Azherae wrote: » I personally just don't want it to be slower if the Economy is a certain way, because then it's not engaging or challenging. I also don't want all the Econ Challenge to be pushed to the endgame part, since I think this makes games worse in terms of retention and the 'casual v hardcore' gap.
Myosotys wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I personally just don't want it to be slower if the Economy is a certain way, because then it's not engaging or challenging. I also don't want all the Econ Challenge to be pushed to the endgame part, since I think this makes games worse in terms of retention and the 'casual v hardcore' gap. I can't agree more on that. I'm also fine with a fast leveling if the economy is running well. But in the state of available information, I do not see how the value of items of different levels can be preserved. Apart from the economic aspect, I see the slow leveling as a major PvP challenge. In my opinion, slowing down enemy guilds is a fundamental point in an MMO with a strong PvP component.
Mag7spy wrote: » Myosotys wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I personally just don't want it to be slower if the Economy is a certain way, because then it's not engaging or challenging. I also don't want all the Econ Challenge to be pushed to the endgame part, since I think this makes games worse in terms of retention and the 'casual v hardcore' gap. I can't agree more on that. I'm also fine with a fast leveling if the economy is running well. But in the state of available information, I do not see how the value of items of different levels can be preserved. Apart from the economic aspect, I see the slow leveling as a major PvP challenge. In my opinion, slowing down enemy guilds is a fundamental point in an MMO with a strong PvP component. You can slow down a strong guild you just create a bigger difference between hardcore guilds and less hardcore guilds.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Myosotys wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I personally just don't want it to be slower if the Economy is a certain way, because then it's not engaging or challenging. I also don't want all the Econ Challenge to be pushed to the endgame part, since I think this makes games worse in terms of retention and the 'casual v hardcore' gap. I can't agree more on that. I'm also fine with a fast leveling if the economy is running well. But in the state of available information, I do not see how the value of items of different levels can be preserved. Apart from the economic aspect, I see the slow leveling as a major PvP challenge. In my opinion, slowing down enemy guilds is a fundamental point in an MMO with a strong PvP component. You can slow down a strong guild you just create a bigger difference between hardcore guilds and less hardcore guilds. This is not what we're talking about, you just didn't understand. This is an economy thing, and so-called hardcore guilds don't auto-win economics in games, if anything, they suffer relative to less hardcore guilds. EDIT: I just realized that your statement actually had no meaning, and my parser just straight up 'made up a meaning for it to have'. If you choose to roll with the meaning that it has been assigned, my response stands, though.
Apart from the economic aspect, "
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Myosotys wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I personally just don't want it to be slower if the Economy is a certain way, because then it's not engaging or challenging. I also don't want all the Econ Challenge to be pushed to the endgame part, since I think this makes games worse in terms of retention and the 'casual v hardcore' gap. I can't agree more on that. I'm also fine with a fast leveling if the economy is running well. But in the state of available information, I do not see how the value of items of different levels can be preserved. Apart from the economic aspect, I see the slow leveling as a major PvP challenge. In my opinion, slowing down enemy guilds is a fundamental point in an MMO with a strong PvP component. You can slow down a strong guild you just create a bigger difference between hardcore guilds and less hardcore guilds. This is not what we're talking about, you just didn't understand. This is an economy thing, and so-called hardcore guilds don't auto-win economics in games, if anything, they suffer relative to less hardcore guilds. EDIT: I just realized that your statement actually had no meaning, and my parser just straight up 'made up a meaning for it to have'. If you choose to roll with the meaning that it has been assigned, my response stands, though. You are suggesting that you are not talking about economics now? " Apart from the economic aspect, " My point still stands
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Myosotys wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I personally just don't want it to be slower if the Economy is a certain way, because then it's not engaging or challenging. I also don't want all the Econ Challenge to be pushed to the endgame part, since I think this makes games worse in terms of retention and the 'casual v hardcore' gap. I can't agree more on that. I'm also fine with a fast leveling if the economy is running well. But in the state of available information, I do not see how the value of items of different levels can be preserved. Apart from the economic aspect, I see the slow leveling as a major PvP challenge. In my opinion, slowing down enemy guilds is a fundamental point in an MMO with a strong PvP component. You can slow down a strong guild you just create a bigger difference between hardcore guilds and less hardcore guilds. This is not what we're talking about, you just didn't understand. This is an economy thing, and so-called hardcore guilds don't auto-win economics in games, if anything, they suffer relative to less hardcore guilds. EDIT: I just realized that your statement actually had no meaning, and my parser just straight up 'made up a meaning for it to have'. If you choose to roll with the meaning that it has been assigned, my response stands, though. You are suggesting that you are not talking about economics now? " Apart from the economic aspect, " My point still stands Nope, I'm agreeing. However you believe you can slow down 'strong' guilds by being 'hardcore' without economics being involved, I'm sure it's true. A discussion you can have with Myosotys.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Myosotys wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I personally just don't want it to be slower if the Economy is a certain way, because then it's not engaging or challenging. I also don't want all the Econ Challenge to be pushed to the endgame part, since I think this makes games worse in terms of retention and the 'casual v hardcore' gap. I can't agree more on that. I'm also fine with a fast leveling if the economy is running well. But in the state of available information, I do not see how the value of items of different levels can be preserved. Apart from the economic aspect, I see the slow leveling as a major PvP challenge. In my opinion, slowing down enemy guilds is a fundamental point in an MMO with a strong PvP component. You can slow down a strong guild you just create a bigger difference between hardcore guilds and less hardcore guilds. This is not what we're talking about, you just didn't understand. This is an economy thing, and so-called hardcore guilds don't auto-win economics in games, if anything, they suffer relative to less hardcore guilds. EDIT: I just realized that your statement actually had no meaning, and my parser just straight up 'made up a meaning for it to have'. If you choose to roll with the meaning that it has been assigned, my response stands, though. You are suggesting that you are not talking about economics now? " Apart from the economic aspect, " My point still stands Nope, I'm agreeing. However you believe you can slow down 'strong' guilds by being 'hardcore' without economics being involved, I'm sure it's true. A discussion you can have with Myosotys. I never made that point, my point is without economics increased leveling experience doesn't slow down larger guilds
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Myosotys wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I personally just don't want it to be slower if the Economy is a certain way, because then it's not engaging or challenging. I also don't want all the Econ Challenge to be pushed to the endgame part, since I think this makes games worse in terms of retention and the 'casual v hardcore' gap. I can't agree more on that. I'm also fine with a fast leveling if the economy is running well. But in the state of available information, I do not see how the value of items of different levels can be preserved. Apart from the economic aspect, I see the slow leveling as a major PvP challenge. In my opinion, slowing down enemy guilds is a fundamental point in an MMO with a strong PvP component. You can slow down a strong guild you just create a bigger difference between hardcore guilds and less hardcore guilds. This is not what we're talking about, you just didn't understand. This is an economy thing, and so-called hardcore guilds don't auto-win economics in games, if anything, they suffer relative to less hardcore guilds. EDIT: I just realized that your statement actually had no meaning, and my parser just straight up 'made up a meaning for it to have'. If you choose to roll with the meaning that it has been assigned, my response stands, though. You are suggesting that you are not talking about economics now? " Apart from the economic aspect, " My point still stands Nope, I'm agreeing. However you believe you can slow down 'strong' guilds by being 'hardcore' without economics being involved, I'm sure it's true. A discussion you can have with Myosotys. I never made that point, my point is without economics increased leveling experience doesn't slow down larger guilds Now we're at 'larger'. You know as well as I do that I don't really want to converse with you here, but I definitely don't want to imply you said something you didn't say. Please restate your point using either the words 'stronger' or 'hardcore' vs not. 'Larger' leads into even more confusion. This is all I ask.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Myosotys wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I personally just don't want it to be slower if the Economy is a certain way, because then it's not engaging or challenging. I also don't want all the Econ Challenge to be pushed to the endgame part, since I think this makes games worse in terms of retention and the 'casual v hardcore' gap. I can't agree more on that. I'm also fine with a fast leveling if the economy is running well. But in the state of available information, I do not see how the value of items of different levels can be preserved. Apart from the economic aspect, I see the slow leveling as a major PvP challenge. In my opinion, slowing down enemy guilds is a fundamental point in an MMO with a strong PvP component. You can slow down a strong guild you just create a bigger difference between hardcore guilds and less hardcore guilds. This is not what we're talking about, you just didn't understand. This is an economy thing, and so-called hardcore guilds don't auto-win economics in games, if anything, they suffer relative to less hardcore guilds. EDIT: I just realized that your statement actually had no meaning, and my parser just straight up 'made up a meaning for it to have'. If you choose to roll with the meaning that it has been assigned, my response stands, though. You are suggesting that you are not talking about economics now? " Apart from the economic aspect, " My point still stands Nope, I'm agreeing. However you believe you can slow down 'strong' guilds by being 'hardcore' without economics being involved, I'm sure it's true. A discussion you can have with Myosotys. I never made that point, my point is without economics increased leveling experience doesn't slow down larger guilds Now we're at 'larger'. You know as well as I do that I don't really want to converse with you here, but I definitely don't want to imply you said something you didn't say. Please restate your point using either the words 'stronger' or 'hardcore' vs not. 'Larger' leads into even more confusion. This is all I ask. Ya i mean hardcore I'm gaming.
NeverNoFear wrote: » It can be even slower the leveling speed doesnt really matter but the problem is most of the games on the market you cannot do anything fun in the game until you reach max level so if it will be like that i would like it to be faster. if leveling enjoyable and you can still do fun contents and play the game like normal doesnt really matter
NiKr wrote: » Slower
Smaashley wrote: » What i don't like about big MMOs is the HUGE gap between hardcore/long term players and casuals/new players in levels. Mainly because if the server is 4 years old and it takes 300-400h of playtime to achieve lvl 50, new players will feel like they have a too long journey to achieve the same levels as hardcore players. And this is not to say if Intrepids doesn't increase the level cap. Gw2 does this well because at a certain point in the game, we all have the same power, so it's only a matter of knowledge and build varieties.
Mag7spy wrote: » Ethanh37 wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I don't agree with you and that is why i find the root of your answer tot his wrong. 25% end game content pretty much means no content. You spend all this time leveling and you have a minimal amount of content to do and there aren't even instances lmao. not agreeing with me is fine miss Quoting me is not. i said 25% end game and if its good people will stay if not you will lose retention. the 25% end game content is the whole point of the game its the repayable loop that encompasses guild wars, caravan events, world bosses, high level uncovered raid bosses, castle sieges, high level questing that's opened due to high level nodes. and this content is repayable endlessly as its more player driven content as to where and when it will be available and when its available. and I'm not saying its like this I'm saying that how i see it would work out right now. Mag7spy wrote: » You are looking at node progression in the wrong way its more like keys that unlock content with a complex form of logic tied to other events that can open up because of node growth. It isn't players of this lvl did this so content scales to these levels of players. The only scaling they talked about was dungeons becoming more difficult based on progression. we know that nodes level up and that could be tied to other events to open up more content/events. but we don't know that it is not tied to the avg players level that gave it node exp to level. or the avg level of it citizens, or any of those thing. but you clearly say it is not. that's another opinion of yours and not a fact. as they haven't talked about a lot of the mechanics in the game, i prefer to be on the open side of thing and have a discussion where it might be possible until there a reason why it wouldn't be... and i don't see a reason why it couldn't be tied to the avg level of players gaining exp for the node. Mag7spy wrote: » This also works against what they talked about having lower level and high level players coming to the same town. It would mean a level 50 town wouldn't see lower levels because its scaled to those levels for most its content. towns wont have levels but say the avg player gain exp to a level 5 node was 50max we know the nodes around them will become vassals and so the content for the main node might be 50 and maybe one other node but the other nodes its tied to might be 40 and 30 a spread out, and that wouldnt stop anyone still going to that town and using it or even getting quests from it if you were lower level you would just have to be carefull of the PVE content in that area as its not for you yet.... again we know there are only a certain amount of higher tear nodes so there will still be plenty of lower nodes/towns for lower level players. as for "mob scaling" it is one of the worst PVE content there is(dont agree with it at all, its lazy). i like walking into a area and seeing level 35 mobs when I'm level 25 it means i shouldn't be there yet and its content i have to look forward too.. Tell me something positive about level scaling that you like? explain your best way, you could see ashes levelling work out in the world....? Not miss quoting in fact if u are counting pvp end game in that 25% than your take is even worse than i thought....Again you are making things up node level is not tied to the level of players leveling it up....please stop bringing up that point or bring a quote that says based on the level of people contributing the mobs in that area are of that node I've already mention how what you are saying doesnt make sense for what they are going for in previous post you are just repeating this... You missed the point of my post... about levels. Increasing levels of lower level mobs intended for less tool set of players does not equal a greater challenge. Im leaving it at that and not talking about mob scaling as that wasnt the point of my comment.
Ethanh37 wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I don't agree with you and that is why i find the root of your answer tot his wrong. 25% end game content pretty much means no content. You spend all this time leveling and you have a minimal amount of content to do and there aren't even instances lmao. not agreeing with me is fine miss Quoting me is not. i said 25% end game and if its good people will stay if not you will lose retention. the 25% end game content is the whole point of the game its the repayable loop that encompasses guild wars, caravan events, world bosses, high level uncovered raid bosses, castle sieges, high level questing that's opened due to high level nodes. and this content is repayable endlessly as its more player driven content as to where and when it will be available and when its available. and I'm not saying its like this I'm saying that how i see it would work out right now. Mag7spy wrote: » You are looking at node progression in the wrong way its more like keys that unlock content with a complex form of logic tied to other events that can open up because of node growth. It isn't players of this lvl did this so content scales to these levels of players. The only scaling they talked about was dungeons becoming more difficult based on progression. we know that nodes level up and that could be tied to other events to open up more content/events. but we don't know that it is not tied to the avg players level that gave it node exp to level. or the avg level of it citizens, or any of those thing. but you clearly say it is not. that's another opinion of yours and not a fact. as they haven't talked about a lot of the mechanics in the game, i prefer to be on the open side of thing and have a discussion where it might be possible until there a reason why it wouldn't be... and i don't see a reason why it couldn't be tied to the avg level of players gaining exp for the node. Mag7spy wrote: » This also works against what they talked about having lower level and high level players coming to the same town. It would mean a level 50 town wouldn't see lower levels because its scaled to those levels for most its content. towns wont have levels but say the avg player gain exp to a level 5 node was 50max we know the nodes around them will become vassals and so the content for the main node might be 50 and maybe one other node but the other nodes its tied to might be 40 and 30 a spread out, and that wouldnt stop anyone still going to that town and using it or even getting quests from it if you were lower level you would just have to be carefull of the PVE content in that area as its not for you yet.... again we know there are only a certain amount of higher tear nodes so there will still be plenty of lower nodes/towns for lower level players. as for "mob scaling" it is one of the worst PVE content there is(dont agree with it at all, its lazy). i like walking into a area and seeing level 35 mobs when I'm level 25 it means i shouldn't be there yet and its content i have to look forward too.. Tell me something positive about level scaling that you like? explain your best way, you could see ashes levelling work out in the world....?
Mag7spy wrote: » I don't agree with you and that is why i find the root of your answer tot his wrong. 25% end game content pretty much means no content. You spend all this time leveling and you have a minimal amount of content to do and there aren't even instances lmao.
Mag7spy wrote: » You are looking at node progression in the wrong way its more like keys that unlock content with a complex form of logic tied to other events that can open up because of node growth. It isn't players of this lvl did this so content scales to these levels of players. The only scaling they talked about was dungeons becoming more difficult based on progression.
Mag7spy wrote: » This also works against what they talked about having lower level and high level players coming to the same town. It would mean a level 50 town wouldn't see lower levels because its scaled to those levels for most its content.
Ethanh37 wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Ethanh37 wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I don't agree with you and that is why i find the root of your answer tot his wrong. 25% end game content pretty much means no content. You spend all this time leveling and you have a minimal amount of content to do and there aren't even instances lmao. not agreeing with me is fine miss Quoting me is not. i said 25% end game and if its good people will stay if not you will lose retention. the 25% end game content is the whole point of the game its the repayable loop that encompasses guild wars, caravan events, world bosses, high level uncovered raid bosses, castle sieges, high level questing that's opened due to high level nodes. and this content is repayable endlessly as its more player driven content as to where and when it will be available and when its available. and I'm not saying its like this I'm saying that how i see it would work out right now. Mag7spy wrote: » You are looking at node progression in the wrong way its more like keys that unlock content with a complex form of logic tied to other events that can open up because of node growth. It isn't players of this lvl did this so content scales to these levels of players. The only scaling they talked about was dungeons becoming more difficult based on progression. we know that nodes level up and that could be tied to other events to open up more content/events. but we don't know that it is not tied to the avg players level that gave it node exp to level. or the avg level of it citizens, or any of those thing. but you clearly say it is not. that's another opinion of yours and not a fact. as they haven't talked about a lot of the mechanics in the game, i prefer to be on the open side of thing and have a discussion where it might be possible until there a reason why it wouldn't be... and i don't see a reason why it couldn't be tied to the avg level of players gaining exp for the node. Mag7spy wrote: » This also works against what they talked about having lower level and high level players coming to the same town. It would mean a level 50 town wouldn't see lower levels because its scaled to those levels for most its content. towns wont have levels but say the avg player gain exp to a level 5 node was 50max we know the nodes around them will become vassals and so the content for the main node might be 50 and maybe one other node but the other nodes its tied to might be 40 and 30 a spread out, and that wouldnt stop anyone still going to that town and using it or even getting quests from it if you were lower level you would just have to be carefull of the PVE content in that area as its not for you yet.... again we know there are only a certain amount of higher tear nodes so there will still be plenty of lower nodes/towns for lower level players. as for "mob scaling" it is one of the worst PVE content there is(dont agree with it at all, its lazy). i like walking into a area and seeing level 35 mobs when I'm level 25 it means i shouldn't be there yet and its content i have to look forward too.. Tell me something positive about level scaling that you like? explain your best way, you could see ashes levelling work out in the world....? Not miss quoting in fact if u are counting pvp end game in that 25% than your take is even worse than i thought....Again you are making things up node level is not tied to the level of players leveling it up....please stop bringing up that point or bring a quote that says based on the level of people contributing the mobs in that area are of that node I've already mention how what you are saying doesnt make sense for what they are going for in previous post you are just repeating this... You missed the point of my post... about levels. Increasing levels of lower level mobs intended for less tool set of players does not equal a greater challenge. Im leaving it at that and not talking about mob scaling as that wasnt the point of my comment. I didn't really appreciate any one saying stop thinking or stop taking about this its a very closed mind set that really sets how people see you, so i felt the conversation with you was done how ever a really good video come out from ashes of relation and i think people should watch it. in the early part of the vid https://youtu.be/hzK_EAdCFEU?t=178 a dev is talking about commissions and how the server, the world stats and the nodes are looking at the world and the players in it to decide what content to give out to you. while he does not say the words the nodes content is chosen by the avg players with in its ZoI he does say something very similar. the video is a great example that if levelling speed is in the 500hrs mark that there is going to be so much dynamic content that it will be a joy to play though constantly different. also predictive text made my last Question to you come out wrong and i was asking of something positive about level speed (not scaling).
