XP Reducer

[FoxFire]

"New with VOL III! Level at you own pace! Adventuring 'your style' !"

Good one. There are some VERY good marketing slogans Turbine can use to tout a pretty simplistic feature (which though simplistic really DOES do all those bullet items and more). Good marketing makes people really want something they didn't even know they wanted.

No, it's not. You have an unequivocal answer that flying mounts will not happen. Inevitably, a "Hey, let's have flying mounts" thread pops up every few months. You have an unequivocal answer that an "XP reducer" will not happen. Now, people refuse to listen to the unequivocal answer. They are exactly the same, as are the stubbornness of the proponents.

I haven't seen any "unequivocal" NO. Not even Floon's posts gave the impression that this is a feature that will NEVER see the light of day. Not to mention that Floon isn't the be-all-end-all of decision making at Turbine. Not sure exactly how much pull he personally has at Turbine, but apparently there ARE other Devs who are in favor of this feature. I would LOVE to get Floon on board with it as well, but I suspect he wouldn't be the first Dev to have a feature put in that he or she objected to, or felt it wasn't worth while.

[sactoking]

don't regard this as a serious feature suggestion. It has so many flaws, both from your perspective and ours.

From our perspective: it will be a call driver for CS, we know that. No matter how many warnings you put on something, people still forget,

You're using "everyone plays rationally" logic in promoting what a boon for everyone this would be; we know (from hard, bitter experience) that depending on that doesn't work out.

So many content arcs are absolutely designed around the idea that the characters participating are advancing in level through the arc

We don't have other game systems that really imply (if not require) something like this.

If we introduce lower level content (than what you stalled yourself at) in a book update (like we've been doing for a while now), this system doesn't help you.

If another friend of yours who you want to match up with joins the game, this doesn't help you.

"Why are we spending so much time putting lipstick on this pig?" area,

It's called "reading between the lines" or, in academic parlance, understanding the meta-message.

That's 8 "No"s right there.

[Beldacar]

It's called "reading between the lines" or, in academic parlance, understanding the meta-message.

That's 8 "No"s right there.

All of which are floon's opinion, which he himself stated is not the "final word" on the topic.

http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...59#post4094559

From the previous thread on this topic (which was locked due "bad behavior").

I respect floon's opinion. He provides rational reasons to support his opinion. But I think he's wrong on this issue. *shrug*

[Beleg]

No, it's not. You have an unequivocal answer that flying mounts will not happen. Inevitably, a "Hey, let's have flying mounts" thread pops up every few months. You have an unequivocal answer that an "XP reducer" will not happen. Now, people refuse to listen to the unequivocal answer. They are exactly the same, as are the stubbornness of the proponents.

Whether or not either of those requests will ever happen is not the point.

Comparing the XP Reducer (a small change with minimal impact on the game that some folks would like in order to support their preferred play style) to Flying Mounts (a clearly divisive and controversial request that is so lore-breaking most people find it abhorrent) is trolling.

Had you instead compared it to a similar feature in the 'not likely' category, then you might have made a valid point. As it was, the effect of your comment (intentional or not) was simply to incite inflammatory or emotional disagreements: trolling.

[FoxFire]

It's only significant to an extremely small market base. The players' estimate was a few %. Floon says it's "orders of magnitude" less than that.

Floon says it's not a "little investment".

Adding a feature that noone uses is a waste, so yes it does matter how many people use it.

Adding features that customers place no value on does not make it more enticing.

There are A LOT of things in LoTRO which few people actually use. I'd venture to guess there are patches of landscape which no player has ever set foot on. And YET they put them in, and tout the features to the masses, and people say to themselves "Wow that sounds great. I don't know why but on a subconscious level I feel more compelled to purchase that product".

So not only are they appealing to the people who REALLY want this feature, but also to people who haven't even considered it.

I don't complain about ALL the features of LoTRO I spend little to no time using. I'm GLAD they are there to appeal to various small sub-sets of players that want them. This brings in and retains more customers, bringing in more money for Turbine, and thereby making sure the game goes long and strong into the foreseeable future. That benefits me, it benefits everyone.

[DarkCntry]

Whether or not either of those requests will ever happen is not the point.

Comparing the XP Reducer (a small change with minimal impact on the game that some folks would like in order to support their preferred play style) to Flying Mounts (a clearly divisive and controversial request that is so lore-breaking most people find it abhorrent) is trolling.

Had you instead compared it to a similar feature in the 'not likely' category, then you might have made a valid point. As it was, the effect of your comment (intentional or not) was simply to incite inflammatory or emotional disagreements: trolling.

I think you're looking too deeply into the meaning of the comparison, what I gleamed from it is that, like flying mounts, this has been given an answer that is supported by factual evidence (in this case floon's comments) and yet, it still seems to be going as if nobody with any knowledge has come forward and said anything to that regard.

There are A LOT of things in LoTRO which few people actually use. I'd venture to guess there are patches of landscape which no player has ever set foot on. And YET they put them in, and tout the features to the masses, and people say to themselves "Wow that sounds great. I don't know why but on a subconscious level I feel more compelled to purchase that product".

So not only are they appealing to the people who REALLY want this feature, but also to people who haven't even considered it.

I don't complain about ALL the features of LoTRO I spend little to no time using. I'm GLAD they are there to appeal to various small sub-sets of players that want them. This brings in and retains more customers, bringing in more money for Turbine, and thereby making sure the game goes long and strong into the foreseeable future. That benefits me, it benefits everyone.

Now that is more out-of-context usage...

Comparing land-masses (which are generally given as a whole) to a segmented system blows things way out of proportion.

But to the comment-at-hand...there are more up-front numbers supporting the additions (more landmasses, LIs, Skirmishes, alternate advancement paths) than there are for XP toggles to outweigh the future numbers. Development cycles really cannot factor too much into the future simply because, especially in this industry, things change at a break-neck speed.

[Celt_Ainvar]

I seem to be looking at level vs Crafting. How many times have Crafter seen this Issue. You find a one time use recipe. You Grind for all the supplys and by the time you get all the supplys. you are 5+ Levels and that One time use card is useless to you and you did all that work for Nothing.

[FoxFire]

I think you're looking too deeply into the meaning of the comparison, what I gleamed from it is that, like flying mounts, this has been given an answer that is supported by factual evidence (in this case floon's comments) and yet, it still seems to be going as if nobody with any knowledge has come forward and said anything to that regard.

But ultimately we do need to take Floon's statements with a grain of salt. Based on a number of his comments it can be reasonable extrapolated that he is also personally opposed to this feature, and in favor of a related but much more complex feature. I get the impression that he is concerned that if an XP toggle/throttle is implemented that there will be less internal drive to get a Mentoring System put in.

I would put much more stock in a Dev's comments that came on here and said (hopefully truthfully) that "I fully understand where you are coming from, and I am VERY much in favor of this idea. I am pushing hard for it internally, however the powers that be have decided against putting it in, at least for now, and here's why?... I will continue to monitor these threads to try to get ammunition for the continued case in favor of this feature".

Instead we get (paraphrased) "Personally I think this is a half-baked idea, I can easily imagine some problems with it, which I will continue to bring up (and probably in meetings on this topic - perhaps forgetting to mention the player proposed solutions*). I much prefer a more complex system which though it doesn't really solve a number of the issues you have, I think you'd all be better served pushing for. So... don't count on an XP reducer. There isn't much perceived need or demand for it."


(* my own speculation)

[DarkCntry]

But ultimately we do need to take Floon's statements with a grain of salt. Based on a number of his comments it can be reasonable extrapolated that he is also personally opposed to this feature, and in favor of a related but much more complex feature. I get the impression that he is concerned that if an XP toggle/throttle is implemented that there will be less internal drive to get a Mentoring System put in.

I would put much more stock in a Dev's comments that came on here and said (hopefully truthfully) that "I fully understand where you are coming from, and I am VERY much in favor of this idea. I am pushing hard for it internally, however the powers that be have decided against putting it in, at least for now, and here's why?... I will continue to monitor these threads to try to get ammunition for the continued case in favor of this feature".

Instead we get (paraphrased) "Personally I think this is a half-baked idea, I can easily imagine some problems with it, which I will continue to bring up (and probably in meetings on this topic - perhaps forgetting to mention the player proposed solutions*). I much prefer a more complex system which though it doesn't really solve a number of the issues you have, I think you'd all be better served pushing for. So... don't count on an XP reducer. There isn't much perceived need or demand for it."


(* my own speculation)

So you want to disregard floon's comments because they didn't meet your expectations and requirements?

Wow...talk about complete ambiguity in your train of thought.

[Celt_Ainvar]

Here what sad I point out why the XP reducer could help reasons why it could help.

We get flood of people going well floon Seid. Sorry people floon is only one person of lotro. HE NOT A GOD.

What we need to do is look at the issue that been shown to us and use our ideas to fix the issues.

[DarkCntry]

Here what sad I point out why the XP reducer could help reasons why it could help.

We get flood of people going well floon Seid. Sorry people floon is only one person of lotro. HE NOT A GOD.

What we need to do is look at the issue that been shown to us and use our ideas to fix the issues.

And what you need to do is understand that floon has far more insight than any of us when it comes to changes made to a game that he professionally works on.

No one here is calling floon a God, the ones here stating things over and over about floon's comments keep saying the same thing as I just said in the sentence above. That's not considering him a God, that's considering him a factual source of information about changes and possibility of changes to LOTRO.

[FoxFire]

I forgot to mention one other reason that this feature will benefit other players who don't use it, and who REALLY like accelerated XP.

I (and perhaps others) can stop griefing on some of the accelerated XP gain that Freeps occasionally get. In fact I will recommend that for those who haven't thought of this, to start using this method. It's also cathartic to steal accelerated XP gains away from those who not only enjoy accelerated XP gain, but who also find it necessary to come to these threads to poo-poo the idea of an XP reducer.

So.... Whenever the Freeps take the Creep's relics and otherwise control the Moors (which is rare these days - at least on my main server), and then all Freeps server wide gain XP boosting bonuses, I stop playing my main characters to assist the creeps in taking back control of the moors and getting back the relics.

I'm not a Monster Player at heart, though I don't currently have any toons high enough to compete on the Freep Side. Even so, I would not at this point help the Freeps gain control of the Moors and I DO actively work to make sure the Creeps gain back control when they lose it. I suspect there are others who take such opportunities to enter the Moors to regain control for the Creeps.

So.... yeah. I'm not doing that specifically to grief those who like Rapid XP gain (but it's certainly a side effect). I do it so that I can take SOME control in eliminating additionally rapid XP gain for my toons.

If those of you who enjoy having even more rapid XP gain would like to retain control of the Moors more often, then it would probably be wise of you to help push for an XP toggle. Not to mention, Turbine would have MUCH greater freedom to provide more Bonus XP weeks, with even higher Bonus XP rewards, if players have the ability to opt out of it.

[FoxFire]

That's not considering him a God, that's considering him a factual source of information about changes and possibility of changes to LOTRO.

And who the H said otherwise?

What I have pointed out is that he seems to have a personal bias against this idea, and *I* reserve the right to take his perspective on whether this feature will or won't be put in within some reasonable time frame, with a grain of salt.

If you don't like that, oh well. I'm sorry, but unlike SOME, I don't hang off of every word that comes out of any specific Dev's keyboard.

One Dev said "I'm not a fan of this idea and there is no perceived need or impetus to work on this", another said "I'm advocating for it and there are others internally who are advocating for it too".

I don't know what "special" credence you give to the former, but why should his word hold any more water than the latter? What I DO know, is that the more we can press our case for this feature, the more the internal Turbine advocates can justify and make reasoned arguments for it.

I've yet to see any REALLY compelling arguments against it, outside of resource limitations. Though I've seen MANY very compelling arguments for it, not only for those who will actively use it on a regular basis, but for those who will reap the secondary benefits of some people using it, and those who will use it once in a blue moon.

[DarkCntry]

And who the H said otherwise?

Check the post I quoted...

What I have pointed out is that he seems to have a personal bias against this idea, and *I* reserve the right to take his perspective on whether this feature will or won't be put in within some reasonable time frame, with a grain of salt.

I've noticed no personal bias when floon speaks about things in a professional situation, meaning giving valid and definitive proof as to why something isn't nearly as neat and simple as some like to make out.

If you don't like that, oh well. I'm sorry, but unlike SOME, I don't hang off of every word that comes out of any specific Dev's keyboard.

I don't either, but I do hang on them far longer than I do some average joe just playing the game.

One Dev said "I'm not a fan of this idea and there is no perceived need or impetus to work on this", another said "I'm advocating for it and there are others internally who are advocating for it too".

And context is key...one dev was speaking directly about a global XP-toggle, the other about a separate system.

I don't know what "special" credence you give to the former, but why should his word hold any more water than the latter? What I DO know, is that the more we can press our case for this feature, the more the internal Turbine advocates can justify and make reasoned arguments for it.

See above.

I've yet to see any REALLY compelling arguments against it, outside of resource limitations. Though I've seen MANY very compelling arguments for it, not only for those who will actively use it on a regular basis, but for those who will reap the secondary benefits of some people using it, and those who will use it once in a blue moon.

All it takes is one compelling argument against it...I don't see why this is such a difficult proposition for you to understand.

[Beldacar]

SNIP

All it takes is one compelling argument against it...I don't see why this is such a difficult proposition for you to understand.

And those in favor of the idea clearly believe that the compelling reasons in favor outweigh the compelling reasons against. I don't see why this is such a difficult proposition for you to understand?

[DarkCntry]

And those in favor of the idea clearly believe that the compelling reasons in favor outweigh the compelling reasons against. I don't see why this is such a difficult proposition for you to understand?

And to repeat, all of the ones with compelling arguments for are those average joe's playing the game, not the ones developing for it.

When the one compelling reason that someone has brought up that is not in favor is that from a developer who knows how the software is developed, you would be safe to assume that their reason is going to carry more weight than those who aren't developing the software.

[Beldacar]

And to repeat, all of the ones with compelling arguments for are those average joe's playing the game, not the ones developing for it.

When the one compelling reason that someone has brought up that is not in favor is that from a developer who knows how the software is developed, you would be safe to assume that their reason is going to carry more weight than those who aren't developing the software.

*shrug*

I'll reverse that and say that all those in favor of the idea are players who would use the feature and know why they would use the feature while the developer arguing against it clearly doesn't understand why we think an XP off switch is superior to a mentoring system.

It still comes down to a difference of =opinions=. His opinion is informed by some knowledge of the game's internals (we don't know exactly how much knowledge, given that most of us don't know exactly what he does at Turbine). Our opinion is informed by how we would use the feature and the flaws in the game that we believe it would address.

It really is that simple.

FWIW, appeal to authority is a rather weak rhetorical argument. Ideas should be judged based on things other than "someone important believes this...."

[DrWookie]

And to repeat, all of the ones with compelling arguments for are those average joe's playing the game, not the ones developing for it.

When the one compelling reason that someone has brought up that is not in favor is that from a developer who knows how the software is developed, you would be safe to assume that their reason is going to carry more weight than those who aren't developing the software.

You do realize you have a better chance of ending this thread if you don't say anything? it's not like you are going to convince those of us who think it would be a good idea (I'm included in that). So you might as well just stop posting...continuing to try and "convince" us just makes the thread larger and larger.

[DarkCntry]

You do realize you have a better chance of ending this thread if you don't say anything? it's not like you are going to convince those of us who think it would be a good idea (I'm included in that). So you might as well just stop posting...continuing to try and "convince" us just makes the thread larger and larger.

I never said I didn't think it was a good idea...matter of fact a couple pages back I even imparted some ideas into the system.

[FoxFire]

And to repeat, all of the ones with compelling arguments for are those average joe's playing the game, not the ones developing for it.

When the one compelling reason that someone has brought up that is not in favor is that from a developer who knows how the software is developed, you would be safe to assume that their reason is going to carry more weight than those who aren't developing the software.

Ummm.... the Dev said that nobody is working on it, and there is no sufficiently perceived need or demand for it, and the conclusion is that the resource demands outweigh the benefit.

Please tell me who, and HOW, anyone is disputing what the Dev has said in that regard? We've accepted that it *IS* the case that nobody is currently working on it, and that *IS* the overall perceived notion within Turbine that the resource allocation outweighs demand or benefit.

So what are YOU trying to say? "Oh, sorry but since a Dev told us that is the generally perceived status of this within Turbine, that that's it. Case closed. They neither now, nor will they EVER perceive otherwise. EVERY decision and conclusion that Turbine comes to is now and always and forever correct?"

Are you SURE you don't see them as Gods?

All that is being done here, is saying "No. We disagree with Turbine's conclusions on this. We believe they haven't considered everything. Here are the various reasons why." Nobody from Turbine has rebutted, "Yes well we actually considered each and every one of the points you have made and yet we STILL came to the same conclusion".

And even if they did, that STILL (believe it or not - which I know *IS* incredibly hard to believe), doesn't mean Turbine came to the correct conclusion.

Who has disputed that they have more knowledge and experience about MMORPG development? Nobody. Does THAT automatically mean they are infallible? Does that mean they've ABSOLUTELY taken everything into consideration when it comes to the costs and benefits of this feature? Does that mean we should STOP making a case for this feature?

[DarkCntry]

Ummm.... the Dev said that nobody is working on it, and there is no sufficiently perceived need or demand for it, and the conclusion is that the resource demands outweigh the benefit.

Please tell me who, and HOW, anyone is disputing what the Dev has said in that regard? We've accepted that it *IS* the case that nobody is currently working on it, and that *IS* the overall perceived notion within Turbine that the resource allocation outweighs demand or benefit.

So what are YOU trying to say? "Oh, sorry but since a Dev told us that is the generally perceived status of this within Turbine, that that's it. Case closed. They neither now, nor will they EVER perceive otherwise. EVERY decision and conclusion that Turbine comes to is now and always and forever correct?"

Are you SURE you don't see them as Gods?

All that is being done here, is saying "No. We disagree with Turbine's conclusions on this. We believe they haven't considered everything. Here are the various reasons why." Nobody from Turbine has rebutted, "Yes well we actually considered each and every one of the points you have made and yet we STILL came to the same conclusion".

And even if they did, that STILL (believe it or not - which I know *IS* incredibly hard to believe), doesn't mean Turbine came to the correct conclusion.

Who has disputed that they have more knowledge and experience about MMORPG development? Nobody. Does THAT automatically mean they are infallible? Does that mean they've ABSOLUTELY taken everything into consideration when it comes to the costs and benefits of this feature? Does that mean we should STOP making a case for this feature?

What the hell are you on about? You seem to be really, really caught up in your own little fight for what you feel is right that if anyone has any type of differing view that they are perceiving the Devs as Gods...

[FoxFire]

What the hell are you on about? You seem to be really, really caught up in your own little fight for what you feel is right that if anyone has any type of differing view that they are perceiving the Devs as Gods...

Well you seem to be of the mind that since a Dev said something, that means that they are definitively (without question) correct and us advocates are definitively wrong. All while nobody is disputing the factual points he put forth, ONLY the conclusion that Turbine presumably has reached.

Look, either you believe without a doubt that Turbine has taken EVERYTHING into consideration in regard to this, and has absolutely come to the correct conclusion no IFs-ANDs-or-BUTs about it, OR you believe that it *IS* conceivable (no matter how remote the chance) that they have not taken everything into consideration and MAY have come to an incorrect conclusion about the value of such a feature.

The former can ONLY connote some sort of "god" status.

The latter is far more realistic, and provides for continued advocacy of this feature.

[DarkCntry]

Well you seem to be of the mind that since a Dev said something, that means that they are definitively (without question) correct and us advocates are definitively wrong. All while nobody is disputing the factual points he put forth, ONLY the conclusion that Turbine presumably has reached.

Look, either you believe without a doubt that Turbine has taken EVERYTHING into consideration in regard to this, and has absolutely come to the correct conclusion no IFs-ANDs-or-BUTs about it, OR you believe that it *IS* conceivable (no matter how remote the chance) that they have not taken everything into consideration and MAY have come to an incorrect conclusion about the value of such a feature.

The former can ONLY connote some sort of "god" status.

The latter is far more realistic, and provides for continued advocacy of this feature.

Say what? It's an either or situation?

No, sorry...I believe that when a developer states something that they have done what they have said they have done (in this case, floon stated that they have looked into this and found the benefit to be outweighed by the cost). That doesn't mean that I perceive them as a God, it only means that I take what they say as an authority on the subject, much in the same way as if I go into a Doctor's office and am told that I have a cold. I don't talk to some random guy on the street for that.

[Lomeloth]

Believe it or not, I can come to a different conclusion. Mine is that someone who is better informed than I am has stated that, at the moment, they are not planning to implement this feature based on the balancing of perceived need versus cost.

If my dentist tells me I need to have a tooth filled, I tend to believe him no matter how much I'd rather not get that filling. Doesn't mean I deify him.

[StavroMuellerBeta]

Well you seem to be of the mind that since a Dev said something, that means that they are definitively (without question) correct and us advocates are definitively wrong. All while nobody is disputing the factual points he put forth, ONLY the conclusion that Turbine presumably has reached.

Even if he is wrong, Turbine owns the game, Turbine makes the rules.

I do (or rather, did before it turned into this "if you don't agree with me then you must worship Turbine" fest) fully support this idea. But telling the devs that they're wrong and demanding the change is just as effective as walking up to a Wal-Mart cashier and demanding that they stock the same brands as the competitor store up the street.

If you want your voice to be heard, you might want to start by not insulting the only dev who paid attention to your argument. At this point, you're not only failing to gain dev support, you're losing support from players who otherwise would support the idea.