|
|
|
Moonangel
|
 Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 14:52 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
|
|
Why does it even matter if someone could get to 30 in a day? Do you actually want people to be forced to spend months of their time leveling rather than just get straight to the rp? The only abuse I see in all this would be people leveling really fast which should be a desirable thing as they would get to hunt less and rp more.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Geld Yaztran
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 15:03 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
|
|
better than having some brand new lvl 30 showing up.
It would be like having an adult be born without any actual life before hand....and worse...they might wish to be a faction leader...
But yeah....it WOULD be a bad thing for fast leveling. So many lvl 30's running around makes being level 30 unimportant anyhow as it is.
Based on your theory lvl 30 would mean even less. Lvling would have neither import nor impact.
And of course rather than actually uh....RP having a life, you can jump right past living or having any experiences to claim you are an experienced warrior.
What ever happened to "earning your way there"?
You have exactly hit the nail on the head with your last statement as well.....being that you feel you must hit lvl 30 before you RP.
I RP'd at lvl 2 and remained a 2 for a long time. Yes I got beat. Yes I got thrashed every other day for months on end. It served to give my character something called depth, history, and a very good reason why my character can be a COMPLETE and UTTER ass now that he is ECL 30.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dark Immolation
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 15:09 PM |
|
|
Developer
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"
|
Moonangel wrote: Why does it even matter if someone could get to 30 in a day? Do you actually want people to be forced to spend months of their time leveling rather than just get straight to the rp? The only abuse I see in all this would be people leveling really fast which should be a desirable thing as they would get to hunt less and rp more. By that logic, why not just make everyone lv 30 on Entry? No one is forcing you to level up completely before you RP. No one says you have to be lv 30 to RP. Quite the contrary. From what I've heard from a few DM's is that they like running events and watching lower levels RP anyway. And I don't blame them. It's easier to "wow" them, it's easier for the RP to mean more to them, generally earlier on in their "adventuring career" than later on when they're lv 30's, when they've already slayed the dragons and found all the princesses. The notion that one has to "hurry up and get to lv 30" to RP is quite a flawed one. Really what a person means when they say this is "I feel I have to get to lv 30 quick, so I can RP an PVP and not be at a disadvantage."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geld Yaztran
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 15:11 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
|
Dark Immolation wrote:
The notion that one has to "hurry up and get to lv 30" to RP is quite a flawed one. Really what a person means when they say this is "I feel I have to get to lv 30 quick, so I can RP an PVP and not be at a disadvantage."
Quoted five times over for emphasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 15:14 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Geld Yaztran wrote: Actually the phrase "takes one rotten apple to spoil the bunch" isn't just something we say for s**ts and grins.
We say it because in every instance that's exactly what occurs.
Your two or three rulebreakers will eventually turn into every other person abusing the system. Then DMs will have to babysit. Since I'm no saint I could safely say I might not be able to trust myself with such an easy system of leveling..where one player watches the other player do all the work(In ANY high lvl/low lvl scenario).
Honestly I could sit and chat all day as I watched someone hunt...and gain xp from it.
----
Secondly, the whole system of XP was implemented this way with the thought of removing methods of abuse (such as me being able to practically sit around while others do work and I get XP for it).
Iron...your logic is flawed because it is based on the idea that ONLY three people or such will abuse it. If everyone just decides to abuse it(and someone always shows up to do just that), DMs will have to watch double time...to make sure every party is good and not cheating. I'm not sure what kind of abuse you're talking about. The final system would obviously not allow for more XP to be gained from abuse than legit use. Remember, the suggestion has been to give less XP for hunting "out of range" in any case, so as not to make it more profitable than hunting in your own range but keeping it somewhat viable nonetheless. See Mosh's suggestion: cap XP at 10/kill if party is out of range. Disable altogether if party average CR is, say, 10 above the critter's CR. (So no Curse Singing kobolds to death, for example.) Either way, your argument doesn't stand because you assume there will be some kind of abuse that ruins the game, while it should be dead obvious that no easily abusable system would be implemented in the first place; the goal is to improve what we have now, after all. I don't know why you keep talking about DMs having to watch players. Where did you find the information that the hypothetical new system that is yet to be invented and implemented would give DMs more things to supervise? Obviously, again, the system would be better than what we have now. You talk of standing back and letting others do the work. That has nothing to do with the level cap: it's equally possible right now. Nothing stops you from standing back while the rest of the party does the work. Everybody gets better XP for it. The new system wouldn't change this, except for the better: it wouldn't be profitable to take a lowbie into your party to stand around, because everyone's XP was capped and both of you would get more XP just hunting in your own range. Also: logic is not flawed if it's based on false premises. It can be perfectly valid. Either way, my stance is in no way based on such assumptions. I keep in mind the worst case scenario and evaluate whether it's horrible or not. In this case, the system would be made so good that the worst case scenario would be negligible. Moonangel: NWN/Amia is an RP/Action game. It's folly to neglect either aspect, and your suggestion makes the current flaw even worse. If you're not into action, go play something that isn't an action game, IMO. _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geld Yaztran
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 16:05 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
|
|
Except the Loot bins would also have to be changed. Scripts would need to be added from keeping a lvl 2 from being equipped like an epic lvl 30. Even if there's a lvl cap on gear, the idea that a lvl 2 could go to the abyss and get an epic loot easily just bolds ill...
Not to mention this whole thing sounds like something a player would ask for on behalf of the many player friends they will help to easily increase their lvls.
In the end regardless of the fancy wording used......this is just a weak excuse to make lower lvls lvl faster. Whether it's a lvl 30 who needs a lvl 2 peon to be a lvl 28 quickly...or a lvl 2 just wanting to hit lvl 30 because they lost PvP, the whole idea serves nothing but making everyone lvl faster.
Leave it as is...please.
PS Yes, when your whole premise is adding depth to the storyline, making everyone's weak lives shorter so they become near gods ALL, is definitely flawed logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 16:23 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Geld Yaztran wrote: Not to mention this whole thing sounds like something a player would ask for on behalf of the many player friends they will help to easily increase their lvls.
In the end regardless of the fancy wording used......this is just a weak excuse to make lower lvls lvl faster. Whether it's a lvl 30 who needs a lvl 2 peon to be a lvl 28 quickly...or a lvl 2 just wanting to hit lvl 30 because they lost PvP, the whole idea serves nothing but making everyone lvl faster.
Leave it as is...please.
PS Yes, when your whole premise is adding depth to the storyline, making everyone's weak lives shorter so they become near gods ALL, is definitely flawed logic. Eh, stop with the insults and the off-topic nonsense. Talk business, nobody cares what it "sounds like" to you or what you think people's real motivations are. I think it was already established that this would not speed up levelling, considering you'd get less XP than if you hunted in your own level range. So stop using that straw-man. The loot is an issue that'd have to be solved, but it's not particularly tricky. You could disable loot altogether, or calculate it based on your level. _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neso
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 16:33 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
|
|
IronAngel is wording everything much better rhetorically than I have, so just disregard all my posts and read his. I get too aggitated when people are narrowminded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geld Yaztran
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 16:38 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
|
|
I'm not throwing insults...and No I am not going to go back and forth with you...arguing points and eventually calling each other names.
It's simply a corrupt idea...which is why it will never be implemented anyways. Between loot, cliques, mega epic buffing of the lowbies on a continuous non stop basis...and everything else you are not really taking into consideration, the idea is a horrible one. I don't care if YOU care or not...this is a place to voice our opinions anyways..so if you don't care don't read.
At this point you can blurt out any insults and what you don't care about....of course I won't respond because I won't bother reading the rest.
Everything has been discussed over and over again and at this point....now, even I don't care about discussing the crap...lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo21
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 16:49 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Location: In the land of liquid sunshine and coffee
|
|
*After nodding off when the post derailed on page one, he wakes up somewhat confused*
Can someone remind me of what this boring 4 page rant was all about, please? Could have sworn it was about being OOC discriminated while in a party with no IC just cause. How does that relate to level 30 PC's and XP?
_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.
-Krrja
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dwagin
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 17:07 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Location: The Land of Nod
|
TormakSaber wrote: I'm not going to be quite that dramatic about it but it is a fact that in games where there isn't a sort of level tiering system for character advancement, what happens is the lowbies tag along to higher levels to powerlevel, or the higher levels otherwise hire themselves out for this purpose, etc. Things like this is why i liked the mentoring/sidekick system from CoH.
_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.
-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 17:52 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Geld: well, I found it rather insulting that you would imply that my arguments are a "weak excuse to make lower lvls lvl faster" or that my motive is to help increase the levels of my "many player friends" faster. (Not to mention the assumption that I even have friends.  ) And if you're going to say my logic is flawed (by which I guess you mean my conclusion does not follow from my premises), you could at least show me where, instead of setting up straw-mans to burn. But that's water under the bridge. Either way, I'd appreciate it if you talked about concrete problems in concrete suggestions, so they could be improved upon. Bravo: it's called conversation. It moves from one topic to another via association. The current topic is whether the 5-level party cap is necessary, and how it could be improved. The evolution of the topic was something like this: partying OOC is OOC -> Party Ball is OOC -> Party Ball is needed because of OOC level cap -> 5-level cap is needed/not needed -> Ways to go around 5-level cap. All things considered, this topic has a rather logical course. Dwagin: how does that work, and is there any ideas that could be applied to NWN there? _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dark Immolation
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 19:46 PM |
|
|
Developer
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"
|
|
I still say just modify current system to where it's a gradual slope once someone gets out of that 5 level range. 23-28 party with one level 30 in it? Meh, sure, you'll get maybe 3/5's you would without him, but maybe its worth it having him there, or for RP's sake. A Lv 10 group being "taught" by a lv 25. No. Just no. Leave the "teaching" in RP.
The idea of a "sidekick" or "mentor & mentee" is a neat RP idea, but if it were ever implimented into something with our mechanical XP system, it would become horribly broken. And fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nex_addo
|
Posted: Wed, Apr 28 2010, 20:30 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 May 2007
Location: New Zealand
|
|
I still gonna stand by it's incredible easy to level seriously it is. There is no need to remove this OOC restriction.
The negatives to removing it is obvious. Meeting new players takes a hit reason. You'll forever just party with your friends why? Cause its easy. Having that 5 cap means your forced to introduce yourself to a new person I hope this does not scare you too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ainjyll
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 0:05 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Location: wilmington, nc
|
|
I have to stand with Iron on this one. How can "The negatives to removing it [be] obvious." (Nex_addo) when we don't even know what "it" is? Much less how "It's simply a corrupt idea" (Geld Yaztran) when no idea has been solidly set forth.
I do like the idea of capping XP at 10 if the 5 level cap is broken and would recommend going so far as to eliminate gold income from kills and reduce loot % by half or more (or just eliminate it all together). The reason for a level 30 hunting with a level 10 or whatever should be purely RP and any "powerleveling" should be eliminated. Therefore, there is no argument against a lower level of XP gain when it's made much more fruitful and much quicker to remain in a group that is +/- 5 levels of your character.
You are watching someone else do something. Yes, you will learn, but the curve is much slower when watching than when doing.
If the cap is lifted at all, it should be done in a way where it is still much easier for a player to "powerlevel" to 30 with a group within 5 levels of his/her own. I'd go so far as to say that it should be damn near impossible to level with a person outside of your 5 level range. Perhaps stopping XP the same way as holding a level. If you're level 6 going to level 7, then you're allowed to gain 3k worth of experience from outside the level cap, then you have to do it on your own. This could reflect the watching and learning as the first half and then the trying it on your own to learn your own way being the second half.
Combine this with a nil amount of gold and an extremely reduced loot percentage and I think it would reduce the ability to abuse to a very small amount. It would be no more open to abuse than a level 10 holding his level for as long as possible while in the company of 5 other level 5's and running the orcs over and over and over and over.
_________________  "I once took the high road and it took me straight to hell and I stood there all by myself." -Hank III
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 0:18 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
Quote: How can "The negatives to removing it [be] obvious." (Nex_addo) when we don't even know what "it" is? Much less how "It's simply a corrupt idea" (Geld Yaztran) when no idea has been solidly set forth. Read my posts, or hell, go play any multiplayer game that isn't Amia (or any action server on NWN.) There are a few tenets held high in these things: That your time spent is YOUR time spent, not a characters. The loss of the IC. That if you find an item as character A that character B deserves it. Loss of the IC. Making friends "OOC" (quotes are used because there really is not distinction of the "OOC" and "IC" elsewhere, they are simply "players") and getting quick levels, free loot, setting up gearesets ahead of time, etc, is not just encouraged, it's expected. High levels are expected to help powerlevel lowbies if at all possible. It becomes an ingrained part of the server. It's not going to change. It doesn't make your RP better. You can still go do it, right now. Which tells me none of you give a twat about the RP and care about levelling your buddies up faster. And this is what happens. I don't really much care whatever big words Iron likes to use, Iron is Iron and he argues to argue, on his own admission. If you slash benefits after 5 but don't eliminate them, people still won't do it because it's not the most efficient way to do is. 5 people won't accept shitty XP and GP to have a 6th person 7 levels lower also getting shitty XP and GP. They can do that now. But tey don't. And that my friends is what we call a half ass solution. This isn't broken, doesn't need changing, and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 0:24 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
|
I have to agree with Iron assessment. But at the same time, that doesn't mean I want this changed. At least not until something actually feasible is suggested to replace the current system. Nothing that I feel good enough has been presented yet. I do wish a good idea was found to change it though because the current system may work, but it is flawed.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 0:27 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
I would suggest establishing a proposal before pressing the matter any further, to be honest.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 0:28 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
The current system is practically the industry standard. The only other one that tends to be in effect is "No range limit at all". There is a range of levels around you by which you gain normal XP, after that, you don't because someone is too high. You cna find flaws with anything if you look for them enough.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
ainjyll
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 0:44 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Location: wilmington, nc
|
TormakSaber wrote: Quote: How can "The negatives to removing it [be] obvious." (Nex_addo) when we don't even know what "it" is? Much less how "It's simply a corrupt idea" (Geld Yaztran) when no idea has been solidly set forth. Read my posts, or hell, go play any multiplayer game that isn't Amia (or any action server on NWN.) There are a few tenets held high in these things: That your time spent is YOUR time spent, not a characters. The loss of the IC. That if you find an item as character A that character B deserves it. Loss of the IC. Making friends "OOC" (quotes are used because there really is not distinction of the "OOC" and "IC" elsewhere, they are simply "players") and getting quick levels, free loot, setting up gearesets ahead of time, etc, is not just encouraged, it's expected. High levels are expected to help powerlevel lowbies if at all possible. It becomes an ingrained part of the server. It's not going to change. It doesn't make your RP better. You can still go do it, right now. Which tells me none of you give a (censored) about the RP and care about levelling your buddies up faster. And this is what happens. I don't really much care whatever big words Iron likes to use, Iron is Iron and he argues to argue, on his own admission. If you slash benefits after 5 but don't eliminate them, people still won't do it because it's not the most efficient way to do is. 5 people won't accept (censored) XP and GP to have a 6th person 7 levels lower also getting (censored) XP and GP. They can do that now. But tey don't. And that my friends is what we call a half ass solution. This isn't broken, doesn't need changing, and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Tormak, no offense, but you're making the same assumptions that several others are making. You're throwing up defenses to ideas that haven't even been presented. What you are in essence saying is that the system we have now is perfect and not in one bit capable of being improved. If that's your stance, then fine... everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, I doubt that's the truth of the matter. I'd include that taking the "This isn't broken, doesn't need changing" point of view does nothing but limit the scope of the human imagination. Walking gets people from place to place just fine.... why should we have begun using domesticated animals for riding or even developed cars? Sailboats got us from point A to point B over water just fine, too.... why go and screw that up with tossing an engine and a prop on a boat? Improvement. Just because the standard works doesn't ever mean that there isn't something better out there. Closing your eyes to that possibility is not only ridiculous but asinine, as well. My only point is this: Don't just type for the sake of typing. If someone has an idea, they'll present it. Then, it can be picked apart and analyzed for any flaws or benefits. If nobody has any ideas, then this part of the topic will wither and die and you've saved yourself several minutes of typing and a few pts on your blood pressure. Until then, don't say that "it" is broken, "it" won't work. I wouldn't say that "it" is anything until "it" has been defined. Doing anything else is like spitting into the wind. _________________ "I once took the high road and it took me straight to hell and I stood there all by myself." -Hank III
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 0:46 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
"It" must satisfy several qualities before "It" should even be defined in the first place so knowing what need sto be defined is good.
Also knowing the fact that you can do exactly as you so desire with the current system, with absolutely no work needed from us, but you choose not to, is very telling when it comes to these things.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
ainjyll
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 1:00 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Location: wilmington, nc
|
TormakSaber wrote: "It" must satisfy several qualities before "It" should even be defined in the first place so knowing what need sto be defined is good. I'll agree to that. Then what defines a good system should be laid out in plain language so that a framework for other ideas can be applied. _________________ "I once took the high road and it took me straight to hell and I stood there all by myself." -Hank III
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo21
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 5:30 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Location: In the land of liquid sunshine and coffee
|
IronAngel wrote: Bravo: it's called conversation. It moves from one topic to another via association. The current topic is whether the 5-level party cap is necessary, and how it could be improved. The evolution of the topic was something like this: partying OOC is OOC -> Party Ball is OOC -> Party Ball is needed because of OOC level cap -> 5-level cap is needed/not needed -> Ways to go around 5-level cap. All things considered, this topic has a rather logical course. I understand what a conversation is. Just because you can link A to B, to C, to D, to E, doesn't mean that E is closer to A than B. Which was my point, not that the discussion was irrelevant. And by your own admission, the current topic is different from the original topic... But i did ask for clarification. Thanks. So, seeing that it's all about the party limits, and acknowledging that the current system is there for a reason. What's so very wrong with the way it works now? Sure, having limitations is a pain. But since the NWN system itself is based upon level graduations to begin with, how can that be changed without unbalancing the game? Also to be considered is that level progression is not linear, otherwise you would need exactly the same amount of XP for every level. Which of course means that including more than a dispairity of five levels is exponential in application.
_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.
-Krrja
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 6:45 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Bravo21 wrote: What's so very wrong with the way it works now? The reason that it is complained about is that it's not exactly mentor/student RP friendly. If you want to train a student, you have to either be in a timezone that a DM is on, or you have to not be in the same area as them - if the latter, how is that training?
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 7:07 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
It's perfectly RP friendly. DnD defines XP as part of risk v. reward. If the level 30 is sitting there watching you fight, you do not get experience. This is actually given as a direct example in the DMg, I believe.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 7:14 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
TormakSaber wrote: It's perfectly RP friendly. DnD defines XP as part of risk v. reward. If the level 30 is sitting there watching you fight, you do not get experience. This is actually given as a direct example in the DMg, I believe. Nope, but you also have a DM watching over you and actually giving RP XP.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 7:17 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
You are getting off track. The point is that, even in the scope of everything else, DnD at its core says "No" to the concept of "high level cushioning lowbie".
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 7:26 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
I shan't contest that. But then again, PnP isn't designed as a persistent world. *Shrugs*
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 7:55 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
The point is over here, Yurell.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 8:08 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
You're pointing out PnP does X. I'm just pointing out that PnP is different, an observation you've made a number of times in a number of threads.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 8:18 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
I didn't say PnP. I said "DnD at its core". The entire system is based off risk vs. reward. If there is no risk (something affected by challenge ratings of monsters, circumstance bonuses and penalties, levels of the platers, environment issues) then there is no reward.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 8:55 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
TormakSaber wrote: I didn't say PnP. I said "DnD at its core". The entire system is based off risk vs. reward. If there is no risk (something affected by challenge ratings of monsters, circumstance bonuses and penalties, levels of the platers, environment issues) then there is no reward. Then, pray tell, what are DCs for?
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 9:08 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
Missing the point. Arguing to argue.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 9:18 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
Disagreeing with you.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 10:01 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
The Risk vs. Reward thing is nonsense, really. Job System has no risks. DCs have no risks. PvM usually has no risk, anyway. PvP has risk, but you don't get XP for it. Etcetera. Yurell makes the correct point.
My objection to the status quo is this: NWN is an RP/Action game. The motivation for adventuring should be both RP and action. The rewards should be both immaterial and mechanical. It's the basic nature of the game as I see it: an undue emphasis on action makes us a stupid hack'n'slash server, while an undue emphasis on RP makes us a social server. The current situation is half hack'n'slash/half social, not a union of the two in one.
It is not just mentor/student RP that's hindered. It's pretty much everything. You want to go scout with your fellow citizens (of Nes'ek, Winya, Bendir, whatever) to keep your home safe? Want to start a warband that works together? Want to just go explore spontaneously as a result of some RP? None of this is viable/ideal without checking levels. Yes, you can do it but it's not a good solution because it ignores one of the two aspects discussed above. That you don't, is telling of nothing else than that you're a reasonable and intelligent player who knows how he's supposed to spend his time in this game: RPing adventure within a frame of action mechanics.
The current system encourages quick levelling if you want to RP with your IC associates. I should know, I had to hurry from 23 to 25 because most of my PC's IC buddies were already 30. Even if my PC was usually way older. I wouldn't have had to worry about that if the system wasn't broken and we could've gotten some reasonable compensation for our adventure.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Last edited by IronAngel on Thu, Apr 29 2010, 10:37 AM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 10:35 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
If we expand it to 7, 6 months later they argue for 10. Then 12. Then 15. See: DCs. System is fine as it is and needs no overhaul. Improvement in level range is not needed, nor wanted, as spacing it out larger creates abuse potential.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nex_addo
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 10:57 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 May 2007
Location: New Zealand
|
Quote: PvP has risk Like what? Then on a realistic sense you don't learn anything abuot fighting from watching. As a trainer I can speak from experience. The best you can get is "Oh thats how you do it....You got away and practice it' Also feel free to tag along with you epic buddies on their hunts noones stopping you from doing that just dont expect to suddenly grow more powers cause you saw your friend do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neso
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 11:12 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
|
TormakSaber wrote: If we expand it to 7, 6 months later they argue for 10. Then 12. Then 15. See: DCs. System is fine as it is and needs no overhaul. Improvement in level range is not needed, nor wanted, as spacing it out larger creates abuse potential. System is not fine as it is. If it were fine, then there would be no complaints. Just because you think something does not make it so, and I am sure you do not represent the DM team either, just your own opinions. Edit: Also, who are "they" that seem to be out to get you? Why do you keep erecting these walls that separate "you" from "them"? There is no "they", there is only "us" and "we".
Last edited by Neso on Thu, Apr 29 2010, 11:27 AM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 11:24 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Neso wrote: TormakSaber wrote: If we expand it to 7, 6 months later they argue for 10. Then 12. Then 15. See: DCs. System is fine as it is and needs no overhaul. Improvement in level range is not needed, nor wanted, as spacing it out larger creates abuse potential. System is not fine as it is. If it were fine, then there would be no complaints. Just because you think something does not make it so, and I am sure you do not represent the DM team either, just your own opinions. While I agree with you that it's not fine, I disagree that there would be no complaints if it were. There would be complaints even if it were fine ... there would be complaints even if it were perfect.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neso
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 11:28 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
|
Yurell wrote: Neso wrote: TormakSaber wrote: If we expand it to 7, 6 months later they argue for 10. Then 12. Then 15. See: DCs. System is fine as it is and needs no overhaul. Improvement in level range is not needed, nor wanted, as spacing it out larger creates abuse potential. System is not fine as it is. If it were fine, then there would be no complaints. Just because you think something does not make it so, and I am sure you do not represent the DM team either, just your own opinions. While I agree with you that it's not fine, I disagree that there would be no complaints if it were. There would be complaints even if it were fine ... there would be complaints even if it were perfect. Yes, that is true, I worded it incorrectly. But if there is a big amount of people complaining about something, then that could be a sign that the system could use improvements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geld Yaztran
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 13:52 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
|
|
Actually just because the majority wants it doesn't make it good.
The majority of the server wants hundreds of DCs too....it doesn't mean it's good to start flinging them like candy.
I mean in all honesty we all(even the ones complaining) Made it up as high as we did all by ourselves anyways.
Why make it go from getting XP easily to getting it MORE easily. As servers go Amia is already known to have a light and easy and quick lvling system.
Isn't that enough?
So you can't help your lowbie friend...big deal...they'll make it on their own like we ALL did......well at least I did anyways.
You can have all the time you want to teach them stuff outside fighting.
What? Must you be attached to someone at the hip and hold their hands like babies while they traverse the wilds?
I fail to see how it'd make ANY hunting tough for lowbie's when either the higher lvl player is killing everything in ANY and EVERY instance.
If you are fighting low creatures sure you'd get nothing...but in every instance of the Mentor/tutor idea...the mentor is doing 99.99% to a 100% ALL THE WORK....
And people wonder why I'm against it when my once lowbie earned his OWN way up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaviera
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 13:58 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Location: Temple of Love
|
|
As I see it, the complaint with the current system is that when you party PCs >5 levels apart, nobody gets xp. The only way I can see this being made 'better' is if, in a group of epics + a lowbie, the epics get normal xp for fighting the demon lords and the lowbie only gets 1 xp for assiduously cowering behind a rock and quaking in fear.
Here's a suggestion.
AFAIK, XP are calculated based on the ratio of the average party level to the spawn's CR (I think there's a small modifier there for party size?). One could weight the average party level such that higher levels contribute more to the average (eg. the square root of the sum of the squared levels, divided by party size) and then apply a modifier that reduces the xp given if you are on either side of that weighted level. It's better to bunch levels together and pick a level-appropriate spawn, but you will still get some xp for adventuring outside your range (just like an epic gets 1 xp for kobolds) and those at the appropriate level will still get some xp even if there is a single PC way outside the level.
Example: A party composed of 5 level 1 PCs and a level 30. Average level is ~6. If you square the levels, sum them, take the square root and divide by 6, the weighted average level is now ~12. Exactly what the base xp should be I leave to the balancers, but it probably should be based on either the ratio of the weighted party level to the CR or the ratio of the highest level to the CR. If a level 30 in the abyss gains, say, 40 xp per kill alone and a level 12 gains 70 xp alone (I'm just making these numbers up), then in the former case the lowbies still come out with 70 * 11/30 = 26 xp/kill, which is too high. If based on max level, then the lowbies would get 40 * 11/30 = 15 xp/kill. They would probably do better in a level-appropriate area.
Example: In the case of 5 level 30s and 1 newbie, the average level is 25 but the average weighted level is 27. The epics get near-normal xp while the lowbie gets (27-1)/30 xp, or almost nothing. Having xp based on the max level in the party would encourage people to clump together in levels (better to have one low level in your party than one high level).
I don't know exactly how the numbers work and they would certainly need to be tinkered with, but the risk of exposing 5 level 1's to the Abyss might very well offset the gain (especially if some more severe death system were put in place).
What is the current rule regarding taking low-levels to the Abyss? Is it considered twinking of some sort to have a low level tag along to grab high-level loot?
_________________  ~Sharess on AmiaWiki~Priestess, politician, prostitute "[They] were moving in on me like Sharessans on a new broad in the bath house" - Tracer BoltAmiaWiki mod (mostly inactive)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo21
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 15:52 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Location: In the land of liquid sunshine and coffee
|
|
???
I appologize for talking over everyones head. But Tormak is spot on. The dispairity betwenn more than 5 levels is simply too much to be considered anywhere close to equal.
The difference between a 1st level PC and a 5th level PC is 10000xp, a factor of 10 in experience alone. Not taking into account the amount of wealth and hence better equipment attained. Compairing 5th level to 10th level, a difference of 40,000xp, or a 5x increase in xp is seen. But the realative power of a 10th level is far greater than the 5th level as they can use far better equipment and have much more gold to spend. Past 10th level the xp difference becomes smaller while the wealth becomes even greater and able to spend astronomical amounts of gold and qualify for epic gear.
Simply put, allowing low levels to "train" and hunt with PC's more than 5 levels higher is not fair to the low level who cannot compete with the high level who is not going to be challenged.
_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.
-Krrja
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 19:52 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
Now we're talking, Xavi. I had thought that we could do away with parties altogether, and simply grant individual XP based on level for characters in vicinity of a kill. Or use parties but calculate the XP individually. You get XP for something in your range, and increasingly less XP for something way above/below your range. Who you hunt with shouldn't matter as much as what you hunt. As far as I can see, your idea accomplishes much the same thing.
The only problem, which I admit is real but IMO relatively insignifigant, is that epics could babysit lowbies at no gain to themselves but nonetheless helping the lowbies profit easier. What's it to me if you want to waste your time training PCs into your faction and giving up your own XP income in the process? It doesn't really affect anyone else. I guess this is the major point of contention. If you asked me, I'd say you should stop sticking your nose into other people's business if what they do with their time bothers you so much. Either way, you could probably apply some kind of a party-wide cap to block XP from being too profitable if the difference is too great.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 20:16 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
|
Ruce's argument in this matter ist he one I stick to;
Not everyone has epic friends, and it'll have a blowback effect.
If lowbies can hunt with epics, with profit, they're going to level quicker. Cool! Good for them.
However that means the people without epic friends, such as newbs, or people who simply don't have friends who would do such a thing - are stuck at low level. Why? Because their pool of allies to level up with is minimized. I doubt 'random X' is going to help you level up at expense of his own time since he won't get XP (as the higher level).
To illustrate.
Three players. Bob, Jane, and Tim.
Bob is level 3.
Jane is level 15.
Tim is level 3.
Bob and Jane share a faction, or are OOC friends, or something of the nature. Jane decides to take Bob out to help him get XP and levels, as she is allowed to should the rule be changed to allow 'effective' wide party spreads. Jane doesn't get XP, or gets extremely minimal XP, making it profitless for her. But that's OK for her, because they're friends/factional.
Bob goes up levels effectively, with high level friends, in areas well beyond his scope. This will be more effective than hunting with people his own level, in his own areas, even if XP/Kill is lower - because XP/Minute will be significantly increased due to kill speed, and the lack of stopping for raises. If it is not the case, then the system won't be used because it isn't effective, much as the current system.
Tim, however, lacks these high level friends. Bob will out-level him in no time, and as Bob is not a friend or factional ally - is unlikely to do what Jane did. Likewise, Jane isn't going to even consider it, for the same reasons.
Therefore Tim must try level alone, against spawns created with partying in mind. Unless he is a powerbuilder, he is screwed, until he manages to find another, similarly friendless noob. Unless of course he wants to grind Ship Rats for a living.
As it stands currently, however, that doesn't happen. Jane is removed from the picture, because if she hunts with anyone 5 levels lower - everyone loses. As such, Bob and Tim are forced to level up together, thusly a - giving Tim friends, and someone to work with - and b - allowing them both to hunt against spawns made for parties.
This is much the same as Twinking. It isn't allowed because not everyone has friends high up to give them free stuff.
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo21
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 22:07 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Location: In the land of liquid sunshine and coffee
|
|
To me it's Twinking and babysitting, all in one go.
I know it sucks to have to actually work for your levels, but really, is it fair? Having to work hard for every XP to get to level 30 and learning some valuable lessons along the way is the path most players take. It simply cheapens the epic PC's to be able to do it without risk.
As a low level PC, I would think that being trained by a epic PC and netting a possible DC, is much better compensation than any xp I could get on my own. The reverse also holds true.
_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.
-Krrja
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyjyn
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 22:22 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
|
|
Make it so all epics can party together:D. So leave the system as is until 20, then you can party with 30s. In my experience of levelling, roughly after FoD people start to drop their characters so it can be hard to find a party. Finding an epic party can be especially tough, allowing level 28ers to party with 21ers would potentially solve that and I dont think it is so unfair really. Epics can party with other epics, just something to consider.
_________________
Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaviera
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 22:36 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Location: Temple of Love
|
IronAngel wrote: you could probably apply some kind of a party-wide cap to block XP from being too profitable if the difference is too great. This puts you right back to square one. Either accept the 5-level difference 'cap' as it is or scale it over all levels. Otherwise we're just arguing about how big the level difference should be and the basic idea doesn't change. Like arguing over how many DCs you need to spend to get a level. IronAngel wrote: The only problem, which I admit is real but IMO relatively insignifigant, is that epics could babysit lowbies at no gain to themselves but nonetheless helping the lowbies profit easier. A weighted party ECL (sum the squared ECLs in the party, multiply by the number in the party, take the square root of the result and then divide by the number in the party) will always be greater than or equal to the average ECL, and so the xp/kill under a weighted system will always be the same or lower than in the current system. The xp/kill should still be capped as per the current system (but based on weighted, not average, ECL). If the xp awarded to each PC is then further reduced by the difference from the highest level in the party (such that a PC 1 level lower than max gets 29/30 of the full xp, 2 levels lower gets 28/30, etc.) then adding a level 30 to your low-level party should net you fewer xp in a level 30 area than you would get adventuring in an area appropriate to your own level without that epic in the group. This will have the effect that the highest levels in the party will tend to cluster around the same value; being 10 levels lower than the max only gets you 2/3 of the xp, so riding with an epic gets you less than you would by hanging out with buddies at your own level. In general, the closer the levels the better the xp. (I've assumed, for the sake of argument, that the CR of spawns in an area is ~1.5x the intended level and I've used a 1.0x party size modifier. Obviously, someone who knows the CRs and xp calcuations should check if this works out right.) IronAngel wrote: Who you hunt with shouldn't matter as much as what you hunt. As far as I can see, your idea accomplishes much the same thing. By making xp dependent on weighted and max levels, who you hunt with has a great deal of impact. First, the average xp/kill is negatively affected by having low levels in the party, and second, the xp that you as an individual are awarded is further affected by how far you are from the max. The highest level in the party benefits most (ie. is penalized least) but still gets less than if the lowbie wasn't there. To answer Ron's point, if kills/minute is the same for all level-appropriate areas (30s in the Abyss or 3s against kobolds), then the determining factor is in fact xp/kill, which is reduced in my system when you have a large level spread. The lowbies then get hosed further by the difference calculation. In fact, the epic in the Abyss trailing lowbies probably wont be killing demons as fast as if he had epic buddies along, so the rate of xp gain is reduced even further. On the other hand, if the lowbies go hunting kobolds with a curse-singer they may get a lot of 1 xp kills in a hurry but it probably wont add up to better than what they'd get killing the little buggers themselves. Take as an example a bunch of epics in Actand (assume CR = 45). Max (capped) xp per kill would be about 90, I think. Then take 1 epic and 4 5th levels and send them off. The weighted ECL is now 14, so the max xp is only about 70. The archmage gets the full 70 (less than he would with his epic friends), while the hangers-on only get 1/6 of that, or 12 points per kill. In a level 5 area (CR 7-10 or so), on the other hand, they could probably rake in 30 points each if they didn't have that pesky wizard along. If they take the wizard with them to visit the kobolds, on the other hand, and nobody gets more than 1 xp/kill. Even with 4 epics and one 5th level in Actand, the lowbie only gets ~20 xp/kill while the big guys still lose ~5 xp/kill for having the brat along. _________________ ~Sharess on AmiaWiki~Priestess, politician, prostitute "[They] were moving in on me like Sharessans on a new broad in the bath house" - Tracer BoltAmiaWiki mod (mostly inactive)
Last edited by Xaviera on Thu, Apr 29 2010, 22:56 PM, edited 4 times in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 22:40 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
I posted, but it would appear it didn't work. Odd, that's the third time it has happened. Wyjyn wrote: Make it so all epics can party together:D. So leave the system as is until 20, then you can party with 30s. In my experience of levelling, roughly after FoD people start to drop their characters so it can be hard to find a party. Finding an epic party can be especially tough, allowing level 28ers to party with 21ers would potentially solve that and I dont think it is so unfair really. Epics can party with other epics, just something to consider. I think that's a good idea to be honest. I've found it hard to find parties once I've hit epic, due to the fact once people hit 25 they're only a few hours away from 30 thanks to all their lvl 30 buddies (not that I have a problem with this). Even if it were weighted differently (e.g. Xaviera's suggestion of the square root of the sum of the squares of the level) it would still be an idea worth considering.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Thu, Apr 29 2010, 22:52 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
|
You forget the midpoint, Xavi. If it's profitable, the supposed Epics will take the Lowbies to areas that they can solo quickly due to their level, but yet are still rather high XP. A level 30, for example, could take 5 level 3's through Brogendenstein repeatedly. Simply Invis the lowbies and have fun with your Dev Crit.
The average (and weighted average) will still be rather low compared to the ECL to the spawn, and the kill rate will be quite quick. Quick enough to be viable.
And if it isn't viable - it won't be used, thus putting us back at our current square which is "You can party with people outside your range; but it isn't as profitable as you want".
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Login
