XP Reducer

**TheREALify** · Nov 12 2010, 10:03 AM

First of all, I should say that I have no real interest in an XP reducing option one way or the other. In other words, I'm neither for or against it (though I don't see the harm in adding more options - even if it's one I wouldn't personally use).

That being said, I am interested to hear the reactions from the proponents of XP reduction to the newest Developer Diary regarding Tasks. Apparently, Tasks are one more method of gaining additional XP through the 8 - 50 level range. In the somewhat lengthy Tasks Discussion Thread many players have said that there are ample leveling opportunities within this range and that adding additional content specifically for this range is simply overkill.

It's also been postulated, in the discussion thread, that Turbine has a vested interest in seeing players level as quickly as possible, especially since the advent of f2p. The quicker a f2p'er levels up the more quest packs they'll need to buy. The more quest packs they buy the more Turbine Points they'll spend. The more Turbine Points they spend the more likely it is that they'll purchase additional Turbine Points with cash. This, to me, seems a logical and likely scenario.

Providing the above scenario is accurate, how do you think this development affects the odds that Turbine will acquiesce and include the XP reducing option that has been requested for so long?

Personally, I think you (XP reduction proponents) will go a lot farther if you can develop an idea by which Turbine will make just as much cash from you slowing down your leveling as they would from the average f2p'er leveling at an average rate. For instance, if the XP reduction were something with a temporary effect that you had to purchase from the store - repeatedly. Like a one-time-use scroll that reduces (or stops) XP by some degree for a limited period of time. I'm not trying to be negative (or drain your bank account), I just think that's about your only chance at selling this idea to Turbine - show them the money!

PS. Forgive me if this idea has already been put forth. I'm apologize, but I didn't read every post in this thread before making my own. :P

**FoxFire** · Nov 12 2010, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by TheREALify

It's also been postulated, in the discussion thread, that Turbine has a vested interest in seeing players level as quickly as possible, especially since the advent of f2p. The quicker a f2p'er levels up the more quest packs they'll need to buy. The more quest packs they buy the more Turbine Points they'll spend. The more Turbine Points they spend the more likely it is that they'll purchase additional Turbine Points with cash. This, to me, seems a logical and likely scenario.

Providing the above scenario is accurate, how do you think this development affects the odds that Turbine will acquiesce and include the XP reducing option that has been requested for so long?

I don't think that's an accurate calculation for Turbine to make.

First, there will not be that large a portion of the population that will purposely slow down their leveling rate. However, that said, having a small portion that DOES do that has a variety of advantages to the community (not only those who choose to slow their leveling but also to every other player who does not), and this can help offset the deleterious effects on the game of having every player rocket-sledded to level cap.

Secondly, they do sell a variety of consumables in the Store. Those players who might spend more time at lower levels presumably will still spend on various consumables that are relevant to the level range they are in. And ultimately may spend more time in the game over-all than someone who finds themselves at level-cap in a month.

Thirdly, there are potential players who may be drawn to the game, simply by providing the ability to regulate one's own leveling rate. These are new customers that Turbine might not otherwise gain or retain.

Ultimately Turbine gains more by keeping players in the game longer; as long as possible. The best way to do that is to cater to as my play-styles as possible.

**Darmokk** · Dec 20 2010, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by floon

I wasn't being very serious. And yes, in part because I 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, or don't notice, or they knew it was on but meant to turn it off before turning this one quest in, or whatever. Or they'll clean out all the available white and yellow and orange quests at their stalled level, decide they want to start advancing again, and discover that there's no XP to be earned apart from the mother of all mob grinds to get moving again. 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.

Just reset it on logout.

Originally Posted by floon

So many content arcs are absolutely designed around the idea that the characters participating are advancing in level through the arc: many quest lines just won't be able to be finished.

We don't have other game systems that really imply (if not require) something like this. Other games that have this do. It's not because this is a hugely popular feature, intrinsic to the nature of MMOs, that causes other games implement this. It's because they have game systems that will not see much use unless they have it.

From your perspective: it doesn't go backwards, and you'll really want it to, if you're serious about all the reasons for wanting the system. 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. If you're playing good Samaritan for random folks, this helps you a tiny sliver of the time (you have to be reasonably matched up to be a decent help-meet).

Are the problems with shutting off XP fixable? Sure, but then it's not nearly as "free" a feature: addressing the issues means expanding it with more code and UIs and design. It becomes a full-fledged feature. That's when it gets into the, "Why are we spending so much time putting lipstick on this pig?" area, when what we really should have done is, for a little more effort, a real mentoring system.

If you really want to address the litany of reasons espoused, a mentoring system does it. It handles all the social reasons for wanting this. The challenge level issue for solo players is not answered by this, and that's where I would say go fight on-level stuff or roll an alt. Alts are fun. Or pull out your butterknife and have at it.

Why would you be able to just let us spend destiny points on lower XP gain the same way that you let us spend them on higher XP gain?

It would turn itself back off automatically and the UI work would be minimal since you already have everything and just need to flip a sign.

**Khafar** · Dec 20 2010, 04:46 PM

floon hasn't even been on this project for a year, and as Art Director he never made these decisions anyway - he just relayed why they didn't do it a few years back. There are almost certainly some new people making the decisions now, and if they can get some objective data to back up the requests from the forum... I suspect they can be persuaded to put it in.

I'm not so sure about spending either Destiny Points or Turbine Points for a pure XP attenuator though - that would virtually guarantee that a minimum set of players would actually use it. I'd like to see them do one of two things:

Free "XP Off" toggle in the UI. The whole "getting stuck without content" argument pretty much went out the window with the advent of skirmishes, so I wouldn't even worry about that anymore. OR...
0-110% XP slider for 495 TP per account. I think a high majority of those buying it would do so for the 110% setting, but that would help cover any development costs for everyone who wanted to change the default setting. And from Turbine's point of view, it should be easy money, offering a great ROI on the development & testing costs.

Khafar

**Darmokk** · Dec 20 2010, 06:10 PM

Don't get me wrong. I would prefer a plain "XP off" toggle that resets itself on logout.

I was just bringing up the destiny points example to justify that it cannot be that hard to code. They already have the same thing with the sign reversed. It does everything, including a timed/logout reset. The best of all solutions would be if we could earn destiny points for the lower XP.

BTW, I found another reason why I want this: my level 10 character that is alone on that server leveled from 10 to 15 almost exclusively on the festival (and that's just one run through the 30 quest deed to get the rich people's set). So far so good, but it doesn't have any armour or weapons appropriate for level 15. So doing level-appropriate quests now is rather impossible. But doing easier quests gets you useless rewards. Plus tasks boards are disabled etc. Being out of sync with level on one hand and deeds and equipment on the other hand is not a good thing.

It would have been much better if I could have turned off XP gain during the festival.

**Tiempko** · Dec 21 2010, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Khafar

Ss Art Director [Floon] never made these decisions anyway - he just relayed why they didn't do it a few years back.

No. Floon relayed why he is personally against a method to stop or slow XP gain.

Notice the use of the personal pronound 'I' as in I don't regard this as a serious feature suggestion.

Floon believes that nobody actually wants a way to stop or slow XP. He thinks that those of us who say we want it are liars (or 'not serious' - as in 'having a bit of fun at Turbine's expense') or fools who are too stupid to realize than an XP toggle will not actually allow us to get more enjoyment of the game.

Note Floon's statement, "From your perspective: it doesn't go backwards, and you'll really want it to."

Translate: "You are either a liar or a fool if you say that an XP reducer will do what you really want it to do."

Well, this is utterly false. Floon wants a system that would allow it to go backwards, and so he insists that we do as well.

The truth of the matter is that I want to roleplay a character having an adventure. I can't do so because the story is too boring - things get too easily too quickly. It's like the Lord of the Rings story written so that Aragorn one-shots everything straight up to Mordor then has Frodo toss the ring into the volcano. It's BORING!

However, adventure stories do not go backwards. If Turbine adds more quests to the Shire while my character is away, that's just too bad. Those quests are for the next character in the next adventure, not for this character.

This relates to his statement: So many content arcs are absolutely designed around the idea that the characters participating are advancing in level through the arc: many quest lines just won't be able to be finished.

Well, yes, there are quest arcs that require advancing from 32nd level to 35th level (for example) as you go through the arc.

Unfortunately, your character will be pushed to 38th level before you even see that arc, and (if you spend any time on skirmishes or deeds or helping your friends) will be 43rd level by the time you finish it.

I would like the option of actually STARTING that quest arc at 32nd level and ending it at 35th (in spite of the fact that I may use my character elsewhere in the mean time).

In fact, what I really want is to start the quest arc at 27th level and finish it at 30th level because I have found that most of Turbine's quest arcs lack a real sense of adventure unless I am four or five levels below the content.

But, I forget. I do not know what I REALLY want. I must consult with Floon who will tell me.

If you really want to address the litany of reasons espoused, a mentoring system does it. It handles all the social reasons for wanting this. The challenge level issue for solo players is not answered by this, and that's where I would say go fight on-level stuff or roll an alt. Alts are fun. Or pull out your butterknife and have at it.

He's dead wrong. A mentoring system handles the reasons he assigned to me, not the reasons I actually gave.

My interests are properly handled with an XP toggle.

However, I'm not stopping Turbine from putting in a mentoring system. If it would allow me to use it as an XP toggle, I would use it that way. But I think it would require orders of magnitude more work.

With an XP toggle, you simply type "\XP off" in the chat box and you quit levelling, until you type "\XP on" (the same way that you type "\RP On" to mark your character as "roleplaying" and "\RP Off" to turn it off.)

This value stored on the computer as either a "1" (XP ON) or a 0 (XP OFF)

It defaults to a "1" on login.

And there is a line of code added to the program that says, "XP EARNED = XP EARNED * XP TOGGLE"

Which becomes a 0 if XP TOGGLE = OFF, and XP EARNED if XP TOGGLE = ON.

**Khafar** · Dec 21 2010, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Tiempko

No. Floon relayed why he is personally against a method to stop or slow XP gain.

Notice the use of the personal pronound 'I' as in I don't regard this as a serious feature suggestion.

Also notice the pronoun "our" as in "It has so many flaws, both from your perspective and from ours" or "From our perspective: it will be a call driver for CS, we know that." Historically, floon's been pretty careful to offer disclaimers when he's offering just his own personal opinions, so by using "our" he's likely relaying discussions from the game systems people - at least for those specific statements.

However, as I pointed out, that whole line of argument is now much diminished. They don't need to worry so much about "stranding" anyone without content (or even turning the toggle off automatically) since skirmishes have been added. If you get "stuck", you can easily get to the next level (or two) by doing some skirmishes for a few days.

In addition, the arguments for having an XP toggle or slider are strengthened by the various leveling speed jumps that have been added since this thread was first posted. It's time for them to ask their players if they'd be interested in this again, IMO.

Khafar

**Thoroval** · Dec 21 2010, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Khafar

However, as I pointed out, that whole line of argument is now much diminished. They don't need to worry so much about "stranding" anyone without content (or even turning the toggle off automatically) since skirmishes have been added. If you get "stuck", you can easily get to the next level (or two) by doing some skirmishes for a few days.

In my view, the recent addition of Tasks further invalidates any argument about getting "stuck" without content for leveling, at least to about level 50. In conjuction with skirmishes, player controlled XP reduction is now more viable than ever. I can only hope that certain Devs take an interest in this idea, because then I know it has a chance. Otherwise... I'm not holding my breath.

**Munitis** · Dec 21 2010, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by floon

The challenge level issue for solo players is not answered by this, and that's where I would say go fight on-level stuff or roll an alt. Alts are fun. Or pull out your butterknife and have at it.

Seriously?!
I find this answer really rude. Someone forgot how to speak with customers it seems.
Really great job ! Congtatulations.

**hucklebarry** · Dec 21 2010, 03:20 PM

I would tend to agree with many of the assumptions against the XP reducer. Particularly that MANY would not use it. However, I still believe that people asking for it should get it if its technically possible/plausible. I would never have considered using such a thing until I gained 3 levels doing parts of the winter festival. While not an enormous thing... yellow quests from the land I am currently questing just turned Dark blue because I visited winter home for 12 minutes.

Still, I feel like asking for an XP reducer is really asking for the wrong solution to the wrong problem. Advancement needs to slow. It doesn't need to slow as much as I want it to, but it needs to slow to an average so that more sense can be made of all the advancement that is taking place. Festival quests should not grant XP. Simple solutions to a problem everyone seems to be feeling. Since FASTER advancement is given as an option... it seems that normal advancement could slow down and the OPTIONAL enhancements could be tweaked to make those happy that want a speedy leveling process. We should not have to slow down our progression, but those wanting a faster progression should have it available.

Just my 2 cents. Slow down the game, but offer speedy options for those that want it.

**Tiempko** · Dec 21 2010, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Khafar

They don't need to worry so much about "stranding" anyone without content (or even turning the toggle off automatically) since skirmishes have been added. If you get "stuck", you can easily get to the next level (or two) by doing some skirmishes for a few days.Khafar

If I may identify just a few issues with the "support call" argument.

(1) Nobody is going to use it but everybody will be calling for help after having used it. I sense some incoherence in that position - the type one commonly finds when people are fishing for excuses.

(2) We must assume that the type of player who will turn off XP is a type of person who would view himself as being "stuck". Not withstanding skirmishes and tasks, other ways to gain XP include answering LFF calls, finishing deeds, harvesting crafting materials, and inventing one's own quests (e.g., "I am going to patrol the road from the Forsaken Inn to Ost Guruth and make sure it is clear of bandits.")

(3) Legendary Items have a "disable XP" feature. How many calls has it generated?

(4) How many people have (a) Deconstructed the wrong AI, (b) discarded an item they wanted to keep, (c) vendored an item they wanted to keep, (d) sold something on the Auction House for 10 sp that they wanted to sell for 10 GP, (e) purchased a stack of stuff they did not want, (f) hit "buyout" in the auction house for something they only wanted to bid for, (g) puchased something unsuitable for their class or that did not have the qualities they thought it did . . . etc . . . etc . . . etc. And all of these features with their wide array of potential errors are used by everybody. Yet, Turbine includes them in the game. Obviously, the possibility of user error is only a show-stopper when somebody wants it to see it as a show-stopper.

Originally Posted by hucklebarry

I would tend to agree with many of the assumptions against the XP reducer. Particularly that MANY would not use it.

Many people do not use the chicken quests, or the "fireflies" you can purchase in the Matham house, or the frying pan. Many of the emotes are used very infrequently. The same is true of the flowers people get when they are trying to collect ingredients for dyes. The vast majority of cosmetic items are used by only a handful of players from rabbit masks to patched woodworker's backpacks.

Most of the quest rewards people get immediately get sold to the nearest vendor. Many do not use them.

Even those few people who use these things would not see the quality of the game as being sufficiently diminished by their absence.

Yet, Turbine found the time and resources to build them and put them in the game.

So, how about adding something that few people will use, but those who use it will see it as making a significant difference to the quality of the game?

We can also speak of whole regions of content that Turbine spent a huge amount of effort building that many currently do not use because Turbine speed-levels them past the content. Many of us who want this feature wish to have it so that we can actually use some of the things that people currently ignore.

**Darmokk** · Dec 21 2010, 06:38 PM

There's a 58 page thread right here.

Can't be that rare a concern

**hucklebarry** · Dec 22 2010, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Tiempko

Yet, Turbine found the time and resources to build them and put them in the game.

So, how about adding something that few people will use, but those who use it will see it as making a significant difference to the quality of the game?

Its a shame you didn't see the part of my post where I said..

"However, I still believe that people asking for it should get it if its technically possible/plausible."

It followed the period after you quit reading

**Tiempko** · Dec 22 2010, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by hucklebarry

Its a shame you didn't see the part of my post where I said..

"However, I still believe that people asking for it should get it if its technically possible/plausible."

It followed the period after you quit reading

I saw it.

But I wasn't writing a private message to you. I was posting a public message on a public bulletin board where many readers would see your claim that "many would not use it" as a reason to oppose the feature, and I posted a public comment for those who had that attitude.

**Portaljacker** · Dec 22 2010, 11:36 AM

I have a small Kinship of 8 people none of us are hardcore gamers anymore. All of us are adults with jobs and have VIP accounts. We are all having to fight tooth and nail not to rocket level past so many interesting areas and quests. Having to run away from trivial fights or not doing skirmishes just to milk a little more time out of a level or area or item is getting tiresome.

We are all experienced gamers we've all done the power gamer thing both pve and pvp. None of us are in the frame of mind to 'WIN" the game, we just want to enjoy it. Every other day though it seems you get strapped to the rested exp rocket sled and away you go at warp speed toward end game. None of us are in a hurry all of us are playing three toons and all of us are looking for the next game because at this rate the ride will be over in a blink. Not everyone who plays the game is an ADD, Red Bull/Monster pounding lifeless "I need to "Winzor teh game!" basement dweller. Some of us are looking for a slower ride and more value for our $ and the longer we're around the longer our $ are too.

A simple slider or switch will keep us here for a long time.

**Khafar** · Dec 22 2010, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Munitis

Someone forgot how to speak with customers it seems.

Bluntness is vastly better than silence, and (in part) because players can be so whiny and oversensitive, the vast majority of game developers won't say anything in public at all. Instead, they'll post in places like NDA programs, where the interactions tend to be far more on-point and constructive, and where problem children can be summarily ejected. They're developers, and most are not well-versed in weasel words and diplomacy. Many who once posted on public forums have stopped over the years, burned out by the interaction.

No, I absolutely don't want for developers like floon or Jason Booth (back when he worked at Turbine) to be "filtered" by marketing or customer relations. Give it to us straight up, please, even if some people find it "rude". We'll get better information that way, in the long run, and more developer interaction. We're not all 12 year olds with tender feelings, easily bruised.

Khafar

**Carilonus** · Dec 22 2010, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Khafar

Bluntness is vastly better than silence, and (in part) because players can be so whiny and oversensitive, the vast majority of game developers won't say anything in public at all. Instead, they'll post in places like NDA programs, where the interactions tend to be far more on-point and constructive, and where problem children can be summarily ejected. They're developers, and most are not well-versed in weasel words and diplomacy. Many who once posted on public forums have stopped over the years, burned out by the interaction.

No, I absolutely don't want for developers like floon or Jason Booth (back when he worked at Turbine) to be "filtered" by marketing or customer relations. Give it to us straight up, please, even if some people find it "rude". We'll get better information that way, in the long run, and more developer interaction. We're not all 12 year olds with tender feelings, easily bruised.

Khafar

And to be honest about it, if it weren't for the absolutely contemptible manner in which developers were disparaged in many of the posts about this topic, floon probably would have had a much different manner. He doesn't always Floon people.

**FoxFire** · Dec 22 2010, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Zusia

Having to run away from trivial fights or not doing skirmishes just to milk a little more time out of a level or area or item is getting tiresome.

Haha. Yes, like you and many others I am well-versed in the "run away from XP routine", despite actually wanting to fight those mobs.

It's funny Turbine reduced aggro range because they noticed too many players just trying to run away from mobs they didn't want to interact with. I wonder how many of those were actually players like us who were simply trying to escape unwanted XP gain.

Originally Posted by Zusia

A simple slider or switch will keep us here for a long time.

An XP slider/switch would be nice, though personally I've moved away from that particular implementation.

As I detailed in previous threads, the 'Level-up' switch with an XP bank is the solution that provides the MOST flexibility for individual player's desired leveling rate (you never level up before you feel like doing so), while the XP bank eliminates the supposed problems that Turbine is presumably concerned about should players find themselves out of content to level up with.

**Darmokk** · Dec 22 2010, 05:42 PM

FWIW, I just stopped doing tasks became in addition to rep they also give you XP.

DOES NOT WANTZ.

**Portaljacker** · Dec 22 2010, 09:24 PM