XP Reducer

For 18 months, each and every LOTRO server was filled with countless characters exploring Level 50 regions, doing Level 50 quests, and doing deeds, without gaining a single experience point.

They could boast that they have done almost all of the levl 50 quests, exploring each region, proceeding through the story, with fond memories of the tough battles that were fought and the challenges that they overcame with each book that they completed.

Yet, I ask for an opportunity to enjoy what they enjoyed and they say that this violates the very essence of an MMO. I am told that this represnts some sort of psychosis, and that no company would ever build an MMO where a player has an opportunity to experince a large amount of content without leveling past it.

I am told this, I would wager, by players who have a living memory of exploring these same regions with their level locked at 50, and loving every minute of it. These are the people who are now telling me that a person has to be deranged to go through these regions and finish these books as a character stuck at 50th level.

I am told this, I would wager, by players who need to artificially boost their own self-esteem by inventing reasons to look down on others - reasons that make little or no sense to a thinking individual.

Countless players still tell fond storis of when they were allowed (required) to do what I am asking for the opportunity to do.

They had fun. They had far more fun, in fact, than anybody today could have going through the same content.

We know this by the fact that these regions are virtually ghost towns, visited by only a few players. To a player stuck at 50th level, this content is dangerous, interesting, and exciting. To a player who has leveled past it, it is a chore that some players find worthwhile only insofar as they need to pick up a certain deed or special item.

Turbine payed good money to build these regions that now lay nearly empty. It would be nice if Turbine could make money off of these regions again. They can do so by making them interesting and exciting again. They can do that by putting in an XP/OFF feature of some sort.

In fact, I would bet good money that, if Turbine had an XP stop, there would be a lot of new characters being rolled. Those players would power-level those characters quickly to 50 . . . only to freeze their characters at 50 an experience books 5 through 15 the way they were meant to be experienced.

Certainly not every player would do this. But there would be enough to return a little bit of life to these abandond regions.

If you get tired of fighting the Turtle for the 1,115th time, here's an alternative. Take a group of Level 50 characters into the Rift once again (or, for newer players, for the first time).

I wish to see the level 50 content the way all of those other players saw it - the way all of those other players ENJOYED seeing it. For those who denigrate the very idea of experiencing Level 50 content as a character stuck at Level 50, I have do ask.

Did you not enjoy it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiempko

For 18 months, each and every LOTRO server was filled with countless characters exploring Level 50 regions, doing Level 50 quests, and doing deeds, without gaining a single experience point.
---

---

There is a large section of the game population that finds a lot of enjoyment in gaining xp, and leveling - and while many players do enjoy the raids and the instances to get them their "end-game" loot, they would enjoy it even more if they could see that xp bar move.

In other words, there was a significant number of the population that was at 50 for quite a bit of time for no other reason than they were stuck there by Turbine.

Very few MMO players like a cap - they like to see that xp bar move - and eventually hit that next level. Unfortunately, developers can't create enough levels with enough content quickly enough without players eventually getting through it - so a level cap is a necessary evil.

November 18th of last year featured a massive overcrowding of Eregion - as everybody who was level 48 or higher hit that area. Not just because it was a new zone, but for the first time they could see those blue numbers pop up over their heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digital_Utopia

There is a large section of the game population that finds a lot of enjoyment in gaining xp, and leveling - and while many players do enjoy the raids and the instances to get them their "end-game" loot, they would enjoy it even more if they could see that xp bar move.

---

Yes, there are.

Recognition of this fact is exactly why I wrote the sentence in my post, "Certainly not every player would do this. But there would be enough to return a little bit of life to these abandond regions."

"Enough" does not even imply a majority.

I know full well that different players have different interests. I am not interested in arguing that everybody does like the same thing, and I certainly see no merit to arguing that everybody should like the same thing, and that those whose tastes differ from mine must be mentally ill or in some other sense an inferior form of being whose interests have no merit.

It is no objection to what I wrote to say that some or even most players value gaining levels. It is enough for the point that I was making that they went through the regions and books in part 1 as a 50th level character, without earning XP, encountering adventures built for 50th level characters as 50th level characters, and they enjoyed themselves.

I have not written posts under the assumption that there is only one correct way to play the game. Rather, I like to see accomodations made for a lot of different styles of play so that different people with different tastes can all find what they like. I do not object to Turbine putting effort into pvmp even though I will never seriously use that content. I hate fighting other players' characters. I also do not mind that Turbine has invested time and effort on creating classes I will never play or objects I will never use.

I am not the only player in the game. Turbine has every reason to consider interests other than my own, and I simply cannot be so selfish as to say that Turbine must devote 100% of its resources to my interests and 0% to those whose interests I do not share.

There are those who value being the highest level with the greatest loot. There are those who like to take their time and enjoy the journey.

There are those who enjoy challenge at all levels, those who enjoy playing a character in a good story, and those who enjoy chatting with their friends.

There are those who prefer combat and completely avoid crafting, those who avoid the auction house, and those who live there.

There are those who enjoy roleplaying without regard to XP or quests but who simply enjoy living in the world.

There are those who prefer solo play to fellowships, and those who prefer fellowships to solo play.

There are those who like raids, and those who like pvmp, and those who hate it.

There is clearly not one style of play that everybody likes.

And the one attitude that has absolutely no merit is the attitude that says, "my way of playing the game is the only way that matters and all others can and should just go to h.....?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiempko

Yes, there are.

Recognition of this fact is exactly why I wrote the sentence in my post, "Certainly not every player would do this. But there would be enough to return a little bit of life to these abandond regions."

"Enough" does not even imply a majority.

I know full well that different players have different interests. I am not interested in arguing that everybody does like the same thing, and I certainly see no merit to arguing that everybody should like the same thing, and that those whose tastes differ from mine must be mentally ill or in some other sense an inferior form of being whose interests have no merit.

Yet, I have no interest in seeing that blue bar move. I find it to be meaningless. I admit that I do not understand those for whom it adds value, particularly when its movement is entirely artificial. It would be like you sitting at a table while I piled gravel from the street in front of you, feeling giddy and happy with each rock I put down.

However, I do not demand that there is only one correct way to play the game. Rather, I like to see accomodations made for a lot of different styles of play so that different people with different tastes can all find what they like.

There are those who value being the highest level with the greatest loot. There are those who like to take their time and enjoy the journey.

There are those who enjoy challenge at all levels, those who enjoy playing a character in a good story, and those who enjoy chatting with their friends.

There are those who prefer combat and completely avoid crafting, those who avoid the auction house, and those who live there.

There are those who enjoy roleplaying without regard to XP or quests but who simply enjoy living in the world.

There are those who prefer solo play to fellowships, and those who prefer fellowships to solo play.

There are those who like raids, and those who like pvmp, and those who hate it.

There is clearly not one style of play that everybody likes.

And the one attitude that has absolutely no merit is the attitude that says, "my way of playing the game is the only way that matters and all others can and should just go to h.....?"

---

Everybody has the right to play the game in their own way - even the guy attempting to level as much as possible without killing anything. As long as you're paying for the subscription, and not breaking any rules, you can play the game no matter how you want to.

Yet, there is a difference between attempting to play the game in a manner contrary to the way it was designed to be played and realizing it; and doing the same and repetitively asking for the game to change to support your alternate playstyle.

This has nothing to do with "my way of playing is the right way" idea. It's more of a "the game I'm playing supports my way of playing". Whether that way of playing includes PvMP, crafting, raids, soloing, or instances - they all have to do with some form of progression, or an activity that's done after you finish progressing to the cap. While end-game raids and instances aren't progression focused; PvMP, crafting and the time before cap is certainly progression oriented. In other words, the game itself is designed for those who's main intent is to progress their characters to the highest level, and best gear they can hope to obtain.

I've brought up ways that could be implemented to bring life into these old instances, that would not only help those who missed the boat on them the first time around (one of them being me), but also continue making them interesting no matter what your level is. It would accomplish the same goal for everybody, instead of just the small percentage of players who want to ****** their xp (and I mean "******" as a verb in the literal sense).

In the end, no matter what excuse is given - it still doesn't add up to me. That's fine, as my opinion of the matter does nothing to hurt or help the chances of such a feature existing - and even if I somehow had that power - I have no issue with it being implemented. In the end, there are some players who want this feature because they want it. and it's up to Turbine to decide whether or not it's worth it to them to implement it.

That being said - adding a feature that would be used sparingly or sporadically by a small percentage of the player base that goes against the spirit of the genre, doesn't seem to be something worth adding. If you can come up with a similar feature that is used in the same way (even one that doesn't go against the spirit of the genre), please feel free to correct me. However, every feature I've seen them add has been something a significant percentage, if not the majority of players make use of on a frequent basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digital_Utopia

That being said - adding a feature that would be used sparingly or sporadically by a small percentage of the player base that goes against the spirit of the genre, doesn't seem to be something worth adding.

---

This 'spirit of the genre' is simply your own invention. There is no such thing as a 'spirit of the genre'.

It just so happened that E. Gary Gygax included experience points in his first invention of roleplaying games. Even then, XP were optional. There were suggestions as to how many XP to award, but there was never any requirement regarding how quickly or how slowly players gained levels. I witnessed D&D Campaigns where characters gained a level per session, and others where characters gained 2 levels per year.

As it turns out, my request has been for a slider, that would allow me to reduce XP gain to a percentage of what Turbine currently awards. I would probably set the slider at 10%. This would provide the "progress" that you seem to think is essential to keep the planets in alignment and maintain balance in the cosmos.

However, as I see it, 'progress' is not the 'spirit of the genre'. Rather, this is a 'roleplaying game' whose purpose is to allow players to find entertainment by playing a character in an adventure story.

It is the nature of an adventure story that the character faces extreme challenges in the pursuit of a noble goal. No adventure story worthy of the name has the main character riding through from beginning to end undergoing the literary equivalent of one-shooting gray mobs.

So, it is entirely within the 'spirit of the genre' for a roleplaying adventure game to allow players to regulate their speed of advancement to a pace that keeps the story interesting.

Your claim that the feature would be used "sparingly and sporatically by a small percentage of the player base" is just wishful thinking on your part. It is a classic example of cherry-picking evidence - picking premises on the basis of whether or not it supports one's conclusion, rather than drawing one's conclusions based on the evidence. Because, in fact, you have no evidence that it would be used by a small percentage of the population.

And even if it was, I can name a whole stack of items in the game, from fireflies to chicken quests, that are used by a smaller percentage of the players than would use an XP Toggle or an XP Slider, that can still be found in the game. Even though they bring less enjoyment even to the small percentage who use them than an XP slider would bring to the percentage who use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiempko

This 'spirit of the genre' is simply your own invention. There is no such thing as a 'spirit of the genre'.

It just so happened that E. Gary Gygax included experience points in his first invention of roleplaying games. Even then, XP were optional. There were suggestions as to how many XP to award, but there was never any requirement regarding how quickly or how slowly players gained levels. I witnessed D&D Campaigns where characters gained a level per session, and others where characters gained 2 levels per year.

---

I'm not talking about RPGs, I'm talking about MMORPGs. If you want to crack open your D&D books and break out the 1D20s, there's nothing wrong with that. However every single MMO built off the traditional set up (such as LotRO and WoW) are built upon the concept of the player wanting to advance their character being the primary goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiempko

As it turns out, my request has been for a slider, that would allow me to reduce XP gain to a percentage of what Turbine currently awards. I would probably set the slider at 10%. This would provide the "progress" that you seem to think is essential to keep the planets in alignment and maintain balance in the cosmos.

---

The only place where "balance" comes into play - is the balance of time vs advancement set in place by Turbine. If their intention was to have everybody take 90% longer to advance, they would've set the game up with that idea in mind from the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiempko

However, as I see it, 'progress' is not the 'spirit of the genre'. Rather, this is a 'roleplaying game' whose purpose is to allow players to find entertainment by playing a character in an adventure story.

---

you can see it however you want to, but there is very little support for 'sandbox' roleplaying in this game. You can certainly find entertainment by playing a character in an adventure story, as long as you play the character within the adventure story they've created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiempko

It is the nature of an adventure story that the character faces extreme challenges in the pursuit of a noble goal. No adventure story worthy of the name has the main character riding through from beginning to end undergoing the literary equivalent of one-shooting gray mobs.

So, it is entirely within the 'spirit of the genre' for a roleplaying adventure game to allow players to regulate their speed of advancement to a pace that keeps the story interesting.

---

And you can face those extreme challenges in the pursuit of a noble goal - just not challenges in areas where your advancement has made those challenges trivial. You've already faced those challenges and grown above them.

Just because you don't particularly care for the story in the next area that provides a challenge makes no difference. That's a very non-rp type of action to sit there and say, "well the free people need some help - but their cause isn't very exciting to me - so I think I'll just prefer to stunt my growth and face a lesser evil. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiempko

Your claim that the feature would be used "sparingly and sporatically by a small percentage of the player base" is just wishful thinking on your part. It is a classic example of cherry-picking evidence - picking premises on the basis of whether or not it supports one's conclusion, rather than drawing one's conclusions based on the evidence. Because, in fact, you have no evidence that it would be used by a small percentage of the population.

---

Well considering that only 1/3 of the people responding to the poll actually wanted it - and of those I would presume that this was due to several different reasons including sporadic and occasional use of the feature (such as wanting to continue to play while the friend they're leveling with is offline)- then throw in the fact that the majority of players only show up when they have a complaint (like yourself for instance), and I'd say that's a fairly accurate assumption. I am curious however how many of those people voting for this xp switch did so under the false assumption that the speed of leveling has actually increased since the curve change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiempko

And even if it was, I can name a whole stack of items in the game, from fireflies to chicken quests, that are used by a smaller percentage of the players than would use an XP Toggle or an XP Slider, that can still be found in the game. Even though they bring less enjoyment even to the small percentage who use them than an XP slider would bring to the percentage who use them.

---

I'm pretty sure the fireflies and chicken quests have been in the game since the beginning - not something that was added at a later time, and certainly not a feature in the sense of a UI addition, or a game system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiempko

I wish to see the level 50 content the way all of those other players saw it - the way all of those other players ENJOYED seeing it.

---

Of course I enjoyed it, or I wouldn't still be here today. You know what? I still enjoy it. Wowzer, the ability to continue enjoying it with a level 60 character?!? Yes, it's true.

I've told you before, the game is as hard as you make it. If you think it's too easy, then hobble yourself. I've given you several different things you can do to make the game harder on yourself.

I've also told you about the downside of reducing xp and allowing a character to be locked, namely the possibility of becoming stuck at a certain level. What if a level 30 stopped their xp then went and quested in order to have "more fun" doing content "on level". How would they ever get to 35 if they accidentally left it on for too long? They could end up stuck with only grey and red quests. You may say that this is a ridiculous notion but when the xp curve was altered, when the Moors started giving an xp buff when freeps had the artifacts, I remember some level 30 characters complaining that they were now going to be "too high" to do all the North Downs quests "on level". Was that you? If your xp could have been locked back then, would you have gotten yourself stuck?

The devs created fun level 50 content. The choice whether to play through it all is yours. The choice of how hard it will be is yours. The choice of whether or not you'll have fun is yours as well. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banaticus

Of course I enjoyed it, or I wouldn't still be here today. You know what? I still enjoy it. Wowzer, the ability to continue enjoying it with a level 60 character?!? Yes, it's true.

I've told you before, the game is as hard as you make it. If you think it's too easy, then hobble yourself. I've given you several different things you can do to make the game harder on yourself.

I've also told you about the downside of reducing xp and allowing a character to be locked, namely the possibility of becoming stuck at a certain level. What if a level 30 stopped their xp then went and quested in order to have "more fun" doing content "on level". How would they ever get to 35 if they accidentally left it on for too long? They could end up stuck with only grey and red quests. You may say that this is a ridiculous notion but when the xp curve was altered, when the Moors started giving an xp buff when freeps had the artifacts, I remember some level 30 characters complaining that they were now going to be "too high" to do all the North Downs quests "on level". Was that you? If your xp could have been locked back then, would you have gotten yourself stuck?

The devs created fun level 50 content. The choice whether to play through it all is yours. The choice of how hard it will be is yours. The choice of whether or not you'll have fun is yours as well. :)

---

The simple question here should be, as I said before, why on Earth do some of you get so worked up about having the option and why do you feel the need to even reply to the thread? Those against the idea are not making any real arguments against it - it won't affect your enjoyment of the game and it won't take developer time away from your precious level cap repetitive content. The fact that YOU don't understand it doesn't take away the fact that others of us DO understand it, quite clearly.

Progression through XP tied to a very artificial concept of "levels" is not some sort of constitutional founding principle of MMOs, it exists just because it was an idea adopted for the first MMOs which were primitive and, yes, were based heavily on the whole D&D approach. They were, in essence, an attempt to put a paper based multi-participant RPG onto a computer network. There are plenty of ways a character can progress without the need for XP at all. Early game designers could have copied one of the non-levelling RPGs around at the time, I suppose RuneQuest would be the big one with its primarily skill-based advancement system. I'm sure we can all see the huge pitfalls with a level based system anyway if we are honest.

As for getting stuck at a level, what nonsense. If you stuck yourself at level 50 to complete all the SoA content (or 51 like I would just to be a bit safer :D) that would take months as it is. You could do every single quest in the game until you have only red and purple quests left - but you won't get stuck even then. Level 50-53 Mobs will still abound in the game and so you will always be able to level when you choose. And the concept of getting stuck implies that the person choosing that option is completely stupid whereas in fact I'm sure they would be very aware of their options at any time and the potential mob grind they might be leaving for themselves.

So overall, let's have the option, it must be relatively easy to do although a slider sounds the best alternative, and then we can all go back to moaning about LIs, radiance instance dififculty, casual players or whatever else it is we moan about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by findorin-gilrain

The simple question here should be, as I said before, why on Earth do some of you get so worked up about having the option and why do you feel the need to even reply to the thread? Those against the idea are not making any real arguments against it - it won't affect your enjoyment of the game and it won't take developer time away from your precious level cap repetitive content. The fact that YOU don't understand it doesn't take away the fact that others of us DO understand it, quite clearly.

---

One might say, as I have been, that those for it aren't making any "real" arguments for it. I've seen every excuse imaginable for wanting something like this and not a single one adds up to anything more than wanting Turbine to include a feature so they don't have to play the game as it was intended to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by findorin-gilrain

Progression through XP tied to a very artificial concept of "levels" is not some sort of constitutional founding principle of MMOs, it exists just because it was an idea adopted for the first MMOs which were primitive and, yes, were based heavily on the whole D&D approach. They were, in essence, an attempt to put a paper based multi-participant RPG onto a computer network. There are plenty of ways a character can progress without the need for XP at all. Early game designers could have copied one of the non-levelling RPGs around at the time, I suppose RuneQuest would be the big one with its primarily skill-based advancement system. I'm sure we can all see the huge pitfalls with a level based system anyway if we are honest.

---

The reason why the xp/level based system is used far more often than any "alternative advancement" system is because....

a) it works.
b) it makes sense that your character should gain experience the more battle and adventure he or she experiences
c) levels are a quite accurate and simple method of balancing players vs. mobs - so the player has a better idea of how much challenge a mob would be.
d) it's much easier to communicate a level number than any sort of skill-based system.

To sum it all up, the reason why such an "artificial" system as you call it, is so unilaterally popular among the genre is because the majority of people like it, and it's far more simple for developers to implement, adjust, and communicate with the players; as well as it being far more simple for players to communicate amongst themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by findorin-gilrain

As for getting stuck at a level, what nonsense. If you stuck yourself at level 50 to complete all the SoA content (or 51 like I would just to be a bit safer :D) that would take months as it is. You could do every single quest in the game until you have only red and purple quests left - but you won't get stuck even then. Level 50-53 Mobs will still abound in the game and so you will always be able to level when you choose. And the concept of getting stuck implies that the person choosing that option is completely stupid whereas in fact I'm sure they would be very aware of their options at any time and the potential mob grind they might be leaving for themselves.

So overall, let's have the option, it must be relatively easy to do although a slider sounds the best alternative, and then we can all go back to moaning about LIs, radiance instance dififculty, casual players or whatever else it is we moan about.

---

Since there was a cap at 50 - "sticking" yourself at 50 to complete the SoA content would not have an adverse reaction to leveling yourself after that. However, I can't hope to assume that the rest of the game would be so forgiving, and having to grind out a level or two could certainly be a possibility. The new curve (which mainly affects beginning level characters), as well as the old curve were put in as a baseline, along with the quests they implemented to give a general leveling speed. There are ways to make that quicker - both by the occasional bonus, and player initiated activities or features such as buying bonus xp, grinding mobs for deeds on level and others. However, that only speeds up their initial design for how long it takes a player to level.

As I've said before - nothing I say will make this feature any more or any less likely to be implemented. Yet, when it comes down to it - I really don't care if they do add it. My responses are merely to try to understand why they actually want it. From what I was able to discover is this feature is something that some people want for nothing more than being under the belief that it will erase all the problems in the game - just because they want it. I've seen the arguments for it - and with every response, the arguments get increasingly ridiculous and far fetched. But that's OK. I'm just more curious than anything on what the next request will be after this is implemented. Y'know, after the people requesting it figure out that this doesn't fix what they hoped it would.

I love to level. I love getting the "ding" when its time to check what new goodies I get at the trainer. So much so that at level 60, I really scaled back on playing my main because levelling LIs and traits just wasn't as fun. Even from this perspective of personal taste, I can totally see where Tiempko is coming from.

Some place in middle earth just zipped by me. I went from North Downs to Evendim to Forochel and was L49 at the end of it. By that time, most of Angmar was below level. The Misties were grey to me by the time I visited them. Even so, I spent some time in Angmar until about L52 or so. It would have been really nice to freeze my level at that point and experience the rest of the content in Angmar. As is, there is so little reason to go there. I get **** XP and the gear is now below level. If I had hit the noXP switch at L52, I probably would have stayed the course in Angmar.

Really folks, it isn't that big a deal. Easy to code, easy to implement, and doesn't change anyone else's gameplay. Why is Tiempko getting so much **** over it? I think its a useful switch.

If you really wanted to change the gameplay mechanic to please both sides, then make XP like Destiny points. You earn them, but don't have to spend them until you want to. That would please both sides I'd think.

--Harperella

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harperelle

Really folks, it isn't that big a deal. Easy to code, easy to implement...

---

And this assertion is based on....what exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digital_Utopia

[Levelled from 38 post-book 7] Whiskeytango Foxtrot (47)
1 week 2 days 4 hours 50 minutes 1 second

[Levelled from 18 post-book 7]Appetizer (46)
1 week 22 hours 55 minutes 31 seconds

- the evidence is just not there.

---

Thanks for taking the time to put out this comparison, and I agree with your conclusion that it shows relatively little difference in levelling speed pre and post the XP-curve adjustment. That makes sense, as the levelling only got slightly (8%?) easier with the book-7 change. But it did get easier. Are we analyzing data to answer the question:

"If you reduce the number of XP needed to hit 60, will you hit 60 faster?"

I don't have similar data to draw on, but the normal, mathematical, answer is "yes". Or, did I miss something? I had assumed that the XP required at every level declined...did levelling get harder later on? I.e. was the total XP count to hit 60 identical before and after the change?

Subjectively, it seemed levelling was even faster afterwards, but I didn't really track it.

I agree that this change is minor. Whether it was conciously aimed at saving time for people who only enjoy level 60, I don't know - was there an official Turbine explanation of this?

Let's say levelling only got 8% faster in Book 7. Would you be opposed to a minor correction to go back to progressing 8% more slowly? What about a slider allowing XP multiplication in the 92% - 100% range?

The real difference in levelling isn't a comparison between an Alt starting in 2.7 and an Alt started in 2.6, but Alts started in 2007 and 2009. The 2007 Alt levelled much more slowly. There are a lot of reasons for that: players learn the material, and often have high-levels to help them, but the main one is just that the game is much easier now. It was changed to be that way. It's much faster to kill things quickly & complete quests, which directly translates into accelerated levelling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harperelle

Really folks, it isn't that big a deal. Easy to code, easy to implement,

---

And this is the biggest myth of them all.

EVERY change to the code has a huge amount of workflow behind it to make sure it doesn't wreck the entire game. Even what some people see as "easy".

I don't see the risk/reward or cost/benefit as worth it for this change. Others do.

We have to agree to disagree and the devs will, or won't, implement the change.

I still for the life of me can't understand what people are claiming they "can't" do by getting xp, becuase not a single XP gate exists in this game that direction. But yeah...to each his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digital_Utopia

Hmm...I thought this might interest you.

Whiskeytango Foxtrot (47)
1 week 2 days 4 hours 50 minutes 1 second

Appetizer (46)
1 week 22 hours 55 minutes 31 seconds

.

---

Given all the things that can cause variance in time spend vs xp gained I cannot see ANY statistical significance to these types of numbers. None.

Unless you claim to just log in and kill the same exact spawn until you level, then move to another spawn and kill that exact spawn, never killing anything extra, never doing any quests, always playing exactly less than your rest xp, and always with 100% focus so as to kill the spawn immediately upon it's appearance with zero delay. Twice...for each toon. Exactly the same character class, build, and gear. Which is brought to you by a friend in a quick exchange between spawns...so as to not require any time spent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roberto

And this assertion is based on....what exactly?

---

Just this--there is a XP counter somewhere that ticks up when you kill a mob or finish a quest. Don't tick it when a certain flag is set. Make that flag set by a radio button. Job done. I do not know the specifics of Turbine's XP code. But its just really hard to imagine it is so complicated that you can't disable it from incrementing. If you want Pseudocode it is this:

proc IncXp (xp : integer)
begin
total_xp := xp + total_xp;
end

Changes to:

proc IncXp (xp : integer)
begin
if (noxp_flag == 0)
total_xp := xp + total_xp;
end if
end

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying. But really... how much more complicated can it be? Its a number that is incremented when various things happen. Don't increment the number when a flag is set.

--Harperella

To the claim that reducing XP gain is easy to code...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roberto

And this assertion is based on....what exactly?

---

Every few weeks, and whenever the Freeps control the Moors, we receive variable XP bonuses. So, we know that an XP-received multiplier has already been coded and implemented.

Also, we know that this XP-gain multiplier can be character specific (rest XP doubles incoming XP, only to those characters with rest XP to consume).

So the assertion that it's easy to do this boils down to the claim that it's easy to change +X% to -Y%, with Y set by an /xpreduce command.

Certainly, it is easy to do (it is probably already done) and Turbine has clearly thought about introducing it, but seems to have decided not to. The interesting question is: why?

Suggested answers to the fixed-XP-rate riddle:

* It disrupts groups to have people levelling at different speeds.

* The support headache from customers who accidentally level too slowly ("GIVE ME MY XP BACK!!!")

* The Turbine plan (explicitly stated) for seeing all content at-level is to run it with Alts. Maybe this helps because much of the content the second Alt experiences will be repeated from the first... so the overall time-sink is increased while still keeping some fresh areas to interest the player on the second run through. (I.e. it optimizes the mix between repeated content and new content.)

* The challenge at each level is designed with a model of gear and traits based on a typical levelling rate. A character levelling slowly should have better than average gear, and much higher traits. Slow levelling would disrupt the assumptions used to design encounters. The problem here is that the /xpoff switch doesn't turn off the Deed counters, or the money earned. Effectively, you would soon 'out-level' the content because all of your Traits would be higher than expected.

The last explanation is a stretch, as the pre-60 game isn't challenging in the first place, but perhaps there's a plan to change that. Still, those are the only reasons I can think of. Are there any other suggested explanations for the lack of adjustable levelling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casesuit

Are there any other suggested explanations for the lack of adjustable levelling?

---

Honestly, based on the odd feedback here and there I fully believe it's on their list somewhere. I just don't think it's that high on their list given all the other things that have gone pear-shaped.

My personal take on the survey a while back (filtered through the lens of how they've done other bits) is that they were thinking it might be easier to give us an inventory item that's a 'clicky', than modify the UI widgets. But the code *is* there. From the regular/rested bonuses, to welcome back weekend and the LI progressions and the UI widgets that support that.

Given time I think we'll see this option. I just wish we could push it a little higher up the list for those involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digital_Utopia

One might say, as I have been, that those for it aren't making any "real" arguments for it. I've seen every excuse imaginable for wanting something like this and not a single one adds up to anything more than wanting Turbine to include a feature so they don't have to play the game as it was intended to be.

---

There is no such thing as an argument for wanting something.

"I like it, and it does no harm to others" is all the argument one needs.

Ultimately, it is the only argument any can provide. Everybody who engages in pvmp, in end-game quests, in roleplaying, in anything - the best any of them can ever say in defense of their particular style of play is, "I like it, and it does no harm to others."

So, you have set yourself to a fool's errand here. In order to attack something that does not exist you first have to imagine something to attack. What you attack exists only in your imagination, and has no relevance to the issues actually being discussed.

Digital Utopia

I am certain that you come here to debate this topic for its entertainment value, and not because you think you are defending a position that makes any sense.

LOTRO is a game.

People come here because they find enough value on this side of gate to be willing to give up the $9.95 per month that Turbine charges people to come through the gate. When Turbine considers what to put on this side of the gate, the relevant business question to ask is, “Will the additional money we make from people walking through the gate be greater than the cost of whatever it is we add to this side of the gate.”

There are people who would find more value on this side of the gate if Turbine added a way for players to control their own rate of advancement. The two questions to ask are: What are the costs of this change? What will the effect be on the number of people willing to pay to come through the gate?

The idea that a game must focus on realizing some sort of Platonic Form is nonsense. First, because there is no Platonic Form for a game to realize. Second, because it does not make sense for any company to say, “Okay, yes, the number of people willing to pay to come through the ate is lessened, but at least we have realized the Form of an MMO.”

There are people for whom the content on this side of the gate would have much greater value if they were given an optional way of reducing the amount of XP they earn. I am one of them.

There are a lot of people for whom the content on this side of the gate is not valuable enough for them to pay $9.95 per month to come through the gate. For some unknown percentage of them, the added value of a way of reducing XP will spell the difference between coming here or doing something else.

A change does not have to appeal to everybody. A change only needs to bring enough additional people through the gate to pay for the cost of making the change. That is the question to answer.

If a change costs $1,000 to implement, and results in 1000 gate crossings, it is worth doing. It does not matter that 1000 gate crossings is 0.1% of the total number of gate crossings over that same time period, $9,990 > $1,000.

This also points to the stupidity of those who argue, “Turbine must never invest in anything I will not use or do not enjoy.” The above model will give Turbine about $9,000 to work on end-game content (for example) if they implement the feature, but only $1000 if they do not. These amazingly selfish individuals are actually getting less of what they want in their insistence that nobody else be served.

You cannot determine this by asking people on this side of the gate whether adding a way of reducing XP will entice them to cross the gate. They are already here.

Turbine needs to step outside the gate and ask the people out there, “How many of you can be enticed to pay to go through the gate, or to keep coming back longer, if we put an XP slider or stop on the other side of the gate?” The only question it makes sense for Turbine to ask people on this side of the gate is, “How many of you would quit paying to come through the gate if we added this feature?”

I am pretty sure that the answer to the second question is “none”. In fact, I think that, even on this side of the gate, there are far more people who would keep their subscriptions longer and come through the gate more often (for more months) then there are people who would quit coming through the gate at all.

A feature that gives more people reason to pay to come through the gate, and that keeps them coming through the gate longer, but does not give anybody a reason to quit paying to come through the gate, is a good feature from a business standpoint.

Introducing guns, in contrast, will clearly give a lot of people reason to refuse to pay to come through the gate. And Turbine knows it. So, introducing an XP slider or stop is nothing like introducing guns. Fortunately, the relevant question that Turbine needs to ask is not, “How many of you would play a game that has guns,” which may be a lot of people. The relevant question is, “How many of you would play THIS GAME if it had guns,” for which the answer, hopefully, is “not very many.”

So, these are the only two questions worth asking and answering.

(1) What will it cost us to add an XP slider or stop?

(2) What will this do to the numbers of people who pay to come through the gate?

Anything that does not contribute to answering these questions is not relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdtohk

I want a gun. WoW has guns. I bet lots of players would want guns.

Sounds dumb doesn't it?

Oh wait...it is lore-breaking to have guns right? Is it as lore-breaking as an adventurer who experiences certain situations but for some reason gains no experience from his/her experiences? Merry and Pippin were very different hobbits when they returned to the scoured Shire. How do you roleplay around this? Does your character get a bop on the head erasing their short term memory after completing CD? Are the characters so exceptionally stupid that they do not learn from their mistakes?

---

This is a terrible analogy.

Even before MoM came out, level-capped characters gained zero xp from completing quests. I guess that was lore-breaking?

Where in "the lore" does is state that characters must always gain experience and learn from their mistakes? Doesn't exactly happen in the real World, so does it have to happen in a game???

By your argument, there should be no repeatable quests, and you should only be able to kill a Boss in an instance once (or to nitpick, force a Boss to "retreat" once). If you've already killed the boss or done the quest, why should you get the same xp the next time - shouldn't there be diminishing returns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casesuit

To the claim that reducing XP gain is easy to code...


Every few weeks, and whenever the Freeps control the Moors, we receive variable XP bonuses. So, we know that an XP-received multiplier has already been coded and implemented.

Also, we know that this XP-gain multiplier can be character specific (rest XP doubles incoming XP, only to those characters with rest XP to consume).

So the assertion that it's easy to do this boils down to the claim that it's easy to change +X% to -Y%, with Y set by an /xpreduce command.

---

It's kinda funny - whenever I use that explanation at work, the developers on my projects always look at me and shrug...giving me the 'fine, you code it then' look.

I too would like to know if indeed there will finally be player controlled XP.

Preferably in the form of user-defined % in settings.

Or at least some option in settings to mitigate all the unwanted bonuses that I have not earned for myself, and do not care for!

It is hard enough to keep together with a group of friends/spouses/kin without all the bonuses accelerating some and not others depending on when you can play.

Casesuit

I know that you did not mean your suggested answers to be "the answers". However, I want to suggest some reasons why they do not answer the riddle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casesuit

Suggested answers to the fixed-XP-rate riddle:

* It disrupts groups to have people levelling at different speeds?

---

It actually would disrupt groups left to give players some control over how fast they level, so that characters can leave the group from time to time without out-leveling the group, and those who have more time to play can still play with those who have less time to play.

One of my problems is that forced, fixed XP makes it hard to keep a group together for long before players who leveled at different rates (because of different amounts of time playing or interest in side quests) are no longer able to adventure together.

The team that my wife and I formed has virtually broken up, because my wife lost her job and her character has shot ahead of me levels. Though she could form an alt and start over, she prefers to hang out with our online friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casesuit

Suggested answers to the fixed-XP-rate riddle:

* The support headache from customers who accidentally level too slowly ("GIVE ME MY XP BACK!!!")

---

Perhaps this should be weighed against the support headache of customers who accidentally level too quickly - or not accidentally, but because they are FORCED to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casesuit

Suggested answers to the fixed-XP-rate riddle:

* The Turbine plan (explicitly stated) for seeing all content at-level is to run it with Alts.

---

This does not apply to the books, which is designed as a story meant for a single character.

Take that same character and have the character go out and do some deeds to get some virtues. A slaying deed (90 + 180 creatures at 200 xp per creature = 54,000 XP), and a quest deed (complete 40 quests in Region R) are going to rack up a lot of additional XP.

The story, in this case, is decidedly anti-climactic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casesuit

Suggested answers to the fixed-XP-rate riddle:

* The challenge at each level is designed with a model of gear and traits based on a typical levelling rate.

---

The challenge at each level is almost all done by characters who have out-leveled the content, except for players power-leveling to the end-game.

The Level 50 content was designed with a level cap of 50. It is now being done by players who are level 55 to 60, if it is done at all (which much of it is not, because it is boring.)

It would be nice to get an answer to this question - one way or the other.

Will Siege of Mirkwood have a feature that will allow players to reduce the amount of XP they get, such as an /XPOn:/XPOff toggle or a slider allowing them reduce XP awards by 0% to 100%?

I would like to know as well.....

And if not, when?