Printable View
I have said repeatedly on this subject that I see no problem with Turbine doing this, I think Floon's assertions about effort are somewhat exaggerated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celt_Ainvar
However, your arrogance at calling people who don't agree with you 'teens', with the clear implication that those like you arguing for it are somehow more adult, isn't likely to win many converts to your cause.
It should have been locked a long time ago, there probably hasn't been a new opinion since page 3. All that's happened since is both 'sides' endlessly repeating their views and completely ignoring the other side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forjo
As I noted before, those in favor are failing to address the objections Floon raised, and until they do Floon at least isn't going to change his mind. Of course, Floon isn't the only one in Turbine who needs to be convinced, and at least one other 'blue' posted a more supportive view, however the fact remains that Floon's objections are clearly important considerations .. but instead of dealing with then all we get is the same hands-over-ears shouting match across the chasm.
/sigh
No offense, because to a certain extent you're correct (nothing new has been added to this discussion since around page 27), I disagree with your characterization that proponents of the feature have failed to address Floon's objections. As far as I'm concerned, I did that in this post. The only way to address his concerns any better would be to poll players on whether or not they believe levelling is currently too fast, how likely they are to use the feature, and whether they believe other players' use of the feature would benefit them (a poll only Turbine can do because any player-created poll is likely to suffer from a bad case of self-selection).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraggy
I could make all sorts of arguments about LotRO's core playerbase consisting of Socials and Explorers and how these playstyles would benefit from this feature, etc., but without hard data that I, as a player, cannot generate, what's the point?
I will say that a mentoring system does not address excessive speed of levelling, outlevelling quests, and outlevelling quest rewards. It mostly addresses the issue of maintaining a challenge and allowing high-level characters to help low-level characters without trivializing the content. However, without some really compelling rewards for mentoring lowbies, a mentoring system will end up being underutilized. EQ2 gives high-level players the incentive to mentor primarily through the Alternate Advancement point system. LotRO does not have an analogous system and frankly, I don't think they'll be able to come up with any sufficiently compelling reward that wouldn't grossly unbalance some other system. I mean, what are you going to do, give the high-level player a free relic after every mentoring session? How do you prevent players from abusing that sort of mechanic?
What else is there to say? But if naysayers keep posting the same objections over and over, I'll keep posting the same counterarguments over and over. But yeah, this thread has been stuck in a loop for at least the last fifteen pages....
Actually, Turbine already did a random poll earlier this year, and it included a question regarding an XP Toggle. I was one of those selected for the poll, and answered that I didn't oppose the idea, but it wasn't something I personally would use. That poll, I suspect, is why Turbine staff have stated there is only a small amount of people interested in using this feature.
Just saying.
[EDIT - Specifically, it was conducted around August 18th (that's when I got my invite to the survey), but has since been shut down, so I can't go back and look at the questions anymore. I was going to try to copy the exact wording of the relevant question on this topic, as well as the choices available as answers, but no luck there]
If one follows the discussion they will then see where I posted that these types of surveys are the wrong types of surveys to use when deciding to introduce a feature that would appeal to a different playstyle than is currently supported in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellusDuFenna
It is like a car company, that has focused exclusively on selling larger and larger SUVs, then asking its customers whether they would prefer a smaller, more fuel-efficient automobile. They are asking a group where they have for a considerable amount of time been filtering out those people who would answer 'yes'.
For the past year, Turbine has repeatedly made the game more and more frustrating for those who would value such a feature. It has undoubtedly filtered out some who would answer 'yes' to that question. They have created an audience that is more and more likely to answer 'no'.
Then they evaluate the feature by asking the question of that filtered audience.
Their findings will not be relevant to the question of whether they should add the feature.
An objection was raised that I am assuming that this feature plays a major role in the purchasing decisions of a huge number of players - which I then countered was false.
First, I am making no such assumptions. Rather, I am pointing out that the survey question you responded to has the opposite assumption. It assumes that Turbine's decisions to heap one frustration after another on potential players who would value such a filter HAS NOT had the effect of filtering them out of its player base.
Second, I pointed out that ROI only needs an input of "huge numbers" if the cost is a "huge cost". Whereas adjustments that would require a smaller cost would be justified with smaller numbers.
The claim that we have not been addressing objections is pure fiction.
I have explained how to calculate return on investment and how it is used to determine how to allocate resources. I have explained how quality assurance and customer support costs are to be figured into the cost component of those calculations - and how those who oppose this feature have exaggerated those costs. I have suggested a test to determine how high this feature should be on that list - by looking at whether there are features in the game requiring <i>an equivalent</i> expenditure of resources that nonetheless have <i>less of an impact</i> on purchasing decisions, which can be found all over the game.
I have pointed out why some surveys will fail to give meaningful data and which surveys actually provide data that would be relevant to computing return on investment.
If somebody has said that I have not been addressing objections, it is because they are commenting on the content of a thread they have not actually read, or read with blinders so that they refused to actually perceive that which did not conform to their bias.
I'd say you have a point, except the poll wasn't just about an XP Toggle. It covered a wide variety of topics, so I really don't think they tailored their survey to only send to people who would be against a Toggle. In fact, how would they even know in advance what our opinions on the subject were, as that was quite frankly the first time I'd seen it even brought up as a subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiempko
You also seem to be implying that Turbine filtered out responses from those who may have been in favor of having an XP Toggle added to the game, and I find that idea ludicrous. What would be the point of even asking about our opinion of adding that feature, if they had no intention of doing so? This smacks of outright paranoia, to be honest, and certainly doesn't help your argument at all.
The simple fact is that a survey has been done regarding adding an XP Toggle. I seem to recall a Turbine staffmember posting somewhere in the deep morass of this thread that there wasn't enough interest in adding the feature to make it worthwhile, or something to that effect. I'm thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, the results of said survey didn't go your way.
You obviously don't like that, but unless you can produce some proof that Turbine is being dishonest in regards to this subject, you probably shouldn't go around calling them liars.
Problem is I never got this Random Poll BellusDuFenna. So How do one person answer it if they never got it.
Yes the last month I had no computer and it seem next week I will not have a computer due to the fact it runs 101c in this game. That 213f. In System setup not overclocking.
You keep on stating this, yet when I challenge you on it you agree with me that this feature isn't going to make or break the game for very many. So which is it? If few people's decision to play the game at all is influenced by a "Turn XP Off" feature, then there's no reason to suggest that their polling of their own customers is fatally flawed. Not unless the percentage of people who want it is truly tiny (in which case your arguments about ROI carry less weight).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiempko
If 10% of the general gaming population wants something like this and 1% of players want it so badly that they'll quit playing a game that doesn't have it... Turbine's polling numbers will be off by 10%: almost certainly within the margin of error for such a poll anyway. However, if only 1.5% of the general gaming population wants it and 1% will quit a game that doesn't have it, now Turbine's internal polling would be off by 67%. That's very significant, but if only 1.5% of the population is clamoring for this... it may not be worth doing anyway (even if it's a relatively small feature).
Khafar
I can't answer that, as I have no idea who all got the survey. I did, as did one or two of my Kinmates at the very least. If we were the entirety of the survey sample, I'd be highly surprised, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celt_Ainvar
Damn I wish I could still access the survey link. It really would be great to post the question here.
Whoosh.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellusDuFenna
You completely failed to understand what he said. :rolleyes:
He doesn't for one minute suggest that Turbine 'doctored' the results, he's saying that the result of the changes he cites is that those more likely to say 'yes' have gone (THIS is the 'filtering' he's referring to), leading to a self-selecting population more likely to say 'no'.Quote:
His assertion: For the past year, Turbine has repeatedly made the game more and more frustrating for those who would value such a feature.
In his view this means that: It has undoubtedly filtered out some who would answer 'yes' to that question.
So he sees the result is: They have created an audience that is more and more likely to answer 'no'.
It would appear I did. I apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraggy
Isn't that rather a stretch, and an unprovable one at that? I have no doubt that some people have left the game due to various changes in this game, including the increased rate of leveling, but how can anyone know how many left for that specific reason? How can we possibly know how many of those players might return if an XP Toggle were implemented, let alone how many new players it might bring in for that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraggy
As I've said before, I'm in favor of a Toggle. I wouldn't use it, but I see no reason not to have one... More features for player satisfaction are always better than less. That said, it seems to me a lot of people are making assumptions about the effect such a feature might make on this game. My point regarding the survey was that only Turbine really has any sort of hard numbers regarding player interest in a Toggle, even if they are 'filtered' to some degree by less players who would have been in favor of it having already left. For all we know, that survey could have included former players, which would remove that filter as much as is possible in a random-sample poll.
My friends who want it haven't left. They just stopped buying expansions. They haven't bought MoM, the won't buy SoM. They want to get through all the level 50 content w/o being power leveled further. (unfortunately I bought MoM so my guys who plays with them is now pushing 55 even though he's not quested in Moria yet.)
They're lifers too, so basically by having no other way to control their progress they have stopped giving Turbine money. At least they now they can stop the bonuses at level 50 that way.
A lot depends on how the question was phrased and to whom the survey was sent. If I were preparing such a survey, I'd start with some Likert scale-based general questions along the lines of:Quote:
Originally Posted by BellusDuFenna
-Are you happy with the direction the game is going? Strongly Agree ... Strongly Disagree
-Do you believe levelling is currently: Too Slow ... Too Fast
-Do you find yourself outlevelling quests/rewards: All the time, Fairly often, Fairly rarely, Never
-Most of the time, do you find yourself completing content: While it's still very challenging, While it's still challenging, While it presents little challenge, While it presents no challenge at all
-When it comes to Rest XP and Bonus XP, do you believe there is currently: Too Little ... Too Much
-If there were a way to turn off Rest XP and/or Bonus XP, would you: Use it all the time, Use it a lot, Use it occasionally, Use it not at all
This is the kind of survey that will get real answers on this topic. And in order to interpret the results, one needs to remember that even those who desperately want the feature wouldn't use it all the time on every character (though, ironically, every one of my seventeen EQ2 characters has, in fact, turned off some combination of Combat XP and Quest XP; but, as has been pointed out, EQ2 gives a much stronger motivation to lock levels and explore most of the content with each and every character).
The key question here is, would this feature increase average customer retention and, if so, by how much?
At the very least, if ten percent of the playerbase said they thought levelling was too fast, it would give the Turbine devs a reason to start thinking about it as a problem needing a solution. It's my belief that, if they looked at it this way, they'd see that an XP throttle is the most efficient way to address this issue.
(P.S.: Please note this is only a rough outline of the way the questions should be asked. It is not a final product. There is no doubt the phrasing of the questions could be improved. There is no doubt the order in which the questions is asked would need to be modified in order to no "lead respondents to conclusions." But there are the sort of questions that should be asked.)
I can't believe that you continue to pay for a luxury good, when you believe the providers of that luxury good are either 1) unresponsive, 2) incompetent, 3) purposefully deceitful. These are the only three conclusions left from your analysis.
I would take my money and spend it on a luxury good that I would enjoy.
Not sure who you're responding to here, but (discounting the obvious trolls) none of the rational posters on this topic have called anyone at Turbine unresponsive, incompetent, or deceitful. As I've stated before, it's possible to have a disagreement of opinion with someone without thinking they're stupid, insane, or evil. Maybe they're misinformed. Maybe they know something you don't. There are many reasons why two rational people might come to totally different conclusions when faced with a problem....Quote:
Originally Posted by logothesia
If I thought as you did then, indeed, I would not be here.Quote:
Originally Posted by logothesia
I come here and make my business case, based on return-on-investment, the proper way to figure in quality assurance and support costs into an ROI calculation, and the relevance to various types of poll data to the benefits variable in those calculations, precisely because I expect that there are people at Turbine who would respond to those arguments.
The very fact that I am making these arguments assumes competence and responsiveness on the part of turbine.
And the charge of being "purposefully deceitful" is absurd. I can well imagine people at Turbine rubbing their hands and gleefully saying, "Tiempko has provided us with a sound business case for this addition but we are going to LIE and say that we would not benefit as a business by accepting his arguments."
Floon is not Tubine. Floon is an individual with his own interests, likes, dislikes, and prejudices. I examine his arguments like anybody else's arguments. I ask whether the reasoning is valid, whether the premises are true and well supported, and if I find reason to question either I do so. An invalid argument is invalid no matter who states it. An inappropriate cost calculation in determine return-on-investment is inappropriate no matter who makes it.
The very reason that businesses employ tools such as return-on-investment is because private likes, dislikes, and prejudices have a bad habit of causing bad business decisions. So, businesses look for more objective measures.
An individual's 'gut reaction' - even an individual who has lots of experience in a company - has too often proved to be a very poor substitute for objective measures and calculations.
Because it is a very common and hot topic on these forums, including locked threads and lots of flaming unfortunately. It 's a VERY common problem with friends spouses, kins, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellusDuFenna
Furthermore, I have personally lost three RL friends (to other games /entertainment) because eventually, we found it impossible to adventure together the way we'd imagined we could when we all signed up. We quickly began outleveling each other as some of us played constantly and some could only play on the appointed adventure nights. We tried using alts, scheduling more nights, switching to crafting endeavors, etc. None of it works for long, no matter what you do you gain tons of XP, you can't craft without gaining tons of Xp and leveling (unless someone gives you all the things you need or you are filthy rich, and even then you must be satisfied at certain skill tiers as advancing requires going out into the world on quests).
After about 3 months we were hopelessly scattered with no one at the same level and 2 of us 10-13 levels higher than the other two. I began adventuring with the lowest with a new alt, etc.... but the results were we could not effectively adventure together the way we wanted. Once someone gets "ahead" in XP there's no way to have everyone else catch up if you continue playing together. One party must somehow play more, which really means they must work at gaining XP and that sucks all the fun and wonder out of it. OR one party must play less, or cease for a time - NEITHER is good for anyone involved, including Turbine.
Three people quit.
That is very reasonable of you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BellusDuFenna
In a game like LoTRO (or any MMORPG, but especially LoTRO), flexibility to a wide variety of play styles is key. The more play styles the game can cater to (without compromising the basic premise of the game or unduly effecting other players) the better the game should do.
Turbine has a VERY popular IP in Lord of the Rings, so the only question of people that would otherwise be drawn to, or retained by, the game is why aren't they? Some may think the game is too difficult and they level too slow, others may think it isn't challenging enough to keep their interest, or they level way too fast.
Perhaps the former has been MORE of a problem for people. So, Turbine has been doing a good job at 'dumbing down' the game, at least in so far as making leveling faster and the challenges easier. Sadly and somewhat inexplicably they have done this across the board, rather than making these changes optional. So everyone is FORCED to accept rapidly accumulating Rest XP, and all manner of Bonus XP, quicker leveling curves, and easier overall encounters (with the only suggestions for increasing the difficulty being "play the village idiot").
Well... a good game, an increasingly successful game, wouldn't do that. They would recognize that different people like to play in different ways, even in ways that few (if any) at the company comprehend, and they would find reasonable ways to accommodate those play styles. They most certainly wouldn't make across the board changes that alter the leveling rate or challenge level (in one direction or the other) for every player without providing for a means to individually modify it to suit one's preferences. To do otherwise is especially baffeling when the solutions to this are fairly straight forward.
Clearly Turbine does understand this to a degree. They've implemented and are implementing various means to make the game more accessible to different play styles. The Skirmish System being a good example. This gives me SOME hope that they can recognize the value in allowing players to individually control the rate at which they level and the degree of challenge they encounter while leveling (by being able to take on greater challenges without subsequently hyper-leveling their characters).
Ultimately, more than any other change Turbine can make, increased play-style flexibility is the best investment they can make.
Hmm. One or more of you must have been relatively new to MMOs, because I've seen this issue occur in the majority of the ones I've played. It's definitely a real and serious issue, but one I think is best solved by a full-featured "mentoring" system. Then nobody has to do things like turn their XP off for long stretches, waiting days or even weeks for others to catch up. Instead, you can all play at the same level as others in your group whenever you wish. Then if they're not around, you can resume playing at your natural level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dago_Red
Khafar
Your entire tone and argument presupposes that Turbine either doesn't know how to do an ROI calculation or doesn't do them as well as you can, because you insist if they "did it right" they'd come to the same conclusion you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiempko
Likewise, you (or others, I get the five of your arguing for this confused) have argued that they either don't know how to do player polling, or don't know how to do polling as well as you, because if they "did polling right" they'd come to the same conclusion you have.
And then we have the hilarity of a supposed "software engineer" offering quotes of work on a codebase he will never see, without seeing any of the design documentation, and yet somehow coming to the conclusion that it's "just a boolean value, I could do it in a week or three."
Oh, and you misunderstand, I was speaking in the subjunctive, "If I felt as you do...". I certainly don't. Actually, I'm one of the thousands of players who feel that leveling in this game is too slow, and I want it to be faster. 5 days played from 1-50 was too long for me.
That's not quite what I got from his posts. All I got was that he's "not sure whether they did it right or not." Not an unreasonable sentiment coming from a customer paying for a service.Quote:
Originally Posted by logothesia
Khafar and I have both mentioned polling. I don't know if Turbine's marketing people are any good or not, but I do know that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to constructing polls (having done graduate-level work on such when I got my MBA). And honestly, I don't really care if you believe me or not ;^)Quote:
Likewise, you (or others, I get the five of your arguing for this confused) have argued that they either don't know how to do player polling, or don't know how to do polling as well as you, because if they "did polling right" they'd come to the same conclusion you have.
Yeah, that seemed a bit over the top to me as well....Quote:
And then we have the hilarity of a supposed "software engineer" offering quotes of work on a codebase he will never see, without seeing any of the design documentation, and yet somehow coming to the conclusion that it's "just a boolean value, I could do it in a week or three."
Thousands? You've talked to that many? Or are just pulling that number out of ... thin air?Quote:
Oh, and you misunderstand, I was speaking in the subjunctive, "If I felt as you do...". I certainly don't. Actually, I'm one of the thousands of players who feel that leveling in this game is too slow, and I want it to be faster. 5 days played from 1-50 was too long for me.
And five days /played to get to 50 was too long? *shrug*
To each his own. I have 16 days /played on my level 41 Hunter and I assure you, to me that was about five times too fast. So, clearly, you really don't understand why I'd want to go slower, just as I cannot even begin to comprehend why you'd want to go faster. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?
My tone and argument were directed to those who posted objections to this feature - many of whom demonstrated through their arguments that they, in fact, do not know how to compute return on investment or how it is used in allocating business resources. To the best of my knowledge I never spoke directly to Turbine. The closest I got was to a developer who was not in charge in making such decisions - but who did have the ability to repeat arguments found here to those who are (if his mind were not already closed on the subject).Quote:
Originally Posted by logothesia
Somebody else posted to these forums to report that Turbine had conducted such a survey and probably used it to reach the conclusion that to reject creating an XP toggle or slider.Quote:
Originally Posted by logothesia
My response was that this would be an inappropriate conclusion to draw from such a survey. However, I was not the one who suggested that Turbine had actually made this implication. My post was written in response to (and raising objections against) another poster who HAD made that claim.
In my response I stated that a poll of current customers is a legitimate tool to use when considering a new product that one wished to sell to existing customers - such as an adventure pack or an expansion pack. They may want to know how efficiently they may have filtered out filtered out customers with play styles who would value such an addition. However, it is still the case that there is not much of a market for a product among existing customers where those customers have been filtered out does not imply that their is not much of a market for that product.
Again, recall the SUV example. A survey of SUV owners would probably reveal that they are not inclined to buy smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. However, this does not imply that there is no market for smaller more fuel-efficient cars.
However, the results of that poll would still be a very poor indicator of the types of customers that Turbine could have if it decided to add elements to its game that were friendly to the adventure-explorer playstyle.
That wasn't me. To raise that objection against my arguments is a misrepresentation. If you wish to object to that claim - quote the person who made it. Do not pretend it was me who said it because you wish to discredit my arguments by associating them with discreditable claims I did not make.Quote:
Originally Posted by logothesia
Which persists in being a bad analogy. You've already admitted that this feature isn't likely to make or break the game for many players, which means that there isn't much reason to assume LOTRO players are terribly different than the general gaming population when it comes to this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiempko
Also, your analogy is hyperbolic. This is a minor feature. Nobody uses it to promote their games, and few if any reviews of a game are going to mention it one way or another. This is more like getting an extra cupholder with your SUV. Handy for some, not hugely expensive to add, but not a buying decision sort of feature for most people either. People who are after a really different sort of gaming experience are likely to head for a really different sort of game (much more sandboxy, or much more focused on PvP, raiding, crafting, or whatever). That's one reason why adding PvP into a game well after it ships never seems to do much of anything for its subscriptions - PvPers aren't (on the whole) impressed with an afterthought PvP wart stuck on the side of a PvE game. They naturally want a game more designed for their favorite playstyle from the foundations up.
Again, I don't care if this feature is added or not. I wouldn't ever use it, but I'm sure some people would. Given a choice, though, I'd much prefer a mentoring system - although it's much more expensive, it's also much more flexible and useful IMO. That feature I'd use with some regularity.
Khafar
I'll second the point of not wanting to outlevel each other. My son and I play the 'Thunder Brothers' about once a week together. We RP them as brothers and they even have their own little webcomic. My son gets really upset when one brother has more XP than the other. It would be nice if we could even it up by just reducing XP on one of them for 10 minutes while the other caught up. As is, we have to ungroup and have the lower level kill mobs until caught up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dago_Red
--Harperella
Isn't this exactly why an XP slider is needed? Some want it faster some want it slower...Quote:
Originally Posted by logothesia
--Harp