The Grind

I agree, and that may be a bit much but I like that idea. Part of the problem with the grind is, you earn some xp while fighting or questing, then you are FORCED to grind to USE the xp you just earned.. it sort of adds a lot of extra grind to the whole game..

 

Perhaps, when killing mobs and having the xp pool fill up, instead of grinding that earned xp into the skills afterwards, what if the xp earned per hit was larger than it currently is, based on mob strength (and a successful kill) and didn't use the pool at all? Some more balancing, to combat the amount of perceived grind? The xp pool is at the heart of the grind afterall.. is the pool something that should be looked at? I dunno, some ideas, added to tons of others in this thread. I hate the grind as well, and I was destroyed in PVP, but I accept it, the same as I accept the ghost in Ravensmoor, whom I know I'll have to grind just to be able to defeat one day.

 

You're supposed to be 75% as effective as a lvl 100 at around lvl 40, which doesnt take long to get to.

At 80% you're about 90% as effective as a 100 i think. Thats what id currently intended.

These are numbers for skills that use xp pool. So being 75% effective will get u a long way, 90% will get u everywhere. Anything above level 80 is a rewardfor people who want to spend the time it takesto push that far.

It is not required to get to 100 to compete with a 100. Or even a 150

 

People playing zero hours on weekdays and 10 hours on weekends would be busted. If you put up a week-based limit, people who won't play a whole month, but then come back and play triple your 'normal' the next month are busted. People who don't want to roleplay, who don't want to PvP, but enjoy grinding for more than what you consider 'normal' per day... tough luck!

Because you don't enjoy it, 'we' need less of it and more of what you enjoy. Amusingly, at one time you claim that you think there's hardly anybody reaching past level 40. And now, you claim that 'we have a lot of power gamers'? What is it? Is there plenty, or few? You can't claim that there's both.

Then again, that is exactly what made them the best fighter. How many hours do you figure Vitali Klitschko spent boxing and how many did he spend 'training'?

How so? According to you, they are mainly grinding, which isn't roleplaying. You want to 'force' them to something they don't enjoy doing. You can still interact with them all you want, because the fantastic point about the algorithm is that you can 'switch' at any time. While you get a more even fight most of the time when going in for open world PvP, you can still meet, interact and 'RP' with everybody you choose. And all of that without forcing others to play as you want to play.

You forget that the game's about 'story' as well and part of that story is the possibility of combat (we don't know yet if combat can be fully avoided for the story). Now if those starting at Episode II get in as powerful as they'd b e after having finished Episode I, then every possible combat at the Episode I story would be meaningless to them.

Das Tal, a maixture of RPG and MOBA (heavy open world PvP). I'd be happy to provide you with a guest key for the next testing period, just let me know if you want one (I should get multiple, so that offer applies to everybody).

 

There is already an elegant mathematical solution in place. It requires exponentially more XP for each incremental increase in your adventurer level, such that to advance from level 90 to level 100 requires as much XP as is required to go from level 0 to level 90. The obvious implication is that it makes far more sense to have two level 90 skills than one level 100 skill for the same cost in XP. People who turn off innate skill advancement in order to more easily level other skills to GM are in my view making a huge mistake. There is no logical reason to advance beyond, say, level 80 in any skill until you have levelled all essential skills up to level 80.

 

Incidentally regarding grinding, anyone who thinks the Adventurer level grind is boring should try the Producer grind - especially mining. It is perhaps ironic that one of the ways that I keep myself amused while slowly chipping away at iron and copper is by reading a 23 page thread started by @Baron Drocis Fondorlatos, in which he complains about the grind.

Can anyone think of a use for 2,506,199 pooled Producer XP?

 

True, I read through screenshot let's plays. Kind of says something when watching someone play another game is more interesting than playing the one you are in the middle of

 

I mentioned some time ago that in this case it might be better to try seeing the general idea and not get stuck in the details of the implementation (I believe what Baron Drocis suggested was kind of a off-the-knee example). Am I imagining things, or do I sense the delicate scent of a burning straw man in here?
To borrow a bit from your own example, I seriously doubt that even Vitali Klitschko would be able to follow a training regime of no training on weekdays and 10 hours on weekends, let alone neglecting training for a whole month, but then coming back and training triple the 'normal' the next month...

However since this is a game, we can in principle code in whatever kind of rules we want. However, need for rest, recovery and nutrition (referring to my own post linked above) are rather well recognized concepts in many RPG games -- there are, of course, differences of opinion on whether or not some or any of them are desirable to enforce on the level of game mechanics. From what I have understood from RG's statements, at least nutritional needs are going to be implemented in one way or other.

So it's mostly a matter of choosing a good implementation. I personally would prefer a realistic, non-grindy implementation where folks would need both rest and food from time to time.

There are several people who enjoy it, and several who don't enjoy it. This is quite normal. Claiming that this would have something to do with the main point of this thread is simply incorrect. The point is to achieve a better, more enjoyable game balance for everyone. This is really not about anyone's personal likings, and claiming so borders on a personal attack, which is against the forum rules. So please do not try to make it sound like some kind of personal quest, because it is not.

Also, if one wants to, for example, make statements like "you claim that you think there's hardly anybody reaching past level 40", it would be preferable to provide an exact quote. Otherwise it might sound like you're arguing against your own interpretation, not what was actually written.

 

I've been, among other things, reading (documents, books, and yes also this forum), doing some work, watching movies when doing mining. My latest invention is called Mining Grinding Chaotic Tabatas, where you arrange a series of tabatas-like exercises in circuit-training fashion and do one set of reps for each node until it has been mined, so if mining the node happens to fail 7 times in a row -- well, tough luck.

I've been wondering about it -- judging from the amount of available producer XP compared to the speed of progress, I'd estimate reaching a GM level in mining somewhere around 2023.

 

What I find more frustrating in a "grindy game" is that quite often you are totally, utterly, inarguably useless until you reach "level XX".
All you can do until then is grind, i.e. do repetitive tasks which are not fun nor rewarding, but only aimed at slowly bringing you closer to "level XX".
Then, and only then you will be able to start playing an actual game.

In such a context, socialising, or "social adventuring" means being a drag for a party. You follow around doing nothing useful really, until you have enough XP.
All you can contribute until then is your one-liners to keep the group merry. You are not even useful as a human packmule until you achieve "strength XX", so yet more grinding.

If a game had a level cap of 1000, and it took me 10 years of 4-hours-a-day gaming to achieve level 20, I'd be ok with that if being level 1 to 20 was fun.
If it took me just a month to get to max level, but it was a month of mind numbing grinding where I could not produce anything useful as a crafter, could only fight a few helpless enemies which provided useless or no loot, and my interactions with other players were basically limited to a fancy chat, then I'm not sure I'd keep playing.

A story-driven game where I could get involved with a story and find my character "naturally" progressing as I went through it: that would be good.
Also an emergent gameplay-based multiplayer experience where no matter what level I was or how much gold was in my pockets, I still could get involved and contribute to something, that would be good too.
This is what I hope I will get from SoTA, someday, maybe around the Beta release? Hopefully sooner than that.

I used to play UO, I had fun, but there was lots of grinding too. I sat for hours doing the same clicks over and over again as my miner extracted ore that would be basically destroyed in the process of grinding a few decimal points in blacksmithing.
Why did I do that? I was young. Would I do it now? No, life looks really short now.
Watching my character slowly extracting ONE copper ore which takes minutes and serves no other purpose than gaining a few points, with the promise that one day maybe I will have fun using those points provided that I live long enough... Not my idea of fun.

 

And that's part of the problem. You want an 'arena'/MOBA type of game for 'e-sports' PvP. Others have different preferences (including myself, though I play plenty a MOBA, I don't see SotA as one).

That REALLY makes me want to give you a dozen likes for that posting and I seriously wish you'd get rewarded with some 'bard' skills. I'm convinced Themo and friends enjoyed the nice music

According to the article that has been quoted multiple times in this thread, this is contradicting. 'Killers try not to cross the paths of other killers'.

I took the liberty to ask, hoping that you wouldn't mind. I slightly edited the question and included a follow up though for better readability. Amusingly enough, Das Tal is so very much your game 'it's not even funny anymore' (that person is the main developer of Das Tal).

Phew! Made it! I'm now several ores richer in game and at the end of the thread! Mission accomplished?

I'm not going to 'bait' on the staw man blame, but head directly to the serious response. I'm very much in favour for the implementation of rest and nutrition. But I'd want them 'in game time', not 'out of game time' and soft instead of hard caps. If I don't drink for the second day, I'd certainly accept small 'retributions' to happen, but not suddenly stopping to gain anything from my preferred playstyle, simply because somebody else has a different schedule then I do.

I'm going to ignore the 'side board moderation advice' and jump to the point again. Great, I'm all in favour of improving the game for everybody, Kudos and power to anybody who tries. However, his direct suggestion was for players to stop being able to enjoy the game as they do (stop gaining after 2 hours a day).

 

@Logain, I intended no baiting, nor 'side board moderation advice', only attempted (and apparently failed) to point out that each suggestion and comment has a lot of room for interpreting it in many quite different ways. I mean, for instance, that one may choose to a) oppose an idea by any means possible or b) try to improve upon it, by trying to understand what the suggestion is actually trying to achieve. I believe only the latter has any chance of producing anything meaningful or constructive. Sadly, all too often these forum discussions tend to deteriorate into name calling, questioning personal motives, attacking one's own (typically rather lazy/sloppy) interpretations instead of what was actually said, lazily veiled sarcasm, personalized prejudice, you name it. Perhaps I've become a bit too allergic to it all, so apologies if I sounded too harsh.

I still think that soft limits that are at least partially time-based, simulating exhaustion/boredom (I want a "Bored" debuff! [-30 int, -20 dex, -10 str, -40% move rate] ) and need for sleep/rest/food would only improve the gaming experience for most people. Why at least partially time-based? Because otherwise it would just become yet another grind on top of one grind, just yet another entry in a grinding procedure (or even a macro). I can elaborate on this if needed.

And the need to pay attention to level differences due to excessive grinding is quite real I think: even though individual skill effectiveness might follow a square root curve, overall character performance certainly does not, because individual skills and innates stack and reinforce each other in various ways that are not directly calculable. I can elaborate on that too if needed.

 

It has been a while since I posted on this thread. I am curious has anyone produced hard numbers to show that someone with skills averaging in the 40's range is being crushed by someone with skills averaging 80's range. I have not worked numbers but when it comes to feel. I do not feel that there is a huge ramp up in power.

SotA is not a traditional level progression where a person at level 100 is significantly more powerful then someone who is just 10 levels below. I am pretty sure that the Devs have mentioned countless times that the power curb of skills once balanced will be fairly flat.

I believe how a person picks their skills, puts together their deck, and uses tactics will be the difference in PvP and not so much what level you are once you get to mid 40s in skills.

 

I can tell you unequivocally that my 6 year old daughter could beat someone in pvp using a character at level 80 against a character that was level 40.

 

Yes, last week I was a level 45 and a level 65 pvped me, and I barely scratched him, I attacked with everything I had. It took him about 6 or less hits to finish me.

 

That sounds to be a balancing issue to me. For example, I play a ranger type, I basically have all the ranged weapon skills up to 40 through mid 50. I have healing skills in the mid 40's and light armor in the mid 50s. I have killed certain types of players with skills in the 80s range. They are either mages or warriors. With mages I tend to crit them at 125 damage so they go down fast when they have no CC and warriors I tend to keep them snared and I kite around until I drop them.

So my testing indicates that some skills are way over powered while others are under powdered regardless of level. Again my testing does not have numbers so I was wondering if any of the "number" geeks have tested the base damage difference between a level 40 skill and the same skill at level 80.

 

The largest gap between levels is not DPS, it's hit points.

A player at level 80 undoubtedly has a much higher skill level in healthy and strength, giving them perhaps as much as 700 HP. If you're at level 40, you might have 200 to 250 HP. Because the DPS of weapons and spells are often a range of numbers (let's say 5 to 15 points of damage) you may be able to compete on that level if you get lucky rolls and your opponent gets bad rolls but over time (many fights) you will lose almost always (even if the HP were the same). The level 80 guy is likely going to have higher Vital Points and Blade Damage (or example) so that will impact the gap too.

So yeah, it's a balance issue, with the core combat design. There's a lot going on that makes being level 80 vs. level 40 an easy win that requires absolutely zero skill.

 

You are partially correct, but 40 vs 80 is likely going to lose most of the time since the level 80 is very likely to have also leveled a bunch of core combat skills like weapon skill and attributes. After you hit level 60 things are allot easier and at 70 there is no need to gain more levels unless you really feel the need (most pvp people stop at this point). Deck construction and tactics makes a HUGE difference as you guessed which is why certain players dominate at lower levels and feel no need to progress any further.

 

I think it's very important to discern between character levels and skill levels, because these two tend to get somewhat muddled up in discussions. So please bear with me when once again I state the obvious:

The character "level" is, at least in our "use based skills" context, mostly an arbitrary number, essentially just indicating the size of the total XP pool (yes I know it's still used in a couple of places in PvE), and it is doing that job in a rather unintuitive way: the total XP pool of a level 80 character is about 46 times the size of the total XP pool of a level 40 character. The total XP pool of a level 65 character is "only" approx. 11 times as large (than lvl40), but the +1000% difference still allows a much higher level investment in skills (both variety and depth). (source and discussion about these figures in here, it is of course discussable whether or not these are actually correct any more, as the total XP is no longer shown to ordinary players).

Using a ranger type as an example, in addition to HP and general ranged skills, a higher level ranger might have invested much more heavily in dexterity and armor weak points, various light armor skills, tactics and focus skills, and possibly some offensive and defensive magic. For certain glyph skills like Aimed Shot the additional glyph given by raising the skill above level 80 can make a big difference -- 5 available Aimed Shot glyphs in combination with Mind Blank allows the player to unleash an almost constant barrage of Aimed Shots.

Because of the way various skills stack and support each other, I'd say that no level 40 character stands any chance against a level 65 character, if the available XP has been invested using any sense (assuming of course that both characters are built more or less with PvP in mind). Like Themo Lock observed,when reaching 60-70-ish the "investable" XP differences might matter less (as everything necessary is at a high enough level already, with additional investments only providing increasingly diminishing returns), but at lower levels the "XP scarcity" is quite real.

I don't currently do PvP, and my 62th level ranger is focusing more towards crafting and taming than combat, but I'd still be happy to test things out (including the above claims) if someone would find it necessary or interesting (just PM me and we can discuss the details).

EDIT- fixed some typos regarding character level xp pool relative sizes

 

It's so strange to have to talk about having 700 hp when we clearly knew back in 1999 that it was unbalanced and at least 500 hp over the mark...

This isn't a "balance" issue when the remainder of the balance is bigger than the amount we should leave...