XP Reducer

[StavroMuellerBeta]

Now, the reason that I am not enthusiastic about a mentoring system is because I see it as taking orders of magnitude more effort than an XP toggle and, therefore, would be a substantially more difficult sell. One would have to come up with a proportionally greater use to justify the cost. I simply do not see enough demand to make it worth that much effort, so I suspect Turbine would never create such a thing.

In any development process, the features you design are based on what most people will use, what will attract the most customers. An XP toggle will attract few, and mainly only be used by alts. A mentoring system will encourage 60's to invite friends, so that they can quest together without the 60 having to learn a new class or 1-shot everything they see.

If I were a Turbine employee, told to come up with an idea to get new subscriptions, I know exactly which of those two options I would pick.

[henry316]

An XP toggle will attract few, and mainly only be used by alts.

I'd have used it on my main from around level 20 on. He's about 50% solo. All of my alts would have used it too, as they are leveling with friends (or trying to).

[Hassan_the_Assassin]

A bit grumpy today, are we?

Anyone who prefers a particular system is free to advocate it. If you think you have a good reason, you state it. This thread has run 50 pages, and yet has stayed on topic and without anyone resorting to name calling. (Well, mostly... There are a few obvious exceptions. )

I would prefer an XP toggle/wallet/whatever, and think there has been a few good arguments in favor of it. Perhaps someone on Turbine has read them and changed his mind, perhaps there is a snag we do not know about. It's not a game-breaker for me, but a nice feature that would make good game even better.

[FoxFire]

We have ALL tried to be accomodating and suggested a system that might take a little longer to get into the game, but would ultimately benefit more players. But they are just being selfish little children only concerned with their stupid little niche. I really hope this issue does cause them to leave.

Nobody in favor of the XP toggle is against a mentoring system. We are simply saying that it does NOT address several of our particular issues or concerns and also that it is something that would seem to be considerably more complex to implement, and therefore (unless they are already working on it) will take a very long time to ever see the light of day.

Now, if this full fledged mentoring system actually WILL contain the ability to halt (or reduce) XP gain as part of it, then yes that would solve the issues many of us are having. However, there has been no indication this will be the case (or really anything about what Turbine might be thinking for such a system).

I think you will notice that most of those who are asking for an XP toggle/throttle tend to have an attitude of adding MORE game play options to suite more gaming styles is a great thing, and we have no objections to any of them (so long as they don't unduly impact other players). This is far from being selfish.

[Forjo]

I'll say it again. Destiny perk.

Enough said...

-Forjo

[Sonzia]

I'll say it again. Destiny perk.

Enough said...

-Forjo

Yippee... "During The Lord of the Rings Online™ Welcome Back Week from November 12th through November 18th, you can play your old characters for free and get a +25% XP Bonus." I'm assuming that the +25% goes for everyone?

[StavroMuellerBeta]

Nobody in favor of the XP toggle is against a mentoring system. We are simply saying that it does NOT address several of our particular issues or concerns

A well-designed mentoring system would address the issue of outleveling content to fast, AND give you the ability to backtrack to experience new low-level content.

and also that it is something that would seem to be considerably more complex to implement, and therefore (unless they are already working on it) will take a very long time to ever see the light of day.

How many actual programmers with a working knowledge of this game have said that the XP toggle would be a simple solution?

With any major design change, you have to isolate the area, add the new functionality, internally test the system, alpha test the system, beta test the system, and pray that all those rounds of testing caught any seemingly unrelated bugs (see also; invisible wall in CD after Book 8). With a mentoring system, all the steps are same, the only real difference is the number of lines to add the new function.

Both solutions, regardless of size or complexity, would take 6-12 months to go live, solely due to the amount of testing and bug fixing that would go into it. When you're working with a piece of software as big as an MMO, used by tens of thousands of people at one time, there's no such thing as a quick fix.

I would like to see an XP toggle. However, given nearly identical development times, same-or-better features, and a solution usable by more than the 1% of subscribers who want to spend an extra day or two in the Shire, I'd support an actual mentoring system.

[Thoroval]

Yippee... "During The Lord of the Rings Online™ Welcome Back Week from November 12th through November 18th, you can play your old characters for free and get a +25% XP Bonus." I'm assuming that the +25% goes for everyone?

I personally don't level characters at all when additional bonus XP is active whether it's a Welcome Back Weekend or the Moors buff.
----------

As far as XP reducers versus mentoring system, I'd like to have an XP toggle, but I'm certainly not against a mentoring system and would probably use it if available. However, from my perspective they each address different sets of issues therefore both options should be available.

Nearly everyone in my kinship were in leveling groups at some point - some pairs, some trios and one group of 6. Most of these have broken up (except married couples) due to the XP issue since some folks accelerated ahead of the others due to deed completions and leveling crafting. This may be a minority of players, but it is a very real problem and it's causing some to leave the game.

It's a shame Turbine didn't put in the effort for the XP toggle (whether as a "skill" as I've suggested or a Destiny Perk) and include it in the Adventurer's Pack. It would've fit right in the Pack and I think helped sell more of them. I'm having a hard time getting some in my kin to even consider getting the Pack and several folks have also opted out of the expansion as well. The only kin members that have gotten the Pack are the lifers because it gets them the expansion for free. I don't know of any non-lifers that have purchased it.

An XP toggle would've been another positive selling point for the Pack. And let's face it. Two extra character slots and shared storage also only has niche appeal and not that many folks (in my experience) are willing to shell out the $20 for it unless it nets them a free expansion (like the lifers get).

I continue to hope that Turbine will include this option in a future update.

[bellack]

I want it all....I want it all....I WANT IT ALL...And Want it NOW....(guitar solo)

Sorry I was listening to Queen

[Yula_the_Mighty]

Yippee... "During The Lord of the Rings Online™ Welcome Back Week from November 12th through November 18th, you can play your old characters for free and get a +25% XP Bonus." I'm assuming that the +25% goes for everyone?

Yeah. It is a boost from the current +10% we have until the launch of the expansion.

[jeffnkim]

How about a Destiny Point Debuff that cost 1000 points and lasts for 1 hour which reduces your XP gain to 0%?

This seems simple enough since there is a Moor buff that gives everyone increased XP, it seems like it could be reversed.

Anyways, I don't want developers spending much time on this, but if a minority of people want this make them pay for it.

How about another Adventure Pack that costs $40-$100 and gives you a Cloak of Forgetfulness which negates all xp gain? The project would pay for itself.

[Dago_Red]

First of all, its the people who want to progress through the game slower who cause less work for the devs.

It's the people playing characters not levels, who are altaholics, and the kinds of folks who linger around in lower areas helping new players, crafting, RPing, and making the world more vibrant. They aren't constantly clamoring for new content.

If you give them the the tool they require to fully play the game that way, not only will they be satisfied for a LONG time, but you will foster a culture that encourages others to partake. That will enhance the entire game for everyone and not cost any time or money.... in fact, it should create money.

A slower player has heaps of content before her, and keeps subscribing. It is power players who run out of content and take breaks, leave the game for the newest xxx release, and generally whip and drive the content creation... content that isn't always that well thought out, because it is rushed out.

There will always be people moving towards level cap, and many rushing to it, and the developers will develop for them. There is no danger in them not, that is some kind of seriously paranoid mind thinking that. But a very minor investment in the rest of us will go a very very long way.... and will improve the entire game atmosphere to boot.

[Thane9]

First of all, its the people who want to progress through the game slower who cause less work for the devs.

It's the people playing characters not levels, who are altaholics, and the kinds of folks who linger around in lower areas helping new players, crafting, RPing, and making the world more vibrant. They aren't constantly clamoring for new content.

But you're missing one critical fact.

Development for the masses still has to happen. Just because some minority is staying behind and playing slower doesn't mitigate the amount of new development that is needed.

So it's NO savings whatsoever. In fact it's the extra expense of supporting a niche playstyle.

But a very minor investment in the rest of us will go a very very long way.... and will improve the entire game atmosphere to boot.

You're also refusing to admit that your assessment of that is a "minor investment" may very well be wrong. There are a LOT of "minor investments" that FAR MORE players would like to see made, but they've been prioritized by the developers.

I have NO problem with any niche player need being fulfilled. But get in line. The devs are prioritizing things based on cost/benefit analysis, and no matter how hard you, and 5 others, argue that analysis isn't supporting an XP switch anytime soon.

[henry316]

I have NO problem with any niche player need being fulfilled. But get in line.

We ARE in line. On with your day then.

[Elessar]

All of these arguments that are based on majority / minority claims seem way off base. These 'appeals to the majority', presented as being the overriding criteria for development, are total falacies. Using such a criteria leads to the following absurdities:

PvMP players, a minority, so lets not do anything for them.

Roll Players, a minority, so lets not do anything for them.

PowerLevelers, a minority, so lets not do anything for them.

(Insert Character Class or Race) is a minority, so lets not do anything for them.

Casual Players, certainly a majority in number but in terms of hours spent playing, perhaps we could categorize them as a minority. Lets not do anything for them.

Finally, Players who either A: like to do as much content as possible at level or B: players that would at least like to do the Epic Quest at level, certainly they are a minority, so lets not do anything for them

I would posit that there is no clearly definable majority of players whose playstyle can be categorized by absolutes. This game is made up of a confederacy of minorities. And there is certainly no right way to play the game, disregarding exploit abuses.

And for everyone who keeps going on about how significant this change would be from a code standpoint, I still can't fathom these apparently huge difficulties. The arguments come across like technical Straw Men. All the mechanics for exp gain are already built. All you have to do is allow the player to chose to multiply the exp gained by a figure less than or equal to 1. The math on that is absolutely simple. There are already mechanism in the game that can be used to warn players when they are not receiving 100% exp income. The only UI you would need to build is a selection pop up that lets you set the %. Not difficult at all. Its pretty clear the Turbine Devs have mastered menu selection pop ups / interfaces. If you want, you can use the alert panel to always show the % of exp you are getting. All you need to do is build an icon that shows the #. (Works just like the frame rate icon), and any time someone is generating less than 100%, the alert is always active. There have been some excellent examples of how to manage potential issues that are simple, and fairly elegant. (Every time you log you are defaulted to 100%, and you have to actively go in and reset the exp. Simple, elegant, easy.) Let the Player be responsible. (Crazy idea I know, but by defaulting at log in to 100%, you’ve already eliminated any credible premise for the player to say... oh I forgot to change it.)

And the argument about excessive customer service requests I think is fairly weak. I'm not saying they wont be generated, but if you clearly state in the selection interface that the player is responsible for managing their exp, and that request to correct exp due to user selection error will not be replied to. Done. When CS gets these request they can respond with a generic reply that offers game play solutions, or not respond at all based on the warning.

And then there is the Mentor system vs Exp Reducer debate. This is apples to oranges. (Both fruit, both round, both grow on trees, so they are similar in this regard, but still enough difference that when you have an apple, and want an orange, you can’t help but be disappointed.) The Exp Reducer fulfills a purpose that is not the same as the Mentor system. There have been multiple clear examples of how it differs. Each system would be useful, and appreciated by a lot of players. (The key element being that the exp reducer would help groups where players don’t all have the same amount of play time to stay more closely in line. Your not de-leveling a high level toon, your trying to keep your low level characters at parity while moving up a s group. It’s not really something a Mentor system would do.) Somehow an argument of mutual exclusivity has come about here, that it must be one or the other, based on scarcity. It seems pretty clear to me that a Mentor system despite what floon has said, is a whole lot more complex, and provides a different level of options. Resetting stats, levels, item stats, and adjusting exp gain, by the simple quantity of values that would need to be touched, and then accurately resetting them, along with any system that involves resetting quests so they can be redone, appears to me, and I would think to anyone, to be much more involved than what is being requested by an XP reducer.

And as so many have already pointed out, this functionality would only increase the potential for game enjoyment. Any functionality that allows players to gain greater enjoyment of the game, and has virtually no impact on any other players enjoyment, must surely be seen as a good thing. It will keep groups together, it will allow for greater RP, it will allow players to enjoy more content, it will allow players to play at the challenge level they enjoy best. So many useful things that this application could do. It will serve to keep people interested in the game. Whether you are a lifer or a month to month, keeping people active in the game, I would think, is a highly valued goal for Turbine. Turbine has done such a great job trying to empower and promote a wide variety of different play styles, and for the most part I think they have listened to their audience. (Again, a confederacy of minorities.) It's a shame that this option, which has such a high potential to satisfy interested customers, is apparently off the table.

[Yula_the_Mighty]

Elessar,

Your point about it not be a terribly big feature is surely correct. Having worked for over 20 years in software development, there is never enough staff resources to do get these features done. There always dozens, hundreds or thousands of these requests laying in the in box. The decision makers can only take a certain number of these out of the job jar and get them done.

Features like this that cross multiple groups are never easy to get approved tested and done. One group typically is overwhelmed with work for each update can not do their part. They often get put off because of the overhead cost. Some one has to bird dog the developers:

1) UI developer
2) Core server software developer
3) Message catalog coordinator for client and server messages
4) The message implementation developer
5) The character object developer for the client
6) The character object developer for the server
7) The character object developer for the database server.
8) The character creator developer that has the set the default values.
9) The developer that has to write the conversion script to update all saved characters on the database server.

Just thinking at my PC, you have 10 people involved plus the design spec writer, the test organization and so on. I am sure I forgot some people.

Other features are a lot simpler. For example, the auto complete mail feature. That is client side only. Since it pulls from existing data, it is mostly a UI feature. I am thinking one group - UI development - one developer out of that group.

You use the UI long enough. It is easy to find examples where, Turbine did not do a full fledged UI feature. They did not bother with steps 2-4 or 6-9. They make you select the option new in the UI every session. It drives me nuts at the auction hall that Turbine only had the resources to implement client side functionality. You have to set 24 hour auctions every time you log in.

[Elessar]

Elessar,

Your point about it not be a terribly big feature is surely correct. Having worked for over 20 years in software development, there is never enough staff resources to do get these features done. There always dozens, hundreds or thousands of these requests laying in the in box. The decision makers can only take a certain number of these out of the job jar and get them done.

Features like this that cross multiple groups are never easy to get approved tested and done. One group typically is overwhelmed with work for each update can not do their part. They often get put off because of the overhead cost. Some one has to bird dog the developers:

1) UI developer
2) Core server software developer
3) Message catalog coordinator for client and server messages
4) The message implementation developer
5) The character object developer for the client
6) The character object developer for the server
7) The character object developer for the database server.
8) The character creator developer that has the set the default values.
9) The developer that has to write the conversion script to update all saved characters on the database server.

Just thinking at my PC, you have 10 people involved plus the design spec writer, the test organization and so on. I am sure I forgot some people.

Other features are a lot simpler. For example, the auto complete mail feature. That is client side only. Since it pulls from existing data, it is mostly a UI feature. I am thinking one group - UI development - one developer out of that group.

"It is a strange fate we should suffer so much fear and doubt… over so small a thing. Such a little thing."

Yula-

Thanks for your attention to detail, and the thorough explanation of process. With that...

I am not too familiar with server based applications, yet still I can't see how it needs to cross over through so many groups. UI obviously because of selection and display elements. But your only talking about modifying code at 2 events. Exp calculates at Mob kill and Quest completion events. Your adding a multiplier to that base number. The base numbers dont change. There's nothing that is retroactive, you dont need to modify an previous character exp gain. Everything else seems like institutional hang ups.

I'm not saying its not work. But I'm having trouble with seeing how it would be so difficult to implement. (I work with scorecards on shared drive systems, definitely not the level you are at, but modifying multipliers across data entry points and display points is very simple for me. Certainly not the best comparison but its what I have to work with. However, I am all too familiar with bureaucratic / institutional slow down.) But I will defer to your expertise, as I do think you are a pretty reasonable person.

If there is to be any hope for this feature I think we really need to get a dev on board who has both the will and conviction to see it through. That’s usually how things get changed where I work. Not sure how to do that but "there is always hope."

[FoxFire]

740+ Posts!

It's a good thing this debate isn't going on in the General Discussion forums.

This thread would be 10 times longer.

[Harperelle]

Let's just agree that this is a relatively small feature to implement, but no feature is trivial. Those of us in the tech industry know this lesson well. No feature is for free. There's always more on your plate than you have time to address.

So in short--no feature is free, no feature is trivial. But some features are easier than others. Extending the mechanics of an existing feature is about as easy as it gets. Find me a meaningful feature that is easier than changing the existing occasional +25% XP bonus to a -99% XP bonus that is keyed off a player toggle. As I see it broken down:

1) New radio button in options (small effort, involve UI team--probably already a way to do this easily)
2) Code to change XP bonus variable. (medium effort because code must be understood before changed)
3) Test that -XP bonus does not break other things. (Depends on how thoroughly you test it)

This is not a 10 person project. Yula, that's the sort of breakdown you show management when you don't want to do something. We all know its easier than that. But we all know its non-trivial as well.

In short, let's be honest about the work involved here. Its easier than most things, but harder than not doing it at all. For an overstretched programming team, these are the sort of projects that end up not getting implemented.

--Harperella

[Tiempko]

All of these arguments that are based on majority / minority claims seem way off base. These 'appeals to the majority', presented as being the overriding criteria for development, are total falacies.

It is actually worse than you painted it, Elessar.

The business world does not pay attention to majorities or minorities at all.

My preferred soft drink is cherry flavored diet Dr. Pepper. Think about the market share for that product. Yet, there it is, on the market, for me to buy. That it is purchased by a fraction of a percentage of softdrink drinkers is not important. The income income generated by creating the product exceeds the cost by a sufficiently high margin.

The vast majority of records, books, and movies appeal to only a small minority of the market. Yet, they are made.

In fact, only a minority of people in the world are MMO players. Yet, MMOs get built - because it does not matter that MMOs appeal to a small percentage of the overall population. That small percentage has enough money to spend to more than cover the costs.

So, do not talk to me about percentages. Whole numbers is what matters.

[Khafar]

The business world does not pay attention to majorities or minorities at all.

You obviously don't do software development. It's true that we care about ROI, and smaller investment means smaller returns are acceptable. However, unless we think there's a non-trivial "return" (in absolute terms), we're not likely to bother with many small enhancements. It's simply a matter of having hundreds of possibilities on what we can work on, limited resources, and a desire to get the most from what we spend that time on.

I work on a project with ~50 people, and we literally have hundreds of enhancement requests in our queue. Each release, we have a set of primary tasks we're working on to get us where we want to go - largish features, often that will help set us apart from our competition or provide some great new feature for our customers. We allocate some time to do smaller enhancements too, but that time is limited, and in effect those enhancements are competing with each other for limited development time.

Some of them never seem to rise high enough in the priority list to get done. Sometimes, multiple enhancements in a single area are done simply because the whole of those changes is worth more than the sum of the parts - the combination can significantly improve the user experience in some area of the product. I'm working on a set of those right now (to improve workflow for configuring our systems). But spending time on those means I'm not spending time on lots of other things. The customers who want those other enhancements are going to have to wait until a later release, and some of them may never get done.

Everyone agrees that your request "isn't the biggest task". The question is: how many customers want it? And how important is it to them compared with other features that could be done? If the answer to that first question is really small, don't hold your breath to see it anytime soon, even if it's really important to a few. But if their marketing surveys and such show that it's becoming more important to more people - maybe it will be done at some point.

Khafar

[henry316]

You obviously don't do software development. It's true that we care about ROI, and smaller investment means smaller returns are acceptable. However, unless we think there's a non-trivial "return" (in absolute terms), we're not likely to bother with many small enhancements. It's simply a matter of having hundreds of possibilities on what we can work on, limited resources, and a desire to get the most from what we spend that time on.

I work on a project with ~50 people, and we literally have hundreds of enhancement requests in our queue. Each release, we have a set of primary tasks we're working on to get us where we want to go - largish features, often that will help set us apart from our competition or provide some great new feature for our customers. We allocate some time to do smaller enhancements too, but that time is limited, and in effect those enhancements are competing with each other for limited development time.

Some of them never seem to rise high enough in the priority list to get done. Sometimes, multiple enhancements in a single area are done simply because the whole of those changes is worth more than the sum of the parts - the combination can significantly improve the user experience in some area of the product. I'm working on a set of those right now (to improve workflow for configuring our systems). But spending time on those means I'm not spending time on lots of other things. The customers who want those other enhancements are going to have to wait until a later release, and some of them may never get done.

Everyone agrees that your request "isn't the biggest task". The question is: how many customers want it? And how important is it to them compared with other features that could be done? If the answer to that first question is really small, don't hold your breath to see it anytime soon, even if it's really important to a few. But if their marketing surveys and such show that it's becoming more important to more people - maybe it will be done at some point.

Khafar

Well said.

/wants XP throttle of some kind.

[Tiempko]

Khafar:

I find it strange that you begin by quoting a statement of mine as if to refute it, then you end up repeating exactly what I said.

The point is that PERCENTAGE of customers who base a purchase decision on a particular feature is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of payments that the company receives (times the value of each payment) is high enough to provide a high return on investment. The lower the cost, the lower the absolute number has to be to provide a decent return on investment on that cost.

So, after saying, "You obviously don't do software development," you repeat exactly what I said when you wrote:

The question is: how many customers want it? And how important is it to them compared with other features that could be done?

- Correction 1: "compared with other features that could be done with the same amount of investment." A feature that requires 100 times as much of an investment to create, test, and implement has to affect the purchase decision of 100 times as many people in order to justify the higher costs.

- Correction 2: It is not the number of people who want a particular change that matters. It is the number of people who would base a purchase decision on a particular feature. A feature that 1000 times as many people want, but which none will base a purchase decision on is, in a business sense, worthless compared to a feature that just 1 person wants to a degree that the effect on his game experience is enough to determine whether he pays (or continues to pay) to cross the gate.

It is difficult to imagine a feature that 1000 players want but NONE of them will base a purchase decision on. However, the ability to imagine such a case does not change the fact that resources should be allocated according to the effect of a feature on number of gate-crossings, not just "want".

People can debate percentages if they find it entertaining to do so, but that variable is not a part of the return-on-investment equation.

People can also debate how many people want a feature, or will use it, but those variables do not appear in the ROI formula either.

That equation is:

(((Change in # of gate crossings * revenue/crossing) - cost)/cost) * 100%

This is the number to use when comparing an XP reducer to any other investment.

Also, another variable that is not included in the ROI formula is "# of people.' The variable that IS included is "# of gate crossings". A single customer who signs up, races to end game, plays the same end-game content for a couple of months, then leaves is responsible for fewer gate-crossings than the person who signs up, travels sloooowly to end game over the course of a couple of years, and heads off to every corner of the world along the way.

[Celt_Ainvar]

Let take my family My Nephew, His Dad, Mom, Grandma and Me Play Wizard101 That 5 People one Online game. Depending on the age the Nephew he not going to post on fourm. But he like to talk to people all over the world. He has my sister Mouth. They both need a phone implant. He on the phone untel it dies. A 7 Year old Nephew saying Oh gezz the phone dying I have to go.

No My family only play Wizard101 the words on lotro game are not made for a Child. Wizard101 block bad words. But it great for a children.

Yes my sister get Insulted by the phone Implant joke. But it seem she was born with the phone on her head haha.

The point is One person from each family is posting on here Not all of them. Have your whole family post on here. It will give a big boast to this tread.

[FoxFire]

So... what you are saying is that only a small percentage of the people who ACTUALLY would like to see this feature actually post on these forums. I'm sure you are correct in that regard.

I've brought up this subject in in-game chat and the majority of respondents were in favor of such an option. So... I think the player base which would like to see this are less prone to visiting and posting in the forums.