Previous
Another thread had me thinking. Character levels have ballooned and skillset ranges have increated. This isn't a bad thing, but it means the low end feels the curve much more than they have in the past. What once took 10-20 levels for a character to grow into a guild now takes 50-100. Again, not necessarily bad, but it has fueled the "black market" on some long lasting 3rd party sites. That will never resolved, but I'm surprised SIMU hasn't followed the examples of other MMOs to at least try to profit from it instead.
A few ideas:
* "Gift Tokens" that can be redeemed for GOAs on an account. Charge 20 simucoins for them and let players buy, trade, sell, or gift them in game. This effectively gives players a better avenue to buy and sell plats while profiting the game they're playing. The GOAs could be used to pay for events, quests, premie accounts, or basic accounts.
* "Infusers". Potion that infuses your bonus pool with ranks. Like the divine charm, it's only usable if all skills in that pool are below a certain threshhold and the bonus given can never exceed the bits required to move your highest skill to that threshold. There's a warning if you're not getting the full benefit before consumption.
* "Promotion certificates" that auto-levels the character to the leve on the certificate, limited quantity. It could go to 25, 50, 75, or 100. It would choose your highest skills when determining the ranks to give, random if equal, or it could sell one of several pre-determined templates that just overwrite's your existing skills. These are a better way to buy/sell characters. They may not be as well rounded as characters you'd buy on other sites, but they're going to be less disruptive than familiar faces suddenly gaining new personalities.
* "Skill Trainers". Study the book to train a specific skill or skillset up to a certain threshhold. Different costs for different minimums.
DERIUM
THAYET
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/09/2016 09:24 PM CDT
While DR would not suffer overly much from a New Game+ sort of deal (a lot of MUDs have it, and it's far from game-breaking) it should really be tied to progress of a previous character ala remorts rather than something you buy from scratch.
I have suggested before that you be able to reroll a character with pools of bonus experience based on the ranks they had achieved. I still think this would be a nice idea.
Thayet
@thayelf // http://thayette.tumblr.com
"But you must know that if corruption is powerful enough, it's not corruption at all — it's law. Unspoken, unwritten, but law." — Robert Jackson Bennett, City of Stairs
I have suggested before that you be able to reroll a character with pools of bonus experience based on the ranks they had achieved. I still think this would be a nice idea.
Thayet
@thayelf // http://thayette.tumblr.com
"But you must know that if corruption is powerful enough, it's not corruption at all — it's law. Unspoken, unwritten, but law." — Robert Jackson Bennett, City of Stairs
DERIUM
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/09/2016 09:58 PM CDT
> I have suggested before that you be able to reroll a character with pools of bonus experience based on the ranks they had achieved. I still think this would be a nice idea.
I'm a big fan of this too.
The suggestion was really two fold. 1) Give people a new game + as you said, and 2) let simu (the game we all play) profit from an existing market based on their own game.
BADGOPHER
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/09/2016 10:02 PM CDT
The game doesn't pick up till 300+ ranks in.
That can take months or years.
I've said I'm in favor of anything that puts you at roughly 50th level.
That can take months or years.
I've said I'm in favor of anything that puts you at roughly 50th level.
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 09:20 AM CDT
There's a disagreement about what constitutes reasonable time investment. Some people are used to playing a game where you hit cap after ~1 month of play. Others expect years of investment. Depending on where much of the games content is placed, this can make the grind fun or utterly boring.
DR has milestones to reach for, some of which are pretty cool. Unfortunately, it also has a skill grind that can extend for decades. I don't have a problem with letting people work to hit 50th, but I think this all starts falling apart is when people are buying and trading HLCs with 1000+ skill, and then it actually just becomes a matter of buying an unstoppable PvP machine to do with as you please.
DR has milestones to reach for, some of which are pretty cool. Unfortunately, it also has a skill grind that can extend for decades. I don't have a problem with letting people work to hit 50th, but I think this all starts falling apart is when people are buying and trading HLCs with 1000+ skill, and then it actually just becomes a matter of buying an unstoppable PvP machine to do with as you please.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 10:34 AM CDT
On one hand, I don't that it's too unfair to let people jump to something like 50th circle.
On the other hand, I feel that once you break into the low/mid 300s in skill, you tend to plateau in terms of what you can hunt for weeks (or months, depend on your daily time investment) at a time, so things will stagnate and become a bit boring. I had more "fun" hunting lower tier mobs because there was such a variety of low level mobs and you tend to graduate to the next cluster of them at a pretty decent clip. Once you hit the young gryphon range, things really start to slow down.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
On the other hand, I feel that once you break into the low/mid 300s in skill, you tend to plateau in terms of what you can hunt for weeks (or months, depend on your daily time investment) at a time, so things will stagnate and become a bit boring. I had more "fun" hunting lower tier mobs because there was such a variety of low level mobs and you tend to graduate to the next cluster of them at a pretty decent clip. Once you hit the young gryphon range, things really start to slow down.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
DERIUM
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 10:56 AM CDT
> On the other hand, I feel that once you break into the low/mid 300s in skill, you tend to plateau in terms of what you can hunt for weeks (or months, depend on your daily time investment)
300 is true, but that's unlikely for most guilds when you're grandfathering in the skills needed to level, or maybe it lets you assign those ranks to a specific skill via a prompt. For the guilds closest to that tier, they'll be outpacing the tier quickly enough. You also will have some backtraining, or targeted learning (not a bad thing!) that results from this. This is especially true if you want a PvP powerhouse. Self-leveled or purchased characters would still be sought after, but the people who just want to play a different guild get the chance to buy that from simu in a reasonable way.
Here's a quick comparison for a grandfathered level 50 barbarian vs a level 50 moon mage (two ends of the combat spectrums) (max skills in parens):
I accept that this is complicated, but it's doable. It's a proven revenue stream with a customer base, and it's not over powered or pay to win due to the gaps. Characters will still have to be trained, but this is an enhanced starting point. It also encourages some older players back into lower levels, which is good for the game as a whole.
300 is true, but that's unlikely for most guilds when you're grandfathering in the skills needed to level, or maybe it lets you assign those ranks to a specific skill via a prompt. For the guilds closest to that tier, they'll be outpacing the tier quickly enough. You also will have some backtraining, or targeted learning (not a bad thing!) that results from this. This is especially true if you want a PvP powerhouse. Self-leveled or purchased characters would still be sought after, but the people who just want to play a different guild get the chance to buy that from simu in a reasonable way.
Here's a quick comparison for a grandfathered level 50 barbarian vs a level 50 moon mage (two ends of the combat spectrums) (max skills in parens):
| Barbarians | Moon Mages | ||
| Defenses | 190-240 (3) | 0-140 (1) | |
| Defending | 0-190 | 0 | |
| Armor | 90-190 (2) | 0 | |
| Weapons | 90-260 (4) | 0 | |
| Survivals | 70-120 (4) | 80-140 (5) | |
| Magic | 40-70 (3) | 60-220 (7) | |
| Lores | 70 (2) | 90-140 (3) | |
| Guild Skill | 244 | 190 |
I accept that this is complicated, but it's doable. It's a proven revenue stream with a customer base, and it's not over powered or pay to win due to the gaps. Characters will still have to be trained, but this is an enhanced starting point. It also encourages some older players back into lower levels, which is good for the game as a whole.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 11:07 AM CDT
>>Here's a quick comparison for a grandfathered level 50 barbarian vs a level 50 moon mage (two ends of the combat spectrums) (max skills in parens):
Also keep in mind I didn't check to see what the requirements were, and the 50 cutoff was just because someone said 50 in the previous post. My concern is just that the initial skill ranks are where actual combat diversity is.
So your point's taken, it's just, I don't know, not relevant to my concern, since the low stuff is where the actual "fun" for combat has always been for me, at which point it becomes a slog from new plateau to new plateau.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Also keep in mind I didn't check to see what the requirements were, and the 50 cutoff was just because someone said 50 in the previous post. My concern is just that the initial skill ranks are where actual combat diversity is.
So your point's taken, it's just, I don't know, not relevant to my concern, since the low stuff is where the actual "fun" for combat has always been for me, at which point it becomes a slog from new plateau to new plateau.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
DERIUM
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 11:12 AM CDT
> So your point's taken, it's just, I don't know, not relevant to my concern, since the low stuff is where the actual "fun" for combat has always been for me, at which point it becomes a slog from new plateau to new plateau.
Right. I probably wasn't clear. My point is that the combat is still going to be spread out. Big people will be in low areas because they lack the skills to be in the plateau. In fact, they'll be rapidly transitioning between areas (more than today) because of the increased stats/secondary skills.
For what it's worth, I enjoy the mid range combat more than the low range. At low levels, you have so few abilities/spells, and creatures generally do less interesting stuff.
PEICHAR
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 11:17 AM CDT
No one would be required to use the "pay-to-catchup" option though, right? So if you wanted to spend a few months hunting rats and the like, you could do so. But there are some serial rerollers out there who don't like the slog of the first 30-50 circles. I know there'd be some concern about guilds like traders, empaths and necromancers (see: Free to Play limitations), so opt them out of the free levels and maybe provide them with an exp pool instead.
If this were a pay option, I'd have to admit that I'd buy several of them for some of my characters.
"Sometimes I have parties at my house in Nashville and it's clothing-optional, and we just body-paint each other and run around." -Ke$ha
If this were a pay option, I'd have to admit that I'd buy several of them for some of my characters.
"Sometimes I have parties at my house in Nashville and it's clothing-optional, and we just body-paint each other and run around." -Ke$ha
TEVESHSZAT
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 01:17 PM CDT
>>No one would be required to use the "pay-to-catchup" option though, right? So if you wanted to spend a few months hunting rats and the like, you could do so.
My understanding is that one of the issues DR faces is the lack of top-loaded and/or "end game" content. Having people skip one of the more robust portions of the game seems to be an easy way to drive people into stagnating (and potentially leaving) faster.
It raises the question of who the "circle boost" would be for.
If it's older players who want to switch to a new guild/race because they're bored at the wall they hit, you're potentially having them hit that wall faster once again. At least, in this situation, it's not the worst thing ever because they probably see it coming. That said, will it just make people essentially roll up a bunch of min-skilled mid-levels and get bored fast at how unbalanced they are?
If they're for newer players who feel they're too far back to really "compete", then they're skipping a ton of content in the game and hitting a wall that can be quite frankly boring, especially when they don't have the days/months/years of investment in a character that generally makes people stick around when hunting and skill gain gets a bit stale. Throw in the fact that these min-skill characters will be rather unbalanced based on circle reqs, they'll also struggle to figure out how to make things work properly.
I'm less concerned about the former, more concerned about the latter.
I'm wondering if a skill gain boost that can only be applied to a new character might be more effective, at least until it wears off after X ranks gained (at which point will the new wall seem more painful than it normally would?).
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
My understanding is that one of the issues DR faces is the lack of top-loaded and/or "end game" content. Having people skip one of the more robust portions of the game seems to be an easy way to drive people into stagnating (and potentially leaving) faster.
It raises the question of who the "circle boost" would be for.
If it's older players who want to switch to a new guild/race because they're bored at the wall they hit, you're potentially having them hit that wall faster once again. At least, in this situation, it's not the worst thing ever because they probably see it coming. That said, will it just make people essentially roll up a bunch of min-skilled mid-levels and get bored fast at how unbalanced they are?
If they're for newer players who feel they're too far back to really "compete", then they're skipping a ton of content in the game and hitting a wall that can be quite frankly boring, especially when they don't have the days/months/years of investment in a character that generally makes people stick around when hunting and skill gain gets a bit stale. Throw in the fact that these min-skill characters will be rather unbalanced based on circle reqs, they'll also struggle to figure out how to make things work properly.
I'm less concerned about the former, more concerned about the latter.
I'm wondering if a skill gain boost that can only be applied to a new character might be more effective, at least until it wears off after X ranks gained (at which point will the new wall seem more painful than it normally would?).
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
THAYET
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 01:23 PM CDT
The bonus could wear off gradually instead.
But I reiterate that this should be a NewGame+ option. It's "you hit 80th/100th/150th in this other guild, here's an incentive to try another character for awhile." Done right it could rejuvenate certain aspects of the game for people by making new content more accessible.
Couple it with "rested exp" for logged out characters and maybe you'll see fewer people grinding in favor of trying something new.
Thayet
@thayelf // http://thayette.tumblr.com
"But you must know that if corruption is powerful enough, it's not corruption at all — it's law. Unspoken, unwritten, but law." — Robert Jackson Bennett, City of Stairs
But I reiterate that this should be a NewGame+ option. It's "you hit 80th/100th/150th in this other guild, here's an incentive to try another character for awhile." Done right it could rejuvenate certain aspects of the game for people by making new content more accessible.
Couple it with "rested exp" for logged out characters and maybe you'll see fewer people grinding in favor of trying something new.
Thayet
@thayelf // http://thayette.tumblr.com
"But you must know that if corruption is powerful enough, it's not corruption at all — it's law. Unspoken, unwritten, but law." — Robert Jackson Bennett, City of Stairs
TEVESHSZAT
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 01:26 PM CDT
>>But I reiterate that this should be a NewGame+ option. It's "you hit 80th/100th/150th in this other guild, here's an incentive to try another character for awhile." Done right it could rejuvenate certain aspects of the game for people by making new content more accessible.
Absolutely, but with the caveat that there's a way to prevent players from being able to create/build/resell high level characters for resale by having an account tagged as having a 150th-circle-gain-bonus thing going.
>>Couple it with "rested exp" for logged out characters and maybe you'll see fewer people grinding in favor of trying something new.
That would be neat. I know the big thing that always keeps me from trying secondary characters is that if I'm going to be sticking around to grind out exp, why wouldn't I do it on my primary. Have trouble resolving that, myself.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Absolutely, but with the caveat that there's a way to prevent players from being able to create/build/resell high level characters for resale by having an account tagged as having a 150th-circle-gain-bonus thing going.
>>Couple it with "rested exp" for logged out characters and maybe you'll see fewer people grinding in favor of trying something new.
That would be neat. I know the big thing that always keeps me from trying secondary characters is that if I'm going to be sticking around to grind out exp, why wouldn't I do it on my primary. Have trouble resolving that, myself.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
DERIUM
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 01:29 PM CDT
> It raises the question of who the "circle boost" would be for.
It really doesn't. The market is there, as shown by the 3rd party sales site.
> you're potentially having them hit that wall faster once again.
A wall that a paying customer spent 20 years on and off to reach? One who is bored of using your product, but is willing to offer you more money to keep using it in a slightly different way rather than outright stopping? That's a business win.
> min-skill characters
I don't think they would be likely to pay for a boost until they know they liked the game.
Also, low level hunting isn't more engaging than high level hunting. You just change areas more often, lock more easily, and have a chance to be hurt (but that can be fixed by the player). Low levels also have fewer abilities, fewer spells, and they would not have spent years building and compiling scripts to the point that all hunting grounds are reduced to .hunt
TEVESHSZAT
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/10/2016 01:41 PM CDT
>>It really doesn't. The market is there, as shown by the 3rd party sales site.
The third market party sales sites also show how often those characters jump from account to account and how often they're generally used for PvP and/or gold farming purposes.
In other words, I'm a bit skeptical that the market out there resolves the issues faced by players who buy new accounts.
>>A wall that a paying customer spent 20 years on and off to reach?
Well, yeah. When it comes to new players, I would imagine that Simu would rather them stick around for a bit before hitting that end game content wall, than skip a good chunk of the content that is more dynamic, engaging, and has faster plateaus reached.
For example, I think I normally jump a few ladders up the critter tree in the first month. Meanwhile, I was hunting mountain giants for two years before finally being able to get into stompers for the last three months or so.
>>Also, low level hunting isn't more engaging than high level hunting. You just change areas more often, lock more easily, and have a chance to be hurt (but that can be fixed by the player).
Yeah, things happen more actively, and scenery changes more often. That makes it engaging.
>>Low levels also have fewer abilities, fewer spells, and they would not have spent years building and compiling scripts to the point that all hunting grounds are reduced to .hunt
They also gain more abilities and spells in a shorter period of time.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
The third market party sales sites also show how often those characters jump from account to account and how often they're generally used for PvP and/or gold farming purposes.
In other words, I'm a bit skeptical that the market out there resolves the issues faced by players who buy new accounts.
>>A wall that a paying customer spent 20 years on and off to reach?
Well, yeah. When it comes to new players, I would imagine that Simu would rather them stick around for a bit before hitting that end game content wall, than skip a good chunk of the content that is more dynamic, engaging, and has faster plateaus reached.
For example, I think I normally jump a few ladders up the critter tree in the first month. Meanwhile, I was hunting mountain giants for two years before finally being able to get into stompers for the last three months or so.
>>Also, low level hunting isn't more engaging than high level hunting. You just change areas more often, lock more easily, and have a chance to be hurt (but that can be fixed by the player).
Yeah, things happen more actively, and scenery changes more often. That makes it engaging.
>>Low levels also have fewer abilities, fewer spells, and they would not have spent years building and compiling scripts to the point that all hunting grounds are reduced to .hunt
They also gain more abilities and spells in a shorter period of time.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
SUMMERSON
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/12/2016 03:06 PM CDT
Quad boost EXP potions up to rank 1000 is something that might be better then a straight-up auto level to 50. This would kill the bottom-half of the characters for $$$ market.(which is good). It would MASSIVELY INCREASE Simu store sales (I know I'll be addicted to this stuff.)
Something like this in context of what the game is and how it's presented (F2P) wouldn't be considered pay2win; especially with the skewed (level-wise) demographics of the characters in the game currently. But SIMU seems to be stuck in this "money for time" pay model from 20+ years ago so I don't see them heading in this direction.
The idea that new players will be so mesmerized by the game to make a time investment of decades while knowing they'll never becable to fully "catch-up" is a huge negative. Simlarily, I think this goes for old players trying out a new class or character as well, big turn-off from even considering it.
FLINT-TIPPED
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/12/2016 05:31 PM CDT
It doesn't take decades to advance to 150th or 'catch up', whatever that means.
Vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
ISHARON
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/12/2016 08:15 PM CDT
>>Summerson: Quad boost EXP potions up to rank 1000 is something that might be better then a straight-up auto level to 50. This would kill the bottom-half of the characters for $$$ market.(which is good). It would MASSIVELY INCREASE Simu store sales (I know I'll be addicted to this stuff.) Something like this in context of what the game is and how it's presented (F2P) wouldn't be considered pay2win; especially with the skewed (level-wise) demographics of the characters in the game currently.
I don't think it's a good idea to monetize ranks or experience. Since ranks (and stats) are king in DragonRealms, anything that accelerates character growth is "pay-to-win" in that Simu would be selling a competitive advantage. This is especially true when there are no real limits on level (1000 ranks is way too high) or frequency of use.
Ideally, monetization should be limited to features that don't confer a competitive advantage. (Granted, DragonRealms already has some of that in the form of quest loot, but I'd prefer that we not go further down that road.)
If the pace of advancement is a turnoff to new and casual players (and I think it is), that would better be addressed with system-wide changes to the experience mechanics. Or at the very least, limit use of paid experience boosters to characters that are played less than X hours per day, so that those who already have the advantage of time can't just add paid experience boosters to their all-day training routines.
That being said, I would not be opposed to a new game+ feature, such as the one suggested below:
>>Badgopher: I'd rather see the ability to reroll and tag out a set of bonus pools equivalent to how the DR 3.0 conversion went. So I could reroll my level 50 cleric into a level 1 Paladin and get a ton of bonus exp. Allow name changes in the process, and you've got a reincarnation system where you don't just 'lolz make nu char nubz' but also don't end up with a fresh faced level 200 character from nowhere.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
sortable list of all Trader-owned shops and inventory: http://www.elanthia.org/TraderShops/
armor and shields: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Armor_and_shield_player_guide
I don't think it's a good idea to monetize ranks or experience. Since ranks (and stats) are king in DragonRealms, anything that accelerates character growth is "pay-to-win" in that Simu would be selling a competitive advantage. This is especially true when there are no real limits on level (1000 ranks is way too high) or frequency of use.
Ideally, monetization should be limited to features that don't confer a competitive advantage. (Granted, DragonRealms already has some of that in the form of quest loot, but I'd prefer that we not go further down that road.)
If the pace of advancement is a turnoff to new and casual players (and I think it is), that would better be addressed with system-wide changes to the experience mechanics. Or at the very least, limit use of paid experience boosters to characters that are played less than X hours per day, so that those who already have the advantage of time can't just add paid experience boosters to their all-day training routines.
That being said, I would not be opposed to a new game+ feature, such as the one suggested below:
>>Badgopher: I'd rather see the ability to reroll and tag out a set of bonus pools equivalent to how the DR 3.0 conversion went. So I could reroll my level 50 cleric into a level 1 Paladin and get a ton of bonus exp. Allow name changes in the process, and you've got a reincarnation system where you don't just 'lolz make nu char nubz' but also don't end up with a fresh faced level 200 character from nowhere.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
sortable list of all Trader-owned shops and inventory: http://www.elanthia.org/TraderShops/
armor and shields: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Armor_and_shield_player_guide
NINEVAH1
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/12/2016 08:21 PM CDT
>>Quad boost EXP potions up to rank 1000 is something that might be better
Why are you in such a rush to reach this level? What is it that you think is waiting for you when you get there?
As someone with a character that has a handful of skills at 1000+, and more than a handful about to hit it, I can tell you there isn't anything waiting on you but more scripting. There is no end-game to DR and all this would really do is cause people to get bored of the game much quicker. The reason you see all these HLCs being sold with these ranks is because the people who trained them got bored because there was nothing for them to do but script more ranks.
>>But SIMU seems to be stuck in this "money for time" pay model from 20+ years ago so I don't see them heading in this direction.
This is one of the big draws of DR for me, and why they have been getting money from me for nearly 20 years now. If they were to switch to a model where you paid for ranks I would more than likely cancel my accounts and find another game.
>>It doesn't take decades to advance to 150th or 'catch up', whatever that means.
This. I've played my current character for less than a decade, and I've only been seriously training for about half the time I've been playing him and he's in the to 10% of the game.
Why are you in such a rush to reach this level? What is it that you think is waiting for you when you get there?
As someone with a character that has a handful of skills at 1000+, and more than a handful about to hit it, I can tell you there isn't anything waiting on you but more scripting. There is no end-game to DR and all this would really do is cause people to get bored of the game much quicker. The reason you see all these HLCs being sold with these ranks is because the people who trained them got bored because there was nothing for them to do but script more ranks.
>>But SIMU seems to be stuck in this "money for time" pay model from 20+ years ago so I don't see them heading in this direction.
This is one of the big draws of DR for me, and why they have been getting money from me for nearly 20 years now. If they were to switch to a model where you paid for ranks I would more than likely cancel my accounts and find another game.
>>It doesn't take decades to advance to 150th or 'catch up', whatever that means.
This. I've played my current character for less than a decade, and I've only been seriously training for about half the time I've been playing him and he's in the to 10% of the game.
BADGOPHER
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/12/2016 08:23 PM CDT
>I don't think it's a good idea to monetize ranks or experience. Since ranks (and stats) are king in DragonRealms, anything that accelerates character growth is "pay-to-win" in that Simu would be selling a competitive advantage. This is especially true when there are no real limits on level (1000 ranks is way too high) or frequency of use.
Is that functionally different than players dual-boxing 24x7 alt accounts, padding the raffles and other events with 10+ random accounts and/or just spending a few thousand on tickets, buying plats/characters?
I feel like this is an odd argument since DR doesn't have an 'end' game. The dude who uses a 'quadboost' potion is just going to be going past the same points as the dude who doesn't, but faster. We all use the same hunting ladders, gear, etc. Right now it's a simple check of 'how many hours per day can I stay logged in' that determines character power. Enabling an exp boost, level boost, whatever, would simply trade hours, months, years, for $$.
I'll happily admit I've considered buying a level 50+ alt from a guild I don't play just to see what the other side of the bridge is like, and I don't have another 12+ months to devote to leveling a new character while shelving my old one, and I'm not willing/able to dual-box or alt-abuse.
Is that functionally different than players dual-boxing 24x7 alt accounts, padding the raffles and other events with 10+ random accounts and/or just spending a few thousand on tickets, buying plats/characters?
I feel like this is an odd argument since DR doesn't have an 'end' game. The dude who uses a 'quadboost' potion is just going to be going past the same points as the dude who doesn't, but faster. We all use the same hunting ladders, gear, etc. Right now it's a simple check of 'how many hours per day can I stay logged in' that determines character power. Enabling an exp boost, level boost, whatever, would simply trade hours, months, years, for $$.
I'll happily admit I've considered buying a level 50+ alt from a guild I don't play just to see what the other side of the bridge is like, and I don't have another 12+ months to devote to leveling a new character while shelving my old one, and I'm not willing/able to dual-box or alt-abuse.
DERIUM
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/12/2016 09:09 PM CDT
> Simu would be selling a competitive advantage
The competitive advantage is already there. SIMU has already sold it with 20 years of sub time. There is no competition at the upper end unless you're willing to buy into it, especially as some of these power-trained characters have changed hands half a dozen times by now, if not more. Keep in mind that this isn't a diatribe on that. I don't care about that, but it's self-delusion to presume that anyone who hasn't been actively training a small number of specific guilds, for at least a decade, will be able to compete with them in an open field.
> If the pace of advancement is a turnoff to new and casual players (and I think it is), that would better be addressed with system-wide changes to the experience mechanics. Or at the very least, limit use of paid experience boosters to characters that are played less than X hours per day, so that those who already have the advantage of time can't just add paid experience boosters to their all-day training routines.
I don't like the x hours per day system, as some days people can spend more time than others; however, I agree that this shouldn't be a means to assist the upper crust in widening that experience gulf.
> That being said, I would not be opposed to a new game+ feature, such as the one suggested below:
That being said, neither would I. I'd love for all of the exp on a reroll to turn into bonus bits for the rerolled character at a 1:1 conversion. I'd even be okay with unlocking this feature on a character being a limited purchase item in the simucoin shop.
SUMMERSON
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/12/2016 10:22 PM CDT
The compeititive advantage already exists (as someone already mentioned), it's called the pool of HLC's that's littering DRSALEs at any given time. What I'm saying is, why not funnel that money to SIMU (who can then in theory use that money to improve the game or perhaps even advertise or whatever) rather then just character merchants/gold sellers or whatever you want to call them.
If you want to jump into high-levels right NOW, you can, just need the $$$, DRSALEs, and access to paypal. BUT, I would rather people get something like 'quadboost' exp pots (actually go through the motions of circling a brand new character from 0 - 1000 ranks) rather then some new player (who has no idea how to even cast a single spell) ghosting into a very old character (with it's own RP/history behind it) and just make it a jarringly bad experience for him and everyone who knew that old character and basically everybody in the game in general. Plus, all the profits are going to the source (Simutronics) rather then some goldseller.
DARKNSBREATHING
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 12:50 AM CDT
>>I would rather people get something like 'quadboost' exp pots (actually go through the motions of circling a brand new character from 0 - 1000 ranks)
exp "pots" exist on some level in the game already though the rpa system. Though I will admit I'd pay for pots :p
THAYET
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 12:53 AM CDT
The RPA system as it exists is pretty problematic in a lot of ways, tbh.
Thayet
@thayelf // http://thayette.tumblr.com
"But you must know that if corruption is powerful enough, it's not corruption at all — it's law. Unspoken, unwritten, but law." — Robert Jackson Bennett, City of Stairs
Thayet
@thayelf // http://thayette.tumblr.com
"But you must know that if corruption is powerful enough, it's not corruption at all — it's law. Unspoken, unwritten, but law." — Robert Jackson Bennett, City of Stairs
ISHARON
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 02:49 AM CDT
>>Summerson: The compeititive advantage already exists (as someone already mentioned), it's called the pool of HLC's that's littering DRSALEs at any given time.
I'm not a fan of character sales -- ideally, it would be prohibited-- but buying characters on the grey market (DRSales) does not change the net level of power in the game (that power just changes hands), whereas being able to buy experience boosters (or ranks) from Simutronics increases the net level of power. (Character sales are also held somewhat in check by the stigma that is attached to "PayPal warriors" -- not to mention baggage from however those characters were played before -- that would presumably not exist if Simutronics offered a legitimate way to buy in.)
When this discussion has come up in the past, some have asked why players should care how quickly other players are advancing. Exacerbating rank bloat by allowing players to buy in (either directly with ranks or indirectly with experience boosters) affects everyone, as GMs design rank and stat requirements with expectations about what ranks and stats people have and how long it should take to get there. In extreme cases, skill contests could be adjusted for everyone to account for the fact that some players are buying ranks/experience boosters.
Additionally, players who enjoy the competitive aspect of DragonRealms (whether that's PvP or just bragging rights on the renown scrolls) lose some of that enjoyment when others are able to "legitimately" buy in from Simutronics.
I'll admit that part of my dislike of selling experience boosters comes down to the likelihood that I would resent feeling like I am being "milked" -- a sensation that is increasingly common of late. Many players would feel compelled to buy experience boosters to remain competitive.
Just because players will pay for something does not mean they won't quietly resent you for it. (Take a look at the raffle thread, where Simutronics earned a few thousand dollars at the expense of leaving a few people with poor impulse control very unhappy that Simutronics enabled them to gamble hundreds of dollars.)
>>Summerson: What I'm saying is, why not funnel that money to SIMU (who can then in theory use that money to improve the game or perhaps even advertise or whatever) rather then just character merchants/gold sellers or whatever you want to call them.
The game is already heavily monetized through subscriptions and microtransactions -- plus all of the events and items that are placed behind additional paywalls. I'm not sure how much of the existing revenue really goes toward improving the game (GMs are basically volunteers) or whether additional revenue would result in a better game or more players. However, there are ways to increase revenue without selling power or disrupting game balance. For example, people will happily pay for cosmetic enhancements like alterations.
>>Badgopher: Is that functionally different than players dual-boxing 24x7 alt accounts, padding the raffles and other events with 10+ random accounts and/or just spending a few thousand on tickets, buying plats/characters?
I have expressed my dislike for this behavior in the past, and my opinion of it remains unchanged. However, the fact that this behavior goes on (and that Simutronics is either complicit in it or doesn't have the means to stop it) is not a compelling argument for monetizing the experience mechanics.
>>Ninevah1: This is one of the big draws of DR for me, and why they have been getting money from me for nearly 20 years now. If they were to switch to a model where you paid for ranks I would more than likely cancel my accounts and find another game.
I hate to say this, because I feel like players say it far too liberally (with no real intention to follow through), but I would seriously consider canceling if Simu monetized the experience mechanics. There is a reason I don't play "freemium" games: the pay-to-win mechanics just don't appeal to me personally.
I've discussed selling ranks/experience boosters enough in the past that at this point, I don't have much else to say on the matter.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
sortable list of all Trader-owned shops and inventory: http://www.elanthia.org/TraderShops/
armor and shields: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Armor_and_shield_player_guide
I'm not a fan of character sales -- ideally, it would be prohibited-- but buying characters on the grey market (DRSales) does not change the net level of power in the game (that power just changes hands), whereas being able to buy experience boosters (or ranks) from Simutronics increases the net level of power. (Character sales are also held somewhat in check by the stigma that is attached to "PayPal warriors" -- not to mention baggage from however those characters were played before -- that would presumably not exist if Simutronics offered a legitimate way to buy in.)
When this discussion has come up in the past, some have asked why players should care how quickly other players are advancing. Exacerbating rank bloat by allowing players to buy in (either directly with ranks or indirectly with experience boosters) affects everyone, as GMs design rank and stat requirements with expectations about what ranks and stats people have and how long it should take to get there. In extreme cases, skill contests could be adjusted for everyone to account for the fact that some players are buying ranks/experience boosters.
Additionally, players who enjoy the competitive aspect of DragonRealms (whether that's PvP or just bragging rights on the renown scrolls) lose some of that enjoyment when others are able to "legitimately" buy in from Simutronics.
I'll admit that part of my dislike of selling experience boosters comes down to the likelihood that I would resent feeling like I am being "milked" -- a sensation that is increasingly common of late. Many players would feel compelled to buy experience boosters to remain competitive.
Just because players will pay for something does not mean they won't quietly resent you for it. (Take a look at the raffle thread, where Simutronics earned a few thousand dollars at the expense of leaving a few people with poor impulse control very unhappy that Simutronics enabled them to gamble hundreds of dollars.)
>>Summerson: What I'm saying is, why not funnel that money to SIMU (who can then in theory use that money to improve the game or perhaps even advertise or whatever) rather then just character merchants/gold sellers or whatever you want to call them.
The game is already heavily monetized through subscriptions and microtransactions -- plus all of the events and items that are placed behind additional paywalls. I'm not sure how much of the existing revenue really goes toward improving the game (GMs are basically volunteers) or whether additional revenue would result in a better game or more players. However, there are ways to increase revenue without selling power or disrupting game balance. For example, people will happily pay for cosmetic enhancements like alterations.
>>Badgopher: Is that functionally different than players dual-boxing 24x7 alt accounts, padding the raffles and other events with 10+ random accounts and/or just spending a few thousand on tickets, buying plats/characters?
I have expressed my dislike for this behavior in the past, and my opinion of it remains unchanged. However, the fact that this behavior goes on (and that Simutronics is either complicit in it or doesn't have the means to stop it) is not a compelling argument for monetizing the experience mechanics.
>>Ninevah1: This is one of the big draws of DR for me, and why they have been getting money from me for nearly 20 years now. If they were to switch to a model where you paid for ranks I would more than likely cancel my accounts and find another game.
I hate to say this, because I feel like players say it far too liberally (with no real intention to follow through), but I would seriously consider canceling if Simu monetized the experience mechanics. There is a reason I don't play "freemium" games: the pay-to-win mechanics just don't appeal to me personally.
I've discussed selling ranks/experience boosters enough in the past that at this point, I don't have much else to say on the matter.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
sortable list of all Trader-owned shops and inventory: http://www.elanthia.org/TraderShops/
armor and shields: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Armor_and_shield_player_guide
BADGOPHER
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 06:45 AM CDT
>I have expressed my dislike for this behavior in the past, and my opinion of it remains unchanged. However, the fact that this behavior goes on (and that Simutronics is either complicit in it or doesn't have the means to stop it) is not a compelling argument for monetizing the experience mechanics.
This is a deliberately emotionally loaded statement.
Did you mean this in contrast to the current paradigm of adventurer/explorer? Or the other paradigm where people who pay more per month get access to 'better' facilities, healers, and hunting grounds? These mechanics already exist. People who pay more get more.
Simu would not be 'monetizing' the exp mechanics any more than they have already done. It would still require generation and consumption of exp through all normal channels. It just speeds up the process.
I don't much care either way though. Something probably needs to be done to speed people into the 'meat' of the modern game with new alts, because playing other guilds is healthy for the game. It gives people a feeling for grass-is-greener syndrome, core mechanics of other guilds, and in general improves the health and knowledge base of the game. As is, the choice of 'stop playing your main and waste 4-6-12 months to level an alt' vs. buy a new one someone else leveled for real life money, is a poor choice.
This is a deliberately emotionally loaded statement.
Did you mean this in contrast to the current paradigm of adventurer/explorer? Or the other paradigm where people who pay more per month get access to 'better' facilities, healers, and hunting grounds? These mechanics already exist. People who pay more get more.
Simu would not be 'monetizing' the exp mechanics any more than they have already done. It would still require generation and consumption of exp through all normal channels. It just speeds up the process.
I don't much care either way though. Something probably needs to be done to speed people into the 'meat' of the modern game with new alts, because playing other guilds is healthy for the game. It gives people a feeling for grass-is-greener syndrome, core mechanics of other guilds, and in general improves the health and knowledge base of the game. As is, the choice of 'stop playing your main and waste 4-6-12 months to level an alt' vs. buy a new one someone else leveled for real life money, is a poor choice.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 07:22 AM CDT
>>Something probably needs to be done to speed people into the 'meat' of the modern game
Time and time again, GMs have remarked that most players are flying past the actual meat of DR and ending up at a non-robust end game setting.
"Getting better over time (and effort)" is essentially "the" draw to DR's exp model. Not to fault anyone who wants to have a full spellbook from go, but starting off with [almost] everything would only make the game more bland, since they'd be rather limited in "new" excitements once the initial "oh I can cast this now" wears off.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Time and time again, GMs have remarked that most players are flying past the actual meat of DR and ending up at a non-robust end game setting.
"Getting better over time (and effort)" is essentially "the" draw to DR's exp model. Not to fault anyone who wants to have a full spellbook from go, but starting off with [almost] everything would only make the game more bland, since they'd be rather limited in "new" excitements once the initial "oh I can cast this now" wears off.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
GOLDENOAK
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 07:31 AM CDT
On the idea of the experience booster pots, I had a thought that could possibly work both as a microtrans and an in game item. Basically what I was thinking was to introduce experience draining potions into the alchemy - remedies skill...and have some store bought microtrans versions that would have similiar, but not quite as potent as top tier effects.
This would give a boost to characters who want to speed up learning without providing an advantage that is not available to anyone in the game. It would also give a nice higher tier ability in alchemy that would make training worthwhile.
Something like this:
This would give a boost to characters who want to speed up learning without providing an advantage that is not available to anyone in the game. It would also give a nice higher tier ability in alchemy that would make training worthwhile.
Something like this:
| Based on master crafted versions of potions, lower quality would increase cool down time. |
| Remedies tier 7 insight potions: Drain one of the experience skillsets 25% with 6 hour cool down. (Lore, magic, etc) |
| Remedies tier 8 insight potions: Drain one of the experience skillsets 50% with 4 hour cool down. |
| Remedies tier 9 insight potions: Drain one of the experience skillsets 75% with 3 hour cool down. |
| Remedies tier 10 insight potions: Drain all of the experience skillsets 100% with 2 hour cool down. |
| Microtrans insight potion 1: Drain one skillset 100% with 4 hour cool down. |
| Microtrans insight potion 2: Drain all skillsets 100% with 4 hour cool down. |
ABSOLON
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 07:51 AM CDT
All this creates is a rich get richer type of scheme, whether OOG rich and IG rich.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
GOLDENOAK
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 08:10 AM CDT
>>All this creates is a rich get richer type of scheme, whether OOG rich and IG rich.
Whats wrong with that again? If you train an in game skill to top levels why not be able to get rich off of it? As for the OOG rich, well that just helps keeps the game from going the way of Herc/Xena...right?
ABSOLON
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 08:14 AM CDT
I don't mean monetarily rich. I mean the people who have the most money, whether in game or out, will be the ones able to purchase said items and thus gain experience faster than those who do not have as much money in game or out. I.e. adding in game items to aid in closing the experience gap will only serve to widen that gap because the availability will be greatly skewed towards higher skilled people.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DERIUM
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 08:29 AM CDT
> I'm not a fan of character sales
I'm neutral on character sales, and it's something simu has supported in a defacto way with character transfers. That's fine, but I think we all agree that it would be better for the cost of the sale itself returned to SIMU, and that long-standing characters changing hands can be disruptive (can, not always is).
> but buying characters on the grey market (DRSales) does not change the net level of power in the game (that power just changes hands)
That's not the point. There's a natural ebb and flow of players. They come, they go, they come back. The characters that they play just keep growing when they are no longer playing the game. Certain HLCs are at the top of the game. They're changing hands so much that the natural growth process is short-circuited, and there is no way a new or even mid-level player will catch up with them. I doubt that would change if Simu did open up purchasing low to mid level characters. That's why this is not pay to win.
> When this discussion has come up in the past, some have asked why players should care how quickly other players are advancing....In extreme cases, skill contests could be adjusted for everyone to account for the fact that some players are buying ranks/experience boosters.
Have been adjusted. Take magic 3.0 for example. Spells that were being capped with 300 ranks now take 1000 ranks. That's a difference of thousands of hours of game time. That's fine, from a game perspective, and it had to happen; however, it's a little painful for the lowbie character to climb the ladder only to see their prize moved up higher on the rungs, in part, because a set of characters keep going after their player has retired/took a break.
> at the expense of leaving a few people with poor impulse control very unhappy
I'm not sure the people who actually paid the thousands of dollars were the ones upset. Still though, make these a limited purchase item. X per account, over a certain time frame, use on purchase.
> The game is already heavily monetized through subscriptions and microtransactions -- plus all of the events and items that are placed behind additional paywalls.
I totally get where you're going, but I would caution against extremes. What you're missing in this case is that nothing changes. Characters on the low to mid-low end have no impact on the game. They don't earn enough to dent the plat economy. They don't craft well enough (and won't for years) to dent the player products economy. The hunting zones are wide, varied, and have more than enough rooms available for everyone.
Furthermore, the idea is that nothing changes if you don't want it to change, for you. If you don't want to take advantage of this then you can keep going exactly as you are today. All the unlocks and skills are available in the same way that you play the game now. You can keep leveling exactly as you are today. You are missing out on nothing that you don't want, unless you say that you feel this is a necessity. Then you're agreeing with the underlying problem and we're just disagreeing on the fix.
> (and that Simutronics is either complicit in it or doesn't have the means to stop it)
Let's be fair here. There's nothing SIMU could do to stop it that wouldn't put undue burden and stress on the players who don't buy or sell accounts. Even if they took down transfers, people have account takeovers. Even if they prevented you from logging in except on specific IP addresses, then people would just spoof their credentials or register with a VPN service that did the same.
> but I would seriously consider canceling if Simu monetized the experience mechanics. There is a reason I don't play "freemium" games: the pay-to-win mechanics just don't appeal to me personally.
Again, my suggestion is not about pay to win. That's off the table. You can't "win" if you're starting a new character. You will never match the big accounts that have rarely logged out in the last 20 years. You will not do it. This is about a boost at the beginning to play the guild you're interested in playing without going through the (several month long) tutorial/early leveling process.
> "Getting better over time (and effort)" is essentially "the" draw to DR's exp model. Not to fault anyone who wants to have a full spellbook from go, but starting off with [almost] everything would only make the game more bland, since they'd be rather limited in "new" excitements once the initial "oh I can cast this now" wears off.
Different people have different opinions on the "the meat". For me, and maybe just me, I like the 50-100 range. I don't enjoy trying to juggle burdens, pick worthless spells just for learning, or trying to fight off monsters with the same spell for 10 levels. I do enjoy trying to optimize a routine and making my character more efficient. I sometimes like stepping off the treadmill and just exploring without fear of imminent death by falling into the wrong zoo pit. I'm not saying that any of this should be removed, but it's my preference. I'd like way for the game to support this, and I'm willing to pay for it.
>> Something like this:
I was thinking about something faster, but I like this too. I would only add to each potion, "Is only 50% effective for skills over X, and is not effective for skills over Y" to the mix.
I'm neutral on character sales, and it's something simu has supported in a defacto way with character transfers. That's fine, but I think we all agree that it would be better for the cost of the sale itself returned to SIMU, and that long-standing characters changing hands can be disruptive (can, not always is).
> but buying characters on the grey market (DRSales) does not change the net level of power in the game (that power just changes hands)
That's not the point. There's a natural ebb and flow of players. They come, they go, they come back. The characters that they play just keep growing when they are no longer playing the game. Certain HLCs are at the top of the game. They're changing hands so much that the natural growth process is short-circuited, and there is no way a new or even mid-level player will catch up with them. I doubt that would change if Simu did open up purchasing low to mid level characters. That's why this is not pay to win.
> When this discussion has come up in the past, some have asked why players should care how quickly other players are advancing....In extreme cases, skill contests could be adjusted for everyone to account for the fact that some players are buying ranks/experience boosters.
Have been adjusted. Take magic 3.0 for example. Spells that were being capped with 300 ranks now take 1000 ranks. That's a difference of thousands of hours of game time. That's fine, from a game perspective, and it had to happen; however, it's a little painful for the lowbie character to climb the ladder only to see their prize moved up higher on the rungs, in part, because a set of characters keep going after their player has retired/took a break.
> at the expense of leaving a few people with poor impulse control very unhappy
I'm not sure the people who actually paid the thousands of dollars were the ones upset. Still though, make these a limited purchase item. X per account, over a certain time frame, use on purchase.
> The game is already heavily monetized through subscriptions and microtransactions -- plus all of the events and items that are placed behind additional paywalls.
I totally get where you're going, but I would caution against extremes. What you're missing in this case is that nothing changes. Characters on the low to mid-low end have no impact on the game. They don't earn enough to dent the plat economy. They don't craft well enough (and won't for years) to dent the player products economy. The hunting zones are wide, varied, and have more than enough rooms available for everyone.
Furthermore, the idea is that nothing changes if you don't want it to change, for you. If you don't want to take advantage of this then you can keep going exactly as you are today. All the unlocks and skills are available in the same way that you play the game now. You can keep leveling exactly as you are today. You are missing out on nothing that you don't want, unless you say that you feel this is a necessity. Then you're agreeing with the underlying problem and we're just disagreeing on the fix.
> (and that Simutronics is either complicit in it or doesn't have the means to stop it)
Let's be fair here. There's nothing SIMU could do to stop it that wouldn't put undue burden and stress on the players who don't buy or sell accounts. Even if they took down transfers, people have account takeovers. Even if they prevented you from logging in except on specific IP addresses, then people would just spoof their credentials or register with a VPN service that did the same.
> but I would seriously consider canceling if Simu monetized the experience mechanics. There is a reason I don't play "freemium" games: the pay-to-win mechanics just don't appeal to me personally.
Again, my suggestion is not about pay to win. That's off the table. You can't "win" if you're starting a new character. You will never match the big accounts that have rarely logged out in the last 20 years. You will not do it. This is about a boost at the beginning to play the guild you're interested in playing without going through the (several month long) tutorial/early leveling process.
> "Getting better over time (and effort)" is essentially "the" draw to DR's exp model. Not to fault anyone who wants to have a full spellbook from go, but starting off with [almost] everything would only make the game more bland, since they'd be rather limited in "new" excitements once the initial "oh I can cast this now" wears off.
Different people have different opinions on the "the meat". For me, and maybe just me, I like the 50-100 range. I don't enjoy trying to juggle burdens, pick worthless spells just for learning, or trying to fight off monsters with the same spell for 10 levels. I do enjoy trying to optimize a routine and making my character more efficient. I sometimes like stepping off the treadmill and just exploring without fear of imminent death by falling into the wrong zoo pit. I'm not saying that any of this should be removed, but it's my preference. I'd like way for the game to support this, and I'm willing to pay for it.
>> Something like this:
I was thinking about something faster, but I like this too. I would only add to each potion, "Is only 50% effective for skills over X, and is not effective for skills over Y" to the mix.
GOLDENOAK
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 08:43 AM CDT
>>I don't mean monetarily rich. I mean the people who have the most money, whether in game or out, will be the ones able to purchase said items and thus gain experience faster than those who do not have as much money in game or out. I.e. adding in game items to aid in closing the experience gap will only serve to widen that gap because the availability will be greatly skewed towards higher skilled people.
If said potions were to sell in trader shops for 5-10 plats each, pretty much anyone who wanted them could afford them. It is easy enough to raise that much just from doing work orders, no matter what profession you play. Likewise if they sold the simucoin version for something like a 5 dose version for a dollar, it wouldn't break anyone's bank or anything.
Besides, its not about closing the experience gap with the high level players...because lets face it nothing will do that. Its about allowing skill progression to improve so that players have a way to move up in their guilds a bit faster and maybe enjoy some of the better abilities sooner.
This is a far cry from the other propositions in this thread, like by pre-made level 50 template characters or 4x experience boosters. This would basically be a way to clear your head quicker a few times a day...but you would still need to do the work to refill it.
ABSOLON
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 08:49 AM CDT
<<If said potions were to sell in trader shops for 5-10 plats each, pretty much anyone who wanted them could afford them. It is easy enough to raise that much just from doing work orders, no matter what profession you play. Likewise if they sold the simucoin version for something like a 5 dose version for a dollar, it wouldn't break anyone's bank or anything.
Sure, a low level character could spend all of his funds on one potion at that price. They probably wouldn't be that cheap. Meanwhile, a high skilled character wouldn't even blink at buying multiple potions at that price point.
Likewise for simucoins. Someone on a budget would maybe be able to afford a potion here or there. Someone able to drop $2000 on a simucoin residence, however, would be able to buy enough to permanently keep themselves rolling in inflated experience rates.
Experience is not something that should be monetized.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Sure, a low level character could spend all of his funds on one potion at that price. They probably wouldn't be that cheap. Meanwhile, a high skilled character wouldn't even blink at buying multiple potions at that price point.
Likewise for simucoins. Someone on a budget would maybe be able to afford a potion here or there. Someone able to drop $2000 on a simucoin residence, however, would be able to buy enough to permanently keep themselves rolling in inflated experience rates.
Experience is not something that should be monetized.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
GOLDENOAK
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 08:51 AM CDT
>> I was thinking about something faster, but I like this too. I would only add to each potion, "Is only 50% effective for skills over X, and is not effective for skills over Y" to the mix.
That would not be a bad idea...though potentially the limits on skill effectiveness caps could be something mitigated by higher quality ingredients
ABSOLON
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 08:51 AM CDT
<<or 4x experience boosters. This would basically be a way to clear your head quicker a few times a day...but you would still need to do the work to refill it.
You do realize the former requires the same thing and is no different, yes?
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
You do realize the former requires the same thing and is no different, yes?
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DERIUM
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 09:05 AM CDT
> Experience is not something that should be monetized.
It already is.
1. You're gated on a maximum experience in any skill you can learn per day/per month.
2. You can buy characters "pre-loaded" with experience (and baggage) on 3rd party sites.
3. You can buy access to exclusive areas (premie hunting zones) in experience generating zones, this includes creatures not otherwise available in some zones.
4. Explorers already have "experience boosters", that are monetized, and still do not match a basic sub.
> Likewise for simucoins. Someone on a budget would maybe be able to afford a potion here or there. Someone able to drop $2000 on a simucoin residence, however, would be able to buy enough to permanently keep themselves rolling in inflated experience rates.
This is a non-issue if you limit the level/skills that can use these potions, or if you upgrade someone to a specific pre-designed (minimum experience / level) template.
> Meanwhile, a high skilled character wouldn't even blink at buying multiple potions at that price point.
My suggestion also limited or discouraged who can buy or use these things. Lower levels, may. They don't have to, but it's an option. High skilled characters wouldn't buy them because they wouldn't receive a benefit, unless they wanted to try out another guild at a reasonable level without taking too much time from their main.
ABSOLON
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 09:31 AM CDT
>>1. You're gated on a maximum experience in any skill you can learn per day/per month.
>>2. You can buy characters "pre-loaded" with experience (and baggage) on 3rd party sites.
>>3. You can buy access to exclusive areas (premie hunting zones) in experience generating zones, this includes creatures not otherwise available in some zones.
>>4. Explorers already have "experience boosters", that are monetized, and still do not match a basic sub.
None of these are examples of monetizing experience boosters.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
>>2. You can buy characters "pre-loaded" with experience (and baggage) on 3rd party sites.
>>3. You can buy access to exclusive areas (premie hunting zones) in experience generating zones, this includes creatures not otherwise available in some zones.
>>4. Explorers already have "experience boosters", that are monetized, and still do not match a basic sub.
None of these are examples of monetizing experience boosters.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DERIUM
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 10:39 AM CDT
> None of these are examples of monetizing experience boosters.
You said, "Experience is not something that should be monetized." I was responding to that. Boosters would be another way to expand on what already exists. Besides, point #4 is selling a pass to increase absorption. That's directly monetizing from an experience booster. You can say that they don't count because explorers are already at a disadvantage, but the same is true of any new character trying to join in a realms populated mostly by high level characters and their alts.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: "Pay-to-win" is bad, but is "pay-to-catchup"?
06/13/2016 10:44 AM CDT
>>Besides, point #4 is selling a pass to increase absorption. That's directly monetizing from an experience booster.
I don't think "raises learning rates to [almost?] normal values" really counts as an exp booster in this context.
IMO, the main issue with boosters is that it will further top-load a game that has no "real" end game content (yet). I'm not entirely certain it is a good idea to further exacerbate an already iffy situation with the justification that it's happening through other means already (primarily character sales).
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
I don't think "raises learning rates to [almost?] normal values" really counts as an exp booster in this context.
IMO, the main issue with boosters is that it will further top-load a game that has no "real" end game content (yet). I'm not entirely certain it is a good idea to further exacerbate an already iffy situation with the justification that it's happening through other means already (primarily character sales).
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
