XP Reducer

[Khafar]

the primary reasons are A. "there is so much SoA content I want to do, why do I need MoM at this time?" and B. "Because of A., if I buy MoM it will trivialize SoA content."

I know a guy like that, but his reason is basically that MoM didn't give him anything compelling, and his highest level character is still only 43. Basically, he had no reason to buy MoM. I'll be surprised if he doesn't buy SoM, though, simply because he wants to do the skirmishes (which start well below his current level) and because it's dirt cheap at $20.

they are a clear third group that is lost revenue directly related to accelerated leveling.

I'm a little curious about this "massive amount of level 50 content" in SoA, because I must have missed it. Yes, there's certainly more at 50 than at 40, but that's expected in a level-capped game. By the time Moria shipped, most players were getting pretty bored at the cap - when I did /who counts on Elendilmir, I often found that I couldn't get an accurate count for level 50 characters because Hunters and Champions had more than 100 level 50 characters apiece! Capped characters made up a large chunk of all characters playing, and it's not a bad assumption that a lot of the others were alts. That's why there was so much screaming for more high-level content, and excitement for an expansion that would raise the level cap and provide 10 new level's worth of content.

A year later, it seems like the number of people who don't want to progress past 50 would be even smaller. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I'd be very surprised if the percentage of the player population was very large. In any case, those people you're talking about still wouldn't skew the results of a LOTRO survey against the "Turn XP Off" feature. Sounds like they'd probably be supporters .

Khafar

[henry316]

In any case, those people you're talking about still wouldn't skew the results of a LOTRO survey against the "Turn XP Off" feature. Sounds like they'd probably be supporters .

Khafar

Ah, sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, they all actually would be in the supporting it camp. We were talking about it last night actually during the 'Thursday night after work' play session we have. (trying to figure out our bribing strategy for Turbine) They're not buying MoM for the same reason Tiempko won't buy SoM. I figure when the time comes, if my friends are still playing, they'll buy MoM but not SoM. (Unless they really get enthralled with the skirmish sub-game idea). They don't need skirmish rewards, btw, since we're running CD and URU for deeds and items.

As to the breadth of level 50 content, there is much more to do than there is from 50 - 60 IMO. Moria and Lorien have bored me to tears on my main. And while you may not be able to PUG where you are I have no problems on any given Thurs-Friday night getting groups for CD, URU, BG, etc... Even had a PUG Hele raid last Saturday night. I am so much a fan of that horizontal adventure progression over level raising. The model I fear is expPack->levelRaise->exPack->levelRaise->exPack->levelRaise. (I know the last paragraph is a tangent on the core issue of the thread, but it is one of the reasons I love the old SoA more)

[Hassan_the_Assassin]

Actual customers are already doing what the company wants - buying the product. There is nothing more that the company can gain from them (unless the company wants to sell a new product to existing customers, such as an adventure pack).

But they are trying to sell us new content all the time. Right now it's SoM and the Adventurers Pack. Soon it will be Rohan (or whatever the next big expansion turns out to be). An XP throttle/wallet seems to be an ideal thing to add to the next Adventurers Pack, provided Turbine thinks it will sell enough extra copies to make it worth implementing. A survey like the one Khafar suggested would help in determining just how many people would actually prefer this in the next AP over something else.

And having a main at around lvl 50 who is still on Book 1.7 and never has set foot in Forochel or done any of the lvl 50 raids, I can say that there is tons more to do than at level 40. Not surprising, since it was intended to keep people reasonably busy for months. Now we get a day or two at lvl 50. There is so much stuff to do that I would even be happy for a "keep me at lvl 50 until I am ready for Moria"-lock.

[Beldacar]

The inherent assumption behind these comments is that "Turn XP Off" is so important to so many people that A) tons of people don't buy LOTRO because it doesn't have it, or B) tons of people have left LOTRO because it doesn't have it. I think both are highly unlikely. It simply isn't going to be a make-or-break sort of feature for the vast majority of people. If it were, we'd have seen tons of mentions of this issue in the regular "I'm leaving" threads people post, yet I've never seen it show up in those even once.

If neither A) or B) is true, then there's simply no reason to think that the people who want "Turn XP Off" is seriously underrepresented among LOTRO's players.

Khafar

That may be Tiempko's assumption, but it is not mine. My assumption is that a lot of people eventually leave sooner than they otherwise would have because they levelled too fast, hit the cap, and got bored. Sure, they could have gone back and done grey quests; sure, they could have created (another) alt and done it all over again picking "different paths." But realistically, if they don't like the LI and Radiance grinds, odds are they quit instead.

Did they leave because there was no way to throttle XP? Not exactly. But would they have stayed longer (paying a subscription all the while) if they could have "taken more time to smell the roses?" Yes, I'm sure they would have.

Skirmishes are just going to exacerbate this problem, because they're yet another source of XP pushing characters rapidly toward the endgame grind. I can pretty much guarantee that I'll never use the skirmish system for my two "main" characters because they're already 42 and 39 and pretty much gain a level every time I sit down and play them for a few hours. I might use the skirmishes almost exclusively to level my second Hunter, but that depends very much on how much fun the skirmishes are. But frankly, I think this whole "rapid advancement" thing is going to come back and bite Turbine down the road.

Anything that allows players to slow down their advancement rate when they want to is a customer retention win in my book....

[Khafar]

The model I fear is expPack->levelRaise->exPack->levelRaise->exPack->levelRaise.

That's the norm for these games - I can only think of a few that didn't do that, and this one certainly is. Personally, I like it. I like the sense of progression I have when I'm gaining levels - more power, new skills, significant amounts of lower level content I can now solo . And weird as this may be, I actually like throwing away most of my old junk and replacing it with new stuff. I get bored if I ever feel like I'm "done" in almost any aspect of the game. The exception to that is Virtues. I detest grinding for Virtues on my alts (which is why most of them suck in that department). I'd give my eye teeth if I could spend all of the Destiny Points I've accumulated over 2.5 years on buying Virtues, just so I don't have to mess with those hideous slayer deeds again.

Khafar

[Beldacar]

I know a guy like that, but his reason is basically that MoM didn't give him anything compelling, and his highest level character is still only 43. Basically, he had no reason to buy MoM. I'll be surprised if he doesn't buy SoM, though, simply because he wants to do the skirmishes (which start well below his current level) and because it's dirt cheap at $20.

I'm a little curious about this "massive amount of level 50 content" in SoA, because I must have missed it. Yes, there's certainly more at 50 than at 40, but that's expected in a level-capped game. By the time Moria shipped, most players were getting pretty bored at the cap - when I did /who counts on Elendilmir, I often found that I couldn't get an accurate count for level 50 characters because Hunters and Champions had more than 100 level 50 characters apiece! Capped characters made up a large chunk of all characters playing, and it's not a bad assumption that a lot of the others were alts. That's why there was so much screaming for more high-level content, and excitement for an expansion that would raise the level cap and provide 10 new level's worth of content.

A year later, it seems like the number of people who don't want to progress past 50 would be even smaller. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I'd be very surprised if the percentage of the player population was very large. In any case, those people you're talking about still wouldn't skew the results of a LOTRO survey against the "Turn XP Off" feature. Sounds like they'd probably be supporters .

Khafar

Misty Mountains, Forochel, Angmar, Eregion

That's a lot of 40-50 content, not even counting the instances.

My Guardian is level 42 already and has never done a single quest in Forochel, Angmar, or Eregion. He's still got tons to do in Trollshaws, Evendim, even the North Downs. He hasn't even made any progress on Book 4. Note, "excess content" is not a problem; the inability to slow down and actually enjoy is. If I had an XP throttle right now, I can pretty much guarantee an extra two or three months on my subscription. As it stands, I'll probably be done a few weeks after hitting 65; I loathe Random Number Generator grinds.

I can't tell you how many other players are in the same situation as I am, but if every one of them represents an additional $30 of revenue in the next year, it doesn't take many to start adding to real money....

[henry316]

That's the norm for these games - I can only think of a few that didn't do that, and this one certainly is. Personally, I like it. I like the sense of progression I have when I'm gaining levels - more power, new skills, significant amounts of lower level content I can now solo . And weird as this may be, I actually like throwing away most of my old junk and replacing it with new stuff. I get bored if I ever feel like I'm "done" in almost any aspect of the game. The exception to that is Virtues. I detest grinding for Virtues on my alts (which is why most of them suck in that department). I'd give my eye teeth if I could spend all of the Destiny Points I've accumulated over 2.5 years on buying Virtues, just so I don't have to mess with those hideous slayer deeds again.

Khafar

Cool. Different playstyles for different folks. I'll never disagree with that so long as it doesn't really impact me too much (changing the core game, etc...). It is interesting to note things like Forochel, Goblintown, etc... Even at level cap and getting no more exp or real advancement, these places were *flooded* with folks going there for the adventure. Going there just for the fun of it. (Forochel is awesome) It is a compelling argument in contrast to the 'if I'm not getting xp and leveling the game is boring' type of viewpoint. (not saying it's yours, but it has showed up alot in this thread).

In my perfect world the level cap wouldn't have increased again for another zone or two. But it's pretty clear the path Turbine is taking now. We'll see how it goes. If it stays anything like the MoM->Lorien progression I prolly won't get anything after SoM.

Slayer deeds --> mostly agree. Would like a discount on alts...

[henry316]

I can't tell you how many other players are in the same situation as I am, but if every one of them represents an additional $30 of revenue in the next year, it doesn't take many to start adding to real money....

Right now, today. I would pay separately and extra for this feature without hesitation as a 'micro-transaction' or 'adventure pack'.

[Beldacar]

That's the norm for these games - I can only think of a few that didn't do that, and this one certainly is. Personally, I like it. I like the sense of progression I have when I'm gaining levels - more power, new skills, significant amounts of lower level content I can now solo . And weird as this may be, I actually like throwing away most of my old junk and replacing it with new stuff. I get bored if I ever feel like I'm "done" in almost any aspect of the game. The exception to that is Virtues. I detest grinding for Virtues on my alts (which is why most of them suck in that department). I'd give my eye teeth if I could spend all of the Destiny Points I've accumulated over 2.5 years on buying Virtues, just so I don't have to mess with those hideous slayer deeds again.

Khafar

Strangely enough, I'm almost exactly the opposite. I don't mind grinding for Virtues (or even Reputation, if Reputation gave any sort of worthwhile reward), as long as I don't have to do it when the mobs are grey.

Conversely, I loathe having to throw out hard-earned gear, especially if it looks better than whatever replaces it. At any given time, my vault usually contains 20-30 slots of crafting resources, a few pieces of potentially useful jewelry, and the rest is devoted to cosmetic items that would be hard to replace.

For me, my preferred gameplay consists of travelling in a relatively straight line toward a quest goal while gathering every resource and killing every single "threat" in my path. It's usually pretty easy to complete slayer quests that way. The main limitation generally ends up being inventory space for all the loot. If I didn't need the quests in order to complete those deeds, I'd probably skip them entirely. Heck, I managed to entertain myself for almost a month just running up and down the road between Buckland and Bree, gathering Barrow-iron and killing wolves / bears / brigands. Unfortunately, eventually I outlevelled the area :^P

[sickboy65]

There is a third option that I know actually has cost Turbine money. Friends of mine have not bought MoM due to wanting to experience the massive amount of level 50 content in the game. Some are lifers, some pay monthy, but none of them have bought any of the expansions. And the primary reasons are A. "there is so much SoA content I want to do, why do I need MoM at this time?" and B. "Because of A., if I buy MoM it will trivialize SoA content."

So while they don't fit the customers who leave model, or the customers this might attract model, they are a clear third group that is lost revenue directly related to accelerated leveling.

Your reason A is the real reason they didn't buy the expansion. Even if they could stop themselves from levelling, why would they waste money on level 50+ content if they didn't want to level past 50? That would be silly.

However, I think you have hit on the real reason you are unlikely to get the XP reducer you are asking for. Turbine doesn't want you to spend that much time on the old content that you've already paid for, they want you to get to the point where you will have to buy the new content in order to progress.

[ararax2]

You know there are soem really hard group quests that can be soloed now.

End the nightmare is very hard. 8 or so sigs 4-5 elites then 3 elite masters.

[Tiempko]

Your inherent assumption behind these comments is that "Turn XP Off" is so important to so many people that a) tons of people don't buy LOTRO because it does not have it, or B) tons of people have left LOTRO because it does not have it.

False.

As I have said a dozen times already, return on investment is a ratio of profit (return) to cost (investment). A low-cost change does not require 'tons of people' basing their decisions on a feature.

Part of my argument is that this should-be a low-cost change. Thus, a change that does not require 'tons of people' to be affected to produce a high return on investment. I can walk around the game and find hundreds of instances of items that cost just as much resources to create that have a significantly lower effect on customer retention. Chicken play, specific emotes and other animations, reputation items.

Remember, I am not talking about eliminating all of any category, only at looking at a subset comparable to the cost of creating an XP slider or toggle, and asking, "Does that have a greater effect on buying decisions than a slider or toggle would have?"

If you believe that improving customer retention has "very little use". . .

Customer retention is vital to the health of a company - which means that it is vital that a company handles customer retention issues inteligently.

(And, it really is a gross distortion of what I wrote to rewrite my claim that existing customer surveys are not useful in customer retention into the absurd claim that customer retention itself is not useful.)

You get the data you need to improve customer retention from exit surveys.

If nobody is leaving, then there is no customer retention problem, regardless of what any customer says in any current-customer survey.

If customers are leaving, you have a customer retention problem. However, you solve the problem by finding out why people are leaving, and you find that out by asking those who are leaving why they are doing so.

For example, if they are leaving because of poor customer service, then it does not matter that people in-game are complaining about a lack of content or are claming for improvements to the mail system. This data tells you to devote your resources to better customer service - not content or mail systems.

If they are leaving because they reached the end-game and had nothing to do, then one should put resources into creating more for end-game players to do. OR, depending on the specific problem, maybe create things that they enjoy doing that would slow the progress to end-game (which is where they quit) such as adding lower-level content and giving them the option to do that content while it is challenging and interesting.

If they left before they even reached end-game (which actually doesn't require a survey), then one needs to find out how to change mid-game content to make it more interesting.

It does not matter what existing players are complaining about if they are not leaving. It has no impact on customer retention unless customers are not being retained. If customers are not being retained, you do not find out why from existing customer surveys. You find out by exit surveys.

I am not saying that I know for a fact what these surveys will say.

I AM saying that I know for a fact that if decisions are being made on the basis of existing customer surveys, then one is not making decisions on the basis of the best data available.

[Tiempko]

Right now, today. I would pay separately and extra for this feature without hesitation as a 'micro-transaction' or 'adventure pack'.

Yep. I'd pay.

$49.95. Credit card is ready.

Another one for my wife.

I'm reluctant to speak for others I play with. I'm reluctant not to speak for them as well. Let's say, I can get another half-dozen copies sold at this price because of the things we have talked about doing together if only such a feature were available.

However, if I am paying for it, I would like a title to go with it.

"Meadowlarke Sweetweed: Middle Earth Explorer" or some such.

Something that I can advertise to other players that I am not here for the XP or to race through as quickly as possible, but here to explore and to 'smell the roses' as it were.

[Thane9]

Yep. I'd pay.

$49.95. Credit card is ready.

Another one for my wife.

I'm reluctant to speak for others I play with. I'm reluctant not to speak for them as well. Let's say, I can get another half-dozen copies sold at this price because of the things we have talked about doing together if only such a feature were available.

However, if I am paying for it, I would like a title to go with it.

"Meadowlarke Sweetweed: Middle Earth Explorer" or some such.

Something that I can advertise to other players that I am not here for the XP or to race through as quickly as possible, but here to explore and to 'smell the roses' as it were.

IMHO this post serves as a perfect example of how rare and unique your perspective is. But you can't see that because of the exact zealotry that it demonstrates.

[henry316]

However, I think you have hit on the real reason you are unlikely to get the XP reducer you are asking for. Turbine doesn't want you to spend that much time on the old content that you've already paid for, they want you to get to the point where you will have to buy the new content in order to progress.

If there was a feature to put leveling more in the player's control, they would have already bought the expansions. We're not hurting for money. As it stands with this group of players, not buying MoM+ is the only way they have to create a control for their characters.

[Thane9]

Part of my argument is that this should-be a low-cost change. Thus, a change that does not require 'tons of people' to be affected to produce a high return on investment. I can walk around the game and find hundreds of instances of items that cost just as much resources to create that have a significantly lower effect on customer retention. Chicken play, specific emotes and other animations, reputation items.
.

I find it amazing that you have such a grasp of the development of LotRO.

So you're a senior exec for Turbine? Because seriously, there are probably less than 100 people on the planet who know for FACT what you are asserting. And in all liklyhood ZERO of them can be found off Turbine's payroll.

And here's my proof:

IF this was an easy implementation, and IF there were all these paying customers who wanted it, Turbine would have already put it in.

Or do you honestly believe that YOUR uninformed opinion and made up assertions are actually better than the information that the business that MAKES the game has?

Not to mention, you've been told outright that this is NOT a low cost solution and that the amount of interest is NOT as high as your suggesting by a senior developer.

[Khafar]

A low-cost change does not require 'tons of people' basing their decisions on a feature.

True, but you keep on harping on the fact that they're not surveying non-LOTRO players in order to properly gauge interest in a "Turn XP Off" feature. What I'm saying is that since we apparently both agree that there aren't "tons of players" who will base their buy decision (or their decision to keep playing) on such a feature, there's also no reason to believe that surveys of non-LOTRO players would come out much differently than the current surveys.

However, you solve the problem by finding out why people are leaving, and you find that out by asking those who are leaving why they are doing so.

Exit surveys serve a useful purpose, but at that point it's too late. Most won't return. If you're smart, you'll try to identify (and start to address) such problems before tons of people leave the game. And to do that, you need to survey your current customers. I think that's going to be important for LOTRO in the next year. Games like WAR, Conan, and Aion were only minor threats to this one - they're just too different in focus, and two of them didn't launch well. I have a feeling that SW:TOR will be a much larger threat because it's a very popular IP, because lots of players love BioWare's games, because it's got a strong focus on story, and because it appears like it's going to support casual & solo gaming pretty well. If it has a good solid launch, LOTRO's going to want to have as many reasons as possible for people to stay here instead of leaving to try the new game in town.

Khafar

[Beldacar]

IMHO this post serves as a perfect example of how rare and unique your perspective is. But you can't see that because of the exact zealotry that it demonstrates.

At least the people in favor of this are willing to pay for it. Would you be willing to pay real cash for, say, a rune that increased the base DPS of your Legendary Items?

[Khafar]

At least the people in favor of this are willing to pay for it.

Please, nobody suggest a survey on that. If they were to send out a survey asking current players how much they'd be willing to pay to get a wide assortment of different features added to the game, the forums would melt down so badly I'd have to stop reading them for 6 months .

Khafar

[Beldacar]

Please, nobody suggest a survey on that. If they were to send out a survey asking current players how much they'd be willing to pay to get a wide assortment of different features added to the game, the forums would melt down so badly I'd have to stop reading them for 6 months .

Khafar

LOL. Yeah, I've noticed the community here seems to be allergic to microtransactions. They're perfectly happy to pay $20 for a single zone and a skirmish system, but if they're told they're getting that for FREE and have the option of paying $20 for a convenience feature (shared storage) they throw a fit. *shrug*

[Thane9]

At least the people in favor of this are willing to pay for it. Would you be willing to pay real cash for, say, a rune that increased the base DPS of your Legendary Items?

You're failing to miss the point.

If I said I was willing to cut off my left arm for PvMP development would that really add credibility to my argument? NO.

If I said I'd pay $99 would that make MY wishes more important than your $49 offer? NO.

The suggestion that you're willing to pay for a niche feature just points out how extreme YOU feel about the issue. It doesn't add any weight whatsoever to the cost/benefit analysis of actually developing such a feature.

[Beldacar]

You're failing to miss the point.

If I said I was willing to cut off my left arm for PvMP development would that really add credibility to my argument? NO.

If I said I'd pay $99 would that make MY wishes more important than your $49 offer? NO.

The suggestion that you're willing to pay for a niche feature just points out how extreme YOU feel about the issue. It doesn't add any weight whatsoever to the cost/benefit analysis of actually developing such a feature.

A. I'm not Tiempko. Tiempko offered to pay $49.95, I didn't. Me, I'm willing to pay for the feature by remaining a subscriber, which is something that won't happen for very long once I hit the level cap with a couple of characters.

B. Of course it adds weight to the cost/benefit analysis. They just need to find out how many people are willing to pay for the feature, if that's the path they choose to follow. Conversely, they can also quantify the amount of money they'll make from the customer retention increase they'll get.

C. We all know that =you= believe it's a niche feature. We all know that floon believes it's a niche feature. Fortunately, neither your opinion nor his is the final word on this topic.

[FoxFire]

Yep. I'd pay.

$49.95. Credit card is ready.

I'll go you one further. Being a software engineer myself, if Turbine were willing (and accepted my signing of an NDA), they can send me the relvant code, give me a week to examine and understand it, and another week to implement the feature, along with its various safeguards (and those are conservative estimates), and I will do the coding for them completely free of charge.

And heck, depending on how they implement CS tickets, I'll even field ALL tickets related to any 'accidental' misuse of the XP toggle. (I have a feeling this wouldn't take up much of my time).

Now of course, there are testing and other QA issues to consider when implementing such a feature, and outside of limiting testing on a private server, Turbine would still have to deal with that, however I will absolutely code this for them free of charge.

So there you go... The offer is on the table (you have my E-mail address).

[logothesia]

Ha! You guys are really funny. This thread has become infinitely more amusing!

[Tiempko]

IMHO this post serves as a perfect example of how rare and unique your perspective is. But you can't see that because of the exact zealotry that it demonstrates.

Here is another case in which a person claims to have supported a desired conclusion an inference which is entirely invalid.

Basic economics tells us that every good and service faces a demand curve, where quantity corresponds to price. In a vast majority of cases, the higher the price, the lower the number of people who will pay it.

In every single demand curve there is a point where, at a given price, the demand is very close to zero.

The existence of such a point on the demand curve tell us NOTHING about 'how rare and unique' a particular perspective is, because such a point ALWAYS exist on EVERY demand curve - food, clothing, medical care, computer games, labor, housing, you name it.