Leveling Speed

Wiki says the following:

On release the developers anticipate max level should be attainable in approximately 45 days if playing 4-6 hours per day.

This is equal to ~225 hours to reach level 50. What is your opinion about it? Would you like it to be faster or slower?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae

Most of what you just said is reacting to one oversimplification with another.

You say you stated the simple 'fact' that having to work more for something causes a person to value it more, but actually, a lot of the time, the reason that happens to human brains isn't healthy for them in the first place.

As for the leveling milestones thing, there are games out there for which 'just grinding longterm for a goal' is good. Ashes might even be one of those games. But it's oversimplifying to say 'only leveling milestones are taken into account' because leveling milestones are not even the same type of enjoyment as the other things unless the game is designed phenomenally well, and usually off a different, more PvE basis.

The reasons why leveling specifically should not be longer are many. I don't know if you just want to specifically devalue Dygz's opinion, but the way you're doing it means that unfortunately I now 'have to' argue with you, and I really don't want to.

Hopefully Dygz will just 'accept that you are wrong about this and misrepresenting the discussion', before this gets any more discouraging.

Also, regarding the statistics thing, I'm also pretty sure you 'can't do that'. It's a thing my sales reps used to do to explicitly convince clients to implement the features that top management wanted to focus on for their stuff. It's a huge red flag to me in conversation because it's quite literally the 'go tell the client that X% of users do Y' knowing that they won't take that back to their own stats/numbers people.

I haven't read it all, and I don't want to make assumptions based on my parser, so short question, do you happen to be in Sales?

Dygz

Flanker wrote: »

Yeah, and guess what? That can also feel rewarding - successfully completing events, completing commission to help your node grow, attacking/defending caravans, increasing your artisan skill levels etc.
But somehow, only achieving "leveling milestones" are taken into account and everything else is ignored, despite you saying it right here: there is plenty of other stuff to do in game.

Yep. All of that stuff can feel rewarding - and should be separate from the Leveling speed associated with reaching the next Level in the Adventurer/Class path. Just as the progression path for Social Orgs should be separate from the Leveling speed of the Adventurer/Class path.

Flanker wrote: »

During our debate, I stated a pretty simple and obvious fact that people tend to value things more, if getting/achieving them requires times and efforts. As a result, it leads to more powerful dopamine doses.

Just because you state something does not make it true.
In an RPG, the primary goal is intended to be Class progression. Achieving enough XP to reach the next Class Level milestone. You could do a bunch of other fun stuff that doesn't contribute to Adventurer Leveling, like focus on Artisan path Leviling, but when people are focused on the Adventurer path Leveling, they're going to want the dopamine hits that come from seeing a reasonable amount of progress for the time they spent during their game session. Doesn't have to be a powerful one.

Sure, addicts who are playing 16 hours per day, might need a powerful hit.
Someone who is playing 16 hours per day is going to want it to take much longer to reach Level 50 than someone playing 2-4 hours per day, but... more importantly....
The person who is playing 2-4 hours per day is going to want that to translate into a significant amount of progress, rather than a miniscule amount of progress.

There is no surprise that a person playing 16 hours per day wouldn't care if it takes 1K hours to reach Level 50, while someone playing 4 hours per day is going to want to see a significant amount of progress on their XP Progress Bar for their 4 hours. And if they don't see signifcant progress, that's going to cause frustration rather than a dopamine hit.

Flanker wrote: »

You accused me in "chasing those dopamine doses" and said that this is why I suggest longer leveling. Which is not really the reason - that's the natural consequence of putting time and effort in order to achieve the goal.

Nope. You stated that everyone gets a major dopamine hit when they complete an activity that takes a lot of time and effort. I said that's not true of everyone - that is just one personality type and one playstyle.
Also I said, sure, it makes sense that someone for whom it is true that they get a major dopamine hit from activities that are very time comsuming and arduous are going to advocate for a very long Leveling speed.
That's all I need to know. I don't need you to try to explain anything else after that.
Especially when their confirmation bias is so strong they think everyone feels the same way.
Also, you'll notice that people in the US tend to get paid every 80 hours rather than every 400 hours or every 1000 hours. And that we often calculate expected pay by 1 hour increments: Minimum wage is $16/hour.
Sure, we might also talk about $30K/year - but people are not going to feel more accomplished waiting an entire year to receive that $30K.

Flanker wrote: »

And this is pretty much your public confession that you are not a fan of games that don't provide instant gratification or rather "instant gratification according to modern MMO standards".

LMFAO
This is really just your public confession about your confirmation bias.
You see only two options: the journey to Level 50 Adventurer being significantly longer than 225 hours or instantant gratification.
Standard Leveling to 50 in MMORPGs is 100 hours. And that is not instant gratification. It's standard gratification.
22 hours to Level 50 is fast - something like Throne and Liberty is exceedingly fast.
225 hours to Level 50 is long for an MMORPG but reasonable. And has nothing at all to do with instant gratification. Maybe for someone who plays video games 16 hours a day, 225 hours to Level 50 seems fast.

Flanker wrote: »

As well as ignoring the fact that the game provides multiple various sources for your precious "instant gratification" and all you need to do to achieve them is to combine those activities. And if you don't want to combine them - that is your own issue.

I'm not the one who's ignoring that. Ashes does provide multiple separate progression paths. That is the entire point. 225 hours to Level 50 Adventurer is sufficient because there are many other progression paths that are separate from Adventurer path Leveling.
There is no reason to try to roll all of those different progression paths into one.
And is inifinitely better to have then separate so that people who play for 2-4 hours per day can feel they have made significant progress each time the log in. Rather than have them feel like they ddid not accomplish very much during the time they had to play.

Flanker wrote: »

So, following your logic, if "chasing powerful dopamine doses" is somehow a bad thing, then "instant gratification according to modern MMO standards" is no different when it comes to the nature of accusation. Actually, I'd say it's even worse as it is one of the reasons why many modern MMOs are... what they are, putting it mildly.

Instant gratification is not a factor in my logic.
225 hours to Level 50 Adventurer only seems like instant gratification to you because you are a game addict who plays 16 hours per day.
I also did not say anything like "chasing powerful dopamine doses is bad". That is just the way your brain twists reality to support your confirmation bias.

You have only played Lineage II and NW, so you have no clue why modern MMORPGs are... what they are.
I think everyone here thinks that people used to hit Endgame much too quickly between 2010 and 2021 - when games were designed such that the average player could hit Level 50 in 60-100 hours and then we had to wait 12-18 months for an Expansion. Therefore, we needed a solution to but an end to Endgame.
Ashes offers several solutions for that - including doubling the hours to Level 50 as well as offering many other
Ashes has plenty of other Leveling paths besides the Adventurer path, so we don't stop Leveling just because we reach Level 50 Adventurer. And 225 hours to Level 50 Adventurer does not mean it's only 225 hours to Endgame. Especially because Ashes doesn't have an Endgame. And also, by design, we don't have to wait 12-18 months for an Expansion to experience brand new content.
Arbitrarily extending the hours of focused gameplay to Level 50 Adventurer isn't necessary for Ashes because the devs have designed many other solutions already. Better solutions than merely extending Leveling speed for the Advneturer path. Instant gratification has nothing to do with 225 hours to Level 50 Adventurer.
It's just your game addicted brain that has you viewing that as fast Leveling and instant gratification.

Ungohil

Flanker wrote: »

It may sound counterintuitive, but when it comes to my personal happiness, it's somewhere around the all-time peak in the past year. Going through what I'm going through made me realize once again that I'm an extremely lucky individual as I have a roof over my head, a food in the fridge, my parents who are alive and well and my cat. That's all I need. And Ashes coming soon is a nice bonus.

First things first, yes. Sounds fine (thinking about your situation).

At the age of 23 I joined a company as an ordinary sales manager.

(...)

Nice story, sounds quite regular and avarage to me (and what's typical in mid-western europe), just seems to be like you were accelerating a bit and got some luck as well (or small competition within company or from the market overall). Very good sales managers are available like sand on the beach (in my region/markets), that's why I'm saying this (no offense meant). Selling things is one thing, knowing and executing (delivering) things, another thing.

As long as I managed to free up a decent amount of time, me and one girl (a very close friend with very big benefits) got a crazy idea to start making content for... you know, a different kind of YouTube.

That's not the full story of my life, but a part of it.

How should it, it's only a bit and brief story about some few working years, that's all. With 32, as I've said, your experience in life (and business) is what it is, a very short span - if you work on the next 10, 20, 30 years ofc your experience and knowledge will increase significantly and your story will be longer. Hopefully your "on/off" mode, regarding your pace when it comes to regular working time, will work out over the years. My experience is, without being extremely lucky: It will not. In the long run it will not pay off. Moreover, the art is to keep the pace on a permanent level, if possible, high level (but not too high). Exaggerating makes no sense, because it's only a tiny sprint in the entire life. When it comes to the real art, it's performing over years, not performing for only 5 years or whatever. Within the first 2-3 years in a company the learning curve and increase in value always is high, the difficulties and higher responsibilities start after much more years.

But, your circumstances, your life, your decision. All the best.
Perhaps your content creation part provides you with enough money - perhaps your appearance and behavior in this thread will help and is good marketing for you? I don't know, I'm usualy not watching youtubers and if, only very few and with really mature and reasonable content, which is rare.

No. Unless humanity comes to immortality (which is highly unlikely), I don't intend to live long for reasons that I'm not going to share here.

Fair. We will not talk about it, it seems to be too private. All the best.

If you intend to play Ashes for a year or more, I doubt that it's gonna be a problem.

I do, but that depends on Ashes, at least a major part of it. I'm willing to play MMOs and did that >20 years, as mentioned, so from my side, sure, I'm ready. But Ashes has to deliver. From probably 15 MMOs I've played only 4 bound me more than 1 year. WoW, GW2, ESO and I guess FF14 and NW, but both barely over one year. Perhaps Rift also was over one year, can't remember. Warhammer, Aion, Tera, Neverwinter and some more I've just played for some month, because I didnt like them.

I'm not going to share it here, as I don't want to give people ideas. What I mentioned previously about alts is enough to take that into account.

So yes, hm.

I'm not a hardcore PvP player, I'm more of PvX player, as I enjoy and dedicate a lot of time to PvE/economy/gathering/crafting as well - my New World experience is a perfect example of that.

Sounds reasonable. New World can be taken as quite good (and recent) comparison for some features/parallels.

I am not a fan of harassing people for no reason. Because I see no point in doing that and I get no satisfaction from that. But when it comes to competition, I see no reason not to use everything I possibly can (obviously, excluding things that are not allowed by ToS)

The reason lies behind general behavior of humans, bias, attitude, education, social environment, culturual aspects, age (maturity), experience. So, there are more than enough reasons that lead to a competitive type of player in a computer game or another type of player in a computer game. And, within other context, that also applies to other topics in private and especially business life. I'm absolutely different in business life than in private life and within executing a hobby, like gaming. So, by contrast, I see no reason why I should use everything I possibly can when it comes to competition in a game, because I face it every day in my working life, ~60 hours per week and here for very good reasons and with lots of responsibilty, because beside the fun, it pays off (in a financial and material way). I don't need and want the same all over in my spare time, at least not all the time. When it comes to this part the main values are: Entertainment, relaxing, consuming. Because gaming is not the center of my life.

Flanker

Azherae wrote: »

Most of what you just said is reacting to one oversimplification with another.

I wouldn't call it "oversimplification" to be honest, but "simplification" - for sure. Why is it presented that way? Because this way, there is a tiny chance that certain people might actually understand the idea behind the words and calculation. The moment you try to dedicate some time and explain something on a bit deeper level using words that contain more than 4 letters is the moment when there is pretty much no chance that those individuals will be able to understand it.

Azherae wrote: »

You say you stated the simple 'fact' that having to work more for something causes a person to value it more, but actually, a lot of the time, the reason that happens to human brains isn't healthy for them in the first place.

We may find plenty of examples when it is unhealthy. We may find plenty of examples when it healthy.
A simple comparison I used in our podcast is "working at your age to earn money yourself" or just "getting them from your parents for the sole reasons of you existing and being their son/daughter". Pretty sure you perfectly understand the point that I want to make with that comparison.

Azherae wrote: »

As for the leveling milestones thing, there are games out there for which 'just grinding longterm for a goal' is good. Ashes might even be one of those games. But it's oversimplifying to say 'only leveling milestones are taken into account' because leveling milestones are not even the same type of enjoyment as the other things unless the game is designed phenomenally well, and usually off a different, more PvE basis.

I only pointed out that Dygz hyperfocuses on achieving leveling milestones, despite ignoring various other milestones that are available in numerous progression paths and activities that he himself mentions.

Azherae wrote: »

The reasons why leveling specifically should not be longer are many.

It's entirely possible that they exist. As well as a number of reasons why leveling should be longer. Their existence is not mutually exclusive.

Azherae wrote: »

I don't know if you just want to specifically devalue Dygz's opinion, but the way you're doing it means that unfortunately I now 'have to' argue with you, and I really don't want to.

There is a difference between "devaluing" and "dissecting" to highlight the flaws, inaccuracies, fallacies, biases and contradictions.

Azherae wrote: »

Hopefully Dygz will just 'accept that you are wrong about this and misrepresenting the discussion', before this gets any more discouraging.

Wrong on what exactly?

Azherae wrote: »

Also, regarding the statistics thing, I'm also pretty sure you 'can't do that'. It's a thing my sales reps used to do to explicitly convince clients to implement the features that top management wanted to focus on for their stuff. It's a huge red flag to me in conversation because it's quite literally the 'go tell the client that X% of users do Y' knowing that they won't take that back to their own stats/numbers people.

I didn't really get the reference to your empirical experience (which is, as I'm pretty sure you are aware of, can't be used as a valid argument in a conversation/debate, due to it's... limited sample size? Don't know how to say that in English properly, but I guess you understand the point, don't you?)

Azherae wrote: »

I haven't read it all, and I don't want to make assumptions based on my parser, so short question, do you happen to be in Sales?

Yes, I did. I was both a sales manager and a Head of Sales Department, leading a team of ~30+ sales managers at peak.

However...

No, actually, HOWEVER

If I'm about to see an implication that I'm intentionally using some... manipulation tactics or tricks solely because of the fact that I've been in those positions at some point in my life, I will have to stop you right there. As long as I called out several people multiple times on using manipulations of all sorts (biases, misrepresentation of points and twisting the words, logical fallacies etc.), I am now in the position, in which if I ever dare to use any of those tricks myself - that would instantly make me a hypocrite. You may question my intelligence if you want to, go for it, but I am not dumb to do that, especially publicly.

Once again, it wasn't me who brought up those threads with polls - all I did was applying simple math to the poll results that were used as "a valid argument" by other people.

If for whatever reason you think that using weighed mean is not the right thing to do and/or there are more accurate ways to analyze the poll results - please (you or anyone else) provide a detailed explanation why. And by detatiled explanation, I mean something better than short meaningless comments such "It's not right", "You can't do it that way" etc. that were written by several people.

Flanker

Dygz wrote: »

You have only played Lineage II and NW, so you have no clue why modern MMORPGs are... what they are.

I've wrote it in the comments to the video on your channel and I mentioned it here already that I also played LOTRO and AION in the past. So in case you missed it, I repeat it again.

And this statement is ridiculous itself. We live in 2024 and I don't necessarily need to play the game to understand what the game is about. I can watch YouTube overviews and longplays, I can watch streamers on Twitch playing it in real time, I can read blogs and articles etc.

Not addressing anything else as it's a waste of time. The comment sections under both videos on my channel and Theory Forge channel is full of comments saying that you argue for the sake of arguing, playing semantics and extrapolate your personal preferences on everyone. Even your fellow co-hosts asked you to chill a couple of times throughout the stream. Yet you prefer to remain stubborn.

If you want Round 2 - you know where to find me and you know that I'll be ready to continue any day any time (obviously, when I'm not playing A2 in those few days when servers are up, as I said initially on discord).

Flanker

Chaliux wrote: »

First things first...

I'll reply later if I won't forget. Just wrote two replies in this thread already, gotta switch to more important things for now

Dygz

Flanker wrote: »

I've wrote it in the comments to the video on your channel and I mentioned it here already that I also played LOTRO and AION in the past. So in case you missed it, I repeat it again.

And this statement is ridiculous itself. We live in 2024 and I don't necessarily need to play the game to understand what the game is about. I can watch YouTube overviews and longplays, I can watch streamers on Twitch playing it in real time, I can read blogs and articles etc.

Everything you write proves that your understanding of game design for MMORPGs is ridiculous.
Reading articles is not the same thing as playing. And playing games is not the same thing as being a game dev.
As Steven learned when is gamer mind led him to believe he could release Ashes of Creation Before 2020 - even though anyone with actual game dev experience could tell that was an absurd expectation.

Flanker wrote: »

Not addressing anything else as it's a waste of time. The comment sections under both videos on my channel and Theory Forge channel is full of comments saying that you argue for the sake of arguing, playing semantics and extrapolate your personal preferences on everyone. Even your fellow co-hosts asked you to chill a couple of times throughout the stream. Yet you prefer to remain stubborn.

Facts are facts.
Just because some gamers can't understand what I'm saying does not mean what I'm saying isn't true.
Lots of gamers miss nuance - especially those who don't have game dev experience.
You are the one who said that everyone has your perspective regarding dopamine hits for long, tedious activities. I never claimed that everyone has my playstyle.
And, sure, white people have different cultural expectations when it comes to discussion rules during disagreements - especially when it comes to interuptions.
I was quite chill during our episode of the Ashen Forge. You would get a hint that I'm not chill if I start name-calling you...especially if I added in some choice curse words... and even THAT could be chill by black culture standards.

Flanker wrote: »

If you want Round 2 - you know where to find me and you know that I'll be ready to continue any day any time (obviously, when I'm not playing A2 in those few days when servers are up, as I said initially on discord).[/b]

I don't need a "Round 2".
I can find you easily enough here in the forums. We have already had many Rounds on this topic.
And I already know that nothing anyone says will penetrate your confrimation bias.

Flanker

Dygz wrote: »

Everything you write proves that your understanding of game design for MMORPGs is ridiculous.

Proves to whom? You? Feel free to have any opinion about me.

Dygz wrote: »

I don't need a "Round 2".
I can find you easily enough here in the forums. We have already had many Rounds on this topic.
And I already know that nothing anyone says will penetrate your confrimation bias.

I specifically addressed your "accusations" during the podcast. You ignored them. Repeating "confirmation bias" 10 times without providing any valid proof of that won't get you far.

And of course, you wouldn't want Round 2, because you know perfectly well how exactly would it go and how exactly would it end.

Ungohil

Relax, I'm not even expecting a reply - we've had a good chat with some disagreements, which is not an issue. Not everything is a fight and competition, my young friend

You dont need to justify, answer and defend every word and quote. In 10-15 years you will understand what I'm saying. You are allowed to cite me then.

On topic everything (between us) is said: I'm a time casual and for me round about 6 month leveling time seems to be fine. I don't care whether it's 200, 180, 225 or 260 hours. Really, I don't. As long as the journey to max level is fun, I appreciate it. As long as it feels rewarding to level up and learn and experience more aspects of my character, the game, the environment, the systems - it's fine for me (it's a role, a character, there must be progression from the first login until your way to max-level, to get/feel/be stronger). I wouldnt appreciate something like one year leveling, but that's also valid for only 1-2 month leveling. Frequent players, if there are not time sinks, will be on max, if they want to rush, in few month, some weeks. That's fine for me personally, that's like it is in every MMO. If some players need 1 year to be max level - so be it. It's their pace, it's ok, if they have enough fun with it or only can play few hours a month. Leveling is no mechanical question about hours and time, but about having fun and the well known phrase: The journey is the reward.

Dygz

Flanker wrote: »

I specifically addressed your "accusations" during the podcast. You ignored them. Repeating "confirmation bias" 10 times without providing any valid proof of that won't get you far.

Yeah... you said some words that you believe are meaningful, but that really just double-down and triple-down on your confirmation bias.
"Everyone else but me has a confirmation bias."
Of course nothing I say about your confirmation bias is going to seem valid to you.

Flanker wrote: »

And of course, you wouldn't want Round 2, because you know perfectly well how exactly would it go and how exactly would it end.

I do know perfectly well exactly how it would go. You would continue to spout the same ridiculous stuff you have for pages and pages and pages and hours and hours and hours.
Because no one can penetrate your confirmation bias.

I'm reading through the comments on our Ashen Forge video now and see that some people agree with me and several of the people who claim to disagree with me do not correctly mirror back what I actually said.
The comments section on the Ashen Forge Channel don't really say what you claim they say. It's certainly not FULL of comments that say what you claim.
I'm not sure why you presented it as if no one agrees with what I said. Other than your confirmation bias causing you to overlook that.

Flanker

Dygz wrote: »

I'm reading through the comments on our Ashen Forge video now and see that some people agree with me and several of the people who claim to disagree with me do not correctly mirror back what I actually said.
The comments section on the Ashen Forge Channel don't really say what you claim they say. It's certainly not FULL of comments that say what you claim.
I'm not sure why you presented it as if no one agrees with what I said. Other than your confirmation bias causing you to overlook that.

Oh really? Should I compile them in a post and share them here?

"I'm not sure why you presented it as if no one agrees with what I said" - good job once again on disagreeing with a statement I never made. However, the overwhelming majority of comments are not in your favor.

It's funny how you are fine with everyone who "agreed" with you, but everyone else "did not correctly mirror back what you said". If that's not a definition a confirmation bias, then I don't know what is.

And ofc you checked them on your channel, but you didn't check them on mine, or you checked them and decided not to mention. Funnily enough, we both know why.

I'm not even mentioning that one of the commentators out there... is a person from the forum who is not a big fan of mine and "a big supporter of you" because he would support anyone who disagrees with me. Stylometry analysis estimates the chance of YT comments and forum comments being written by the same person to be in the 80-90% range.

Azherae

I'll consider myself stopped.

I don't actually care about it, it's just data in the end.

Whether you did it intentionally or not really doesn't change the fact that you're not supposed to use that data like that in genuine conversation. If you choose to insist on it, then I'll take it as the end of genuine conversation on that aspect of it. You were talking to Zehlan anyway and seem more interested in somehow 'humiliating' or 'taunting' them than actually respecting the points being made.

For everyone else, sorry for adding another post that's just a retreat, but tl;dr, yes, Flanker is using stats in that way that you're really not supposed to, but it's not worth your effort to look into it. (Flanker you can ignore this too, this type of post is directed at a certain subset of people who interact with this forum basically by reading my Comments page).

Dygz

Flanker wrote: »

Oh really? Should I compile them in a post and share them here?

You be you, Boo.

Flanker wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of comments are not in your favor.

There were only 32 commnets when I checked and like I said, some people agreed with me and several of the ones who claimed to disagree with me did not properly mirror back what I said. Same strawman fallacy that you use.

Flanker wrote: »

It's funny how you are fine with everyone who "agreed" with you, but everyone else "did not correctly mirror back what you said". If that's not a definition a confirmation bias, then I don't know what is.

I don't know what you mean by "fine with". I am fine with all of the comments.
I did not say "everyone else did not correctly mirror back what I said". That is another of your strawman fallacies. What I said was "several of the people who claim to disagree with me do not correctly mirror back what I actually said."
Thus, the comments section on the Ashen Forge is not FULL of comments saying that I argue for the sake of arguing, playing semantics and extrapolate my personal preferences on everyone. Which is what you claimed.

Flanker wrote: »

And ofc you checked them on your channel, but you didn't check them on mine, or you checked them and decided not to mention. Funnily enough, we both know why.

I haven't looked at your YouTube channel at all. And have no interest in doing so.
I go by what you say, here, in the Forums.

Flanker wrote: »

I'm not even mentioning that one of the commentators out there... is a person from the forum who is not a big fan of mine and "a big supporter of you" because he would support anyone who disagrees with me. Stylometry analysis estimates the chance of YT comments and forum comments being written by the same person to be in the 80-90% range.

Well, but you are mentioning that for some reason. I'm skeptical of your perception of this person from the Forum who is "not a big fan of yours and a big supporter of me" because I've seen you dismiss valid arguments with that claim, "Oh, you just don't like me, but you will agree with anything Dygz says just because you like him."
And, yeah, I'm gonna call stylometry analysis of YT comments irrelevant snake oil.

Flanker

Azherae wrote: »

I'll consider myself stopped.

I'll reply to what has been written here, feel no need or pressure to interact with it any further, as replied is not aimed at you specifically, just more of clarification.

Azherae wrote: »

Whether you did it intentionally or not really doesn't change the fact that you're not supposed to use that data like that in genuine conversation. If you choose to insist on it, then I'll take it as the end of genuine conversation on that aspect of it.

The thing is, I don't. I genuinely asked if there is anyone who can provide a decent detailed clarification why those numbers can't be used that way. Dygz may say that I have a "confirmation bias" as many times as he want - it is simply not true. I would have literally 0 issues with agreeing, if someone actually does what I ask for in a proper way, not just "It's wrong". I don't mind being proven wrong, as in the end of the day that would make reconsider my opinions and evolve as a human being.

Azherae wrote: »

You were talking to Zehlan anyway and seem more interested in somehow 'humiliating' or 'taunting' them than actually respecting the points being made.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. People who don't follow the conversation from the start get a wrong impression about the actual situation. Here is the first message from Zehlan about this topic:

Zehlan wrote: »

First off Kilion good f*cking job buddy lol your intial post was excellent!

My personal opinion I think this is nothing more than click bait for his video or he is big WoW carebare and doesn't comprehend what an actual pvx mmo is all about but considering his articulated responses I would lean heavily toward the former!

As you can see, this "kind gentleman" started the conversation with dumb accusations based on thin air, all of which got easily debunked afterwards. In fact, he wasn't really interested in a conversation, he was mostly looking for an echo chamber of like-minde individuals to circleplease each other.

Azherae wrote: »

For everyone else, sorry for adding another post that's just a retreat, but tl;dr, yes, Flanker is using stats in that way that you're really not supposed to, but it's not worth your effort to look into it.

Just as I said, if there is anyone out there who is capable of providing a reasonable explanation why it doesn't work that way, I'm all ears.

Flanker

Dygz wrote: »

You be you, Boo.

Honestly, not a fan of doing such things. And I probably won't as I won't feel comfortable doing it. You seem like a kind person in general (if my first impression detector was not broken and if we don't talk about MMOs). Those who want to read those comments will find them if they want to. But I don't want to share them publicly. I just... don't.

Dygz wrote: »

There were only 32 commnets when I checked and like I said, some people agreed with me and several of the ones who claimed to disagree with me did not properly mirror back what I said. Same strawman fallacy that you use.

Ugh... same thing over and over again. There is a reason why almost a dozen of people combined from both comment section said that... the way you handle a 1v1 conversation is... somewhat questionable. Despite the fact that it was still much more civil that it is on this forum. Just think about it for a second, what if they actually had a valid reason to say that? I'll leave it to you

Dygz wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by "fine with". I am fine with all of the comments.
I did not say "everyone else did not correctly mirror back what I said". That is another of your strawman fallacies. What I said was "several of the people who claim to disagree with me do not correctly mirror back what I actually said."
Thus, the comments section on the Ashen Forge is not FULL of comments saying that I argue for the sake of arguing, playing semantics and extrapolate my personal preferences on everyone. Which is what you claimed.

You obviously understood the point I was making, but pretend that you don't. Let me rephrase it for you then: does it mean that every single person that did not agree with your opinion "did not correctly mirror back what you said" or there were actually people who disagreed with you for valid reasons? A simple "A" or "B" question.

Dygz wrote: »

I haven't looked at your YouTube channel at all. And have no interest in doing so.
I go by what you say, here, in the Forums.

How convenient. But yeah, you do you

Dygz wrote: »

Well, but you are mentioning that for some reason.

Yup, I do. Should have written "I have not even mentioned.... before" - tenses are not my strongest side in English, unfortunately.

Dygz wrote: »

I'm skeptical of your perception of this person from the Forum who is "not a big fan of yours and a big supporter of me" because I've seen you dismiss valid arguments with that claim, "Oh, you just don't like me, but you will agree with anything Dygz says just because you like him."

Nope, I haven't dismissed a single argument because of that. I said that it was the only reason why person wrote what they wrote because I don't see any other reason why someone would use a meaningless argument in a desperate attempt to overwhelm me.

I said that already and I'll repeat that again. There is difference between a "decent argument" and "argument that is strong enough to change my mind".

If I see that "strong enough" argument - I wouldn't care who writes that, you, Noaani, Zehlan, Azherae or anyone else. If it is strong enough, then I will just accept it, because that's what rational people must do by default and I aim to be that person.

Dygz wrote: »

And, yeah, I'm gonna call stylometry analysis of YT comments irrelevant snake oil.

Ofc you would. But in general, it's obviously not a 100% proof and that's why I mentioned that the estimated chance by the software was 80-90%. But stylometry can provide good results, obviously, if you have a decent sample of both texts. Not gonna go into details, but a few times it helped me a lot in my work and people who thought that they were anonymous found out that they were not. Wish I took a photo of their surprised faces. Anyways...

Xanttious

I've been diving into the discussions around the leveling changes, and I noticed something that hasn't been mentioned yet or at least i didn't see it since i skimmed though the posts. I did however watch the big debate YouTube vid and didn't see it mentioned on there. It seems to me that extending the leveling rate benefits casual players more than hardcore players.

Here's my reasoning: with the rule that "players who are 9 or 10 levels lower than the highest level player in a party will not gain XP," this effectively narrows the level gap between casual and hardcore players for a longer duration. Experienced players can continue to assist lower-level players without immediately surpassing that 10-level threshold.

As a result, hardcore players can provide meaningful support to casual players over an extended period, fostering a more inclusive and engaging leveling experience for everyone involved.

I maybe crazy in assuming that, but as hardcore player who likes to help out his other friends/guildies/and casual players. This would help me do so.

Just one thought i had, ill most likely will be posting more in here once I've done more research myself. But feel like this is something that was over looked from both sides.

A good example of this would be if a group of 4 friends, Let say myself and 2 others just turned level 20, so 3 of us just turned level 20. Our other friend just turned level 11. We would be able to invite him to group and go about xyz leveling activity that is challenging for the 3 of us at level 20. During that time we are killing mobs lets say 5 levels above us, so level 25. We will be gaining decent xp since we are killing mobs 5 levels above us. But our level 11 friend will be gaining exceptional exp towards their level since the mobs will be 14 levels then them, therefore they will be closing the level gap quicker. They may gain 2-3 levels in the time it takes us to gain one. Lets say now they gain that 2-3 levels in that 2 hour span and we may not even gain one. Even if us 3 at higher level continue to play after our friends logs, It will still let him join our group the next day because they are still within that 9-10 level range from highest player in group.

Flanker

Xanttious wrote: »

I've been diving into the discussions around the leveling changes, and I noticed something that hasn't been mentioned yet or at least i didn't see it since i skimmed though the posts. I did however watch the big debate YouTube vid and didn't see it mentioned on there. It seems to me that extending the leveling rate benefits casual players more than hardcore players.

Here's my reasoning: with the rule that "players who are 9 or 10 levels lower than the highest level player in a party will not gain XP," this effectively narrows the level gap between casual and hardcore players for a longer duration. Experienced players can continue to assist lower-level players without immediately surpassing that 10-level threshold.

As a result, hardcore players can provide meaningful support to casual players over an extended period, fostering a more inclusive and engaging leveling experience for everyone involved.

I maybe crazy in assuming that, but as hardcore player who likes to help out his other friends/guildies/and casual players. This would help me do so.

Just one thought i had, ill most likely will be posting more in here once I've done more research myself. But feel like this is something that was over looked from both sides.

A good example of this would be if a group of 4 friends, Let say myself and 2 others just turned level 20, so 3 of us just turned level 20. Our other friend just turned level 11. We would be able to invite him to group and go about xyz leveling activity that is challenging for the 3 of us at level 20. During that time we are killing mobs lets say 5 levels above us, so level 25. We will be gaining decent xp since we are killing mobs 5 levels above us. But our level 11 friend will be gaining exceptional exp towards their level since the mobs will be 14 levels then them, therefore they will be closing the level gap quicker. They may gain 2-3 levels in the time it takes us to gain one. Lets say now they gain that 2-3 levels in that 2 hour span and we may not even gain one. Even if us 3 at higher level continue to play after our friends logs, It will still let him join our group the next day because they are still within that 9-10 level range from highest player in group.

It has been mentioned here: https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/60737/ashes-of-creation-must-dodge-this-bullet/p1

Flanker wrote: »

Also, players will be able to get help from friends, guilds etc. They might also get powerleveled by their high-level friends even with current restrictions (for example, level 42 player can get carried in a group of lvl 50 players in high level zones)

I wouldn't say it's a direct argument in favor of longer leveling or that it is somehow helps casual players specifically.

It's more of a... one of the factors that contribute to the leveling getting faster over time. And if you combine all those factors and take them into account, it becomes pretty obvious that the "default" 225 hours may end up actually being, for example, 125-150-175 hours eventually (depending on how many of those factors a particular player takes advantage of and the cumulative effect of those factors combined), instead of the original 225 hours.

I wouldn't expect random higher level players carrying lower level players often, but theoretically - that may occur from time to time

Xanttious

That example though is at the high end of the spectrum where the level 50 isn't going to be gaining any more levels over night or with more hours a play.

Where i'm coming from on this is from my personal experience in other games mmorpg's and others where i have played with friends and i do consider myself a hardcore player due to my personality when it comes to games i like, that being if its a game i really enjoy i tend to go all out on it. At times leaving my friends in the dust and having to start Alts just to be back to their level so we can all level and participate again as a group and me not doing all the work and them just trying to stay alive.

As for not expecting random higher level players to help out carrying lower level players often. And once again this is from personal experience. It will happen more then you think. Its what having a guild and being involve in a guild is all about, to help even the weakest member in your guild improve quicker so you can become stronger as a guild as a unite. To me these are going to be the majority of the guilds out their, or ones that you see last the longest. Ones that help their members progress in the game.

RocketFarmer

Having alts to play with casual friends is pretty common. Or you agree to create a group of PCs you only play together. Six or one half dozen.

Noaani

Flanker wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

According to every Statistics major or professor ever.

Another broad meaningless statement. You haven't exceeded your daily quota yet, have you?

Noaani wrote: »

Again, as I said when i first mentioned this to you, I fully understand that this may be a concept that is foreign to you - however, it is absolutely correct.

Correct according to whom? Got any references or same as usual - none?

I mean, I could cite myself here, as I have been a guest lecturer for graduate level statistics (note, guest), but I somehow don't think you would accept that.

What I am trying to do, while you are kicking and screaming refusing it, is to educate you. You shouldn't need a source for this, you should just be able to see that it is wrong by looking at the results you got.

You took the results of a poll, averaged them, and the result was unsurprisingly in the middle of the options given. Since the bulk of votes were made at either end, the middle ground represents the least amount of people.

To then go and say that the poll results are that people want that middle ground is just incorrect. If that is what people wanted, that is what people would have voted for, since there were middle ground options.

Asking for sources for something this basic (this is first week statistics 101), is kind of like asking someone to cite references for the statement that 2+2=4 (though I can give real examples of when even that isn't true).

Child Item