2 Big Picture Questions

Getting things fixed is different then trying to force the devs to make a game change to suit your playstyle, and not others. All the people asking for hardcaps, or full loot pvp, are the type of things I am talking about.

 

Could you explain this, I'm not sure I understand? I thought decay was worse for higher levels. Is there some other parameter I am unaware of?

 

Max decay is 1/4% of the total xp applied to a skill. So if we take a skill like Blade Mastery as an example, here is the breakdown:

Level 10 - 1 xp
Level 20 - 2 xp
Level 30 - 4 xp
Level 40 - 10 xp
Level 50 - 26 xp
Level 60 - 67 xp
Level 70 - 174 xp
Level 80 - 451 xp
Level 90 - 1169 xp
Level 100 - 3031 xp
Level 110 - 7862 xp
Level 120 - 20,391 xp
Level 130 - 52,890 xp
Level 140 - 137,184 xp
Level 150 - 355,819 xp
Level 160 - 922,903 xp
Level 170 - 2,393,771 xp
Level 180 - 6,208.827 xp
Level 190 - 16,104,097 xp
Level 200 - 41,769,880 xp

Therefore:

A level 40 player earning 2000 xp per hour of adventuring will need to play for about 20 seconds to recoup their loss from full decay of Blade Mastery.
A level 100 player earning 200,000 xp per hour of adventuring will need to play for about 1 minute to recoup their loss from full decay of Blade Mastery.
A level 200 player earning 2,000,000 xp per hour of adventuring will need to play for over 20 hours to recoup their loss from full decay of Blade Mastery.

Personally, I think the numbers speak quite plainly for themselves. But somehow I remain skeptical this will help to allay some people's concerns.

But anyway, changes are coming down the line that should placate all but the most inconsolable of players:

 

So what happens when the way you want to play is competing with other people?

 

Great! I personally would consider those things to be very important contributions to the community. You have the ability to create something in the game, that could perhaps another player!

You can survive solo in a mine? Sounds like you are progressing faster than me!

Me neither. Although its become much easier now that I understand some of the game mechanics that I didn't understand before.

I get the impression that it would take about a year (give or take a couple of months) for a new casual player to reach the endgame content. That sounds about right to me. How could we expect this game to have any longevity if new players can be at the endgame in a matter of a few weeks?

If you look back through Chris' post about the change to the use-based system, you can see where he proposed:

Unfortunately, it seems that some new players aren't really taking the time to learn what it really takes. They are jumping to conclusions that it is "unreachable" without learning what the mechanics actually are.

But that's just not really true. Players can almost immediately "contribute" in those ways to other players that are commensurate with their level.

But... there IS a soft cap system...?

Well then, welcome to the club! I must warn you though- even the most thought out, compelling, evidence-based arguments appear to fall on deaf ears when somebody has committed themselves to negative perceptions of this game.

Hopefully, you will find a way to become more successful at this than I have been.

 

Then, just like IRL you compete with people who are around or about your own level.

Nobody steps foot on a football field for the first time expecting to be competitive enough to play in the Superbowl next year.

Nobody decides they aren't going to ever pick up a football, because chances are they will never throw like Joe Montana.

Nobody demands that the NFL change the rules of the game, because it would simply be more fitting to their novice playstyle.

Nobody proclaims that they are only going to run 5 plays, and suggests that everybody else should also be limited to the same 5 plays, because they perceive it would make the game more fun for them.

Or I should say- if people did do those things, nobody else would take them seriously.

And I don't see any particularly good reason why this game should be any different.

 

So play time is the most important requirement for achieving football stardom?

So are stating that meaningful competition will exist at levels other than the top tiers? It doesn't now, which dev are you getting this information from?

So the change from a football with rounded ends to one with pointed ends wasn't to make it easier to throw accurately?

So the NFL's consistent banning of plays that stretch the rules of the game isn't an effort to limit the game?

 

I guess your the only lower level player, and everyone else is WAY ahead of you then? You don't think there are other players that are low level pvp flagged? The virtue league has different categories to keep things equal. If they made pvp zones with level caps, then you could have more equality. If you want to compete with the few top end players, well, your going to have to grind. If you expect the game to limit everyone down to your level, then your just being selfish.

 

Not necessarily the most important, however if a player does not have sufficient free time to commit to the amount of training and practice it will take to become a star then they shouldn't have any expectations of becoming one.

Among players who have made the commitment to "do what it takes" then other things are more important such as natural talent, ability to play well with others, tenacity in the face of defeat, and just plain luck.

It is pretty much the same here. Except I might add that keybinding was recently shown in scientific research to be one of the top factors that distinguishes top players from the masses:

I'm not sure what the plan is. What I am saying is that people generally improve by competing against people in their own "league". First you play at the high school level, then college, then pro.

I'm not exactly sure why that change was made, but that sounds like a reasonable motive. If so- the change made it easier for everybody. It didn't aim to "punish" the elite players while making it easier for rookies.

That is not the same thing.

But to use your example- if the NFL decides to ban a play that they deemed too easy to exploit for an unfair advantage, then they simply ban the play for everybody and the matter is done with.

They don't go and try to "claw back" past wins which utilized the banned play. They don't retroactively punish players for gaming the rules. They just change the rules and move forward.

 

Seen any drop-kicks lately? The same change that made throwing easier effectively eliminated the dropkick from the sport.

The original contention is that the NFL doesn't restrict new plays just because teams don't want to have to evolve beyond the standard plays. The NFL totally bans new inventive plays at the behest of coaches that are concerned that innovations will disrupt the way the game is played.

But by all means keep up the NFL analogies, just be warned that few folks walk out of the home of the GOATs a winner

 

So what is it that you expect? You want the everyone to be capped at the level your at? You think you should be the standard that everyone else should play by? I should not play more then you, even though I can and want to?

 

Simply, I expect that time spent grinding not be the chit you spend to access "the good stuff".

 

What exactly do you mean to access the good stuff? With the right build, you can start killing the demon at about level 85-90, but this will also takes being a skilled player. The one thing about being able to access high level content, is to be high level. I don't know of any game where a new player is killing hard bosses or going to high level zones, it always takes work to get there.

 

I mentioned this before and will do so again. Good stuff does not need to be high level.

World of Warcraft had low-level dungeons. Rift had rifts in low-level areas.

There are plenty of low-level yet hard bosses in other games. Yet, these games did not discount the efforts of the players. There is just simply a lot of different content at different levels.

 

Sota has a few lower level bosses as well, but don't expect to be dropping lich rings left and right off them. I would assume your not dropping end game gear off those other games easier bosses either.

 

But i then ask me if we all should become Fire, Death, Sun, Earth, Blades, Archer Mages.
I choosed to be a Life, Water, Moon, Air Magician,not using 2 wands or a shield or a bow, wearing chainmail...
That's maybe more effective, but feels not right to me if i want to be a pure Mage.

This is why i argue here and often get misunderstood and sometimes accused.

Not limit down to a level, but limit it in a way to have a smaller gap. And a more seen reachable goal without to min max.

 

I wanted to be a shield mage, then they made certain mobs so magic immune, I had to take up a weapon. I wanted to be and air death mage, but because of people crying about air, it kept getting nerfed, and now death is being nerfed. I wanted to be a paper cannon type shield mage, but the heavy skills enable me to do more.

Now you don't want to limit other players, players who play a lot, and do like to min max, but you want to use inferior builds, and be comparable? Then what you want to do is be asking for buffs in the skills you want to use, and not nerfs to the other ones. you want to have a smaller gap? Play more, the gap becomes smaller as everything is on a curve. To get things to level 80 is nothing compared to getting it to level 100, and the difference between 80 and 100 is very minimal. As I showed on a different thread, the difference on healing burst between level 80 and 100 was 3 health.

So what do you suggest that will shorten the gap, that allows someone who hardly plays, to be competable with those that play every day for hours a day, that is fair to both users?

 

I really think playing more than 4 hours a day shouldn't give you such an advantage.
I allways think that time invested shouldn't be that much affecting competability.
I don't want limit players playing the game for 24/7 , play 25hrs/d if you can

But is this decisively of beeing competetive or is choosing and leveling as much skills as you can decisively of beeing competetive?
That feels more like a meritocracy than a game and it creates this gap i don't like.
That would be all fine if we won't have a player driven economy and PvP what is massively affected by this.
It's always clear to me that it wouldn't change in my direction, i just want to point these things out and make a statement.
And as you can see i am not getting tired to do this , because i'm somewhat idealistic on that topic.
The reward for playing more should be fun playing , competing, cooperating , socializing whatever .
I doubt that some people play and grind that much for fun, but to be on top and to do others down, be better, be able to earn more money, win more battles (not with playerskill, but time spended and sometimes because of both).

I dont want to blame or accuse people, please play as you like, but if we think of more people would be able to partake in competetive content of the game, wouldnt that be good? More challenging, more variance created?
Why reduce competability in any case to the ability of time investmemt? I don't get it?
It would be more interesting in all cases to have a wider playerbase competing with everybody , or am i wrong on that?
Wouldn't it be cool and more challenging to have a lot of casualgamers who are willing to compete in crafting, selling and pvp to be part of it?
But they cannot because they haven't the time to become competetive?
The answer and solution can or should not just be: play more and if you cannot play something else.
Same for if you aren't willing to choose this or that build/ skill than you blame yourself and don't ask the environment to do adapt to you , but adapt yourself to the environment.
Why have Moontree then? For the dex and a magic resistance buff ?
Why have Polearms if blades are better in any case.
Some days ago someone saw me fighting and asked me what i am using because it was interesting to him see me using spells that a lot of people apparently don't use, because they are less efficient than a death, fire, blades build. (kitet spiders with icefiled , meteor shower , chainlightning and blink) .
If I go multiplayer I allways see death fire builds grinding mobs.
Sure there are exceptions, but do you disagree that this is the most effective method to grind mobs?

Please all don't take me and my opinion too serious , I know I am somewhat "special" about that and neverending asking for more balance to casuals etc... But I don't complain that much as it maybe sounds .
Maybe it is because of language and I cannot explain myself propper.
To adopt players do that to do down others is maybe bad , i don't want to exaggerate that, but for some i experienced this is true.

Don't lawyer me too much, I am a big fan of the game and some part of the community and get help from powergamers too what were allways nice to me in conversation, I don't have any personal grudges against someone , I just think this sort of balance would be a profit to the game and the community.

 

Can you reach level 85-90 without grinding (not just playing) for months? If not, then I say that RG has failed to keep his promise and the game should be adjusted.

 

Some people were level 85 in the first month. If you got the right build, and know the right places to go, you can get 85 pretty fast.