultimately figure them out, or guess like they did in EQ.
And you're right, people would power level regardless; however, you wouldn't potentially ruin a new player's experience by having an uber twink in your group if scaled gear existed. The druid that was power leveling his buddy with thorns and regen wouldn't be grouping with you.
You're also correct in that the imbalance would correct itself at end-game - however, twinking and grouping with twinks quickens the journey for a race to the end-game.
I'm with you though that the fungi tunic was memorable, but, it was memorable in a God-Mode type way that you could plow through mobs as a twink. If the scaling was done appropriately, it would still be beneficial and memorable, it just may not be as game-breaking.
This is true. Definitely more on P1999. I know I had one on my twink in Kunark and Velious though on EQlive and many in my guild did (I'll admit, I was in a higher-end guild though).
I know that I preferred twinking in EQ; however, if twinking never had existed in EQ as we knew it and it had been scaled gear instead, I don't think I would have had any less fond memories of experiences on my alts, but, intstead, it may have taken me longer to get to max level and I would have experienced the journey more. I do know that when I did have a fungi tunic, it became more of a race to get my character to max level, soloing usually, to group with my higher level friends.
Either way, again, I'm ok with it. Just enjoying the discussion
Agreed.
If this forum is any indicator on who i will be playing Pantheon with in the future,... i will enjoy that company. A lot of good and friendly discussion going on here. Far from the toxic waste that makes up the other game forums on mmorpg.
Very happy about what i see here.
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?
This is basically what I'm hoping will happen. If I max level a character and have the coin to spend twinking an alt I would expect it to increase my very low level (1-10) mob kill time significantly. This is already the shortest level curve in the game so even if you're killing mobs x3 faster it wont last that long. As you level, twinks quickly start to level out from being borderline OP, to just strong at mid-level, and eventually as they get closer to max combat becomes normal.
People have made arguments in relation to trivializing group content/experience, and in my experience it has enriched the group content/experience. I always thought is was really cool when a twink joined the group and helped us work a little faster. It also gave me something to be excited about working towards once I had a max level character. From my perspective, having twinks in the world makes sense. I read fantasy novels so I equate this to their being more/less powerful adventurers in the world, and I don't think that level should be used as the only differentiator. Additionally, for the people that feel like grouping with a twink ruins their experience, is that any different than someone that is rude or terrible at the game joining your group? Pantheon is designed to be a social game, so next time you'll avoid grouping with whomever it is that lessened your experience whatever the reason. That's almost inevitable in my opinion.
At the end of the day, as long as they follow similar formulas that Dullahan mentioned that came from the original EQ, as well as make the most powerful gear in the game no drop, then things will be fine IMO. I'll keep my fingers crossed, and like all of you I'm excited for Pantheon's development one way or the other.
My experience has always been the opposite. Twinks, in my experience, ruin my enjoyment of the game be trivializing encounters.
I tend to leave the group and go elsewhere when twinks show up and start dominating everything,
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin