Level 40 . What would you have done [Archive] - Dungeons & Dragons Online Forums

Weemadarthur

09-10-2021, 09:41 PM

So how would all the the don't nerf the gear ! Guys have done to move to level 40 ?

Make all level 31 gear a few points better than the LV 29 gear from pre nerf feywild , then scale up from there?

Or make all level 31 gear a few points better than the lv29 ravenloft gear , then scale up from there ( I'm guessing this wouldn't work as all gear would not get past feywild til level 55 ) ?

Never go beyond level 30 and just stick with constantly adding new level 30 content and then increase power with every level ?

Seems to be a lot of angry peeps about the stat squish/legendary monster squish . But not seen many solutions to what should have happened?

Well here we go lol.

1st of all I wouldn't have added such an insanely huge jump in power in the 1st place. All content until this point should have been released as epic content (level 20-29) with stats that were at least close to what was already available. Once there was enough epic content to cover the full level 20-29 spread I would have done the same as they did with epics and introduced legendary content as special content at level 30 that could only be run at level 30. This would ofc have had loot that could be slightly more powerful (+15 stats etc) but kept legendary loot in legendary quests.

Once there was enough content at 30 to warrant further expansion they could then slowly raise the bar of legendary questing keeping loot inline with the content that is balanced against whatever new power levels they introduce.

Questions like the one you have asked always tend to ignore the fact that this is a problem that SSG made for themselves. There was literally no sane reason to jump straight to +19 stat loot with RL. The set bonuses alone would have been reason enough to farm these items if they had been released in their current form. Packs would still have sold, money would still have been made and the game would have been designed around this game balance. The issue we have atm is they are trying to balance a game which has been based around characters having full ED's from 20 and +19 or higher stats from 28. The amount of work required to actually make this work is far to much for the small staff of SSG. So although i applaud the intent behind this stat squish and ED revamp I don't hold a lot of hope that the finished product will be a quality one.

Tilomere

09-10-2021, 11:51 PM

I don't think they should have gone past level 20.

Weemadarthur

09-11-2021, 12:20 AM

I don't think they should have gone past level 20.

Although I partially agree with the sentiment I'm really not sure that the game would still be here if they had kept the cap at 20. It's easy to look back at the golden era of DDO and remember things being much better balanced and end game being a lot more fun but the fact is we only really had level 20 as cap for a very short time. Without a significant change in how the game played I think there is a good chance the game would have stagnated after a few more years if they hadn't raised the cap. Like it or not MOTU and the cap raise did bring a lot of players back and for quite a long time epics kept the game feeling fresh. I'm not 100% sure that could have been done with the 20 cap remaining in place.

AbyssalMage

09-11-2021, 03:33 AM

So how would all the the don't nerf the gear ! Guys have done to move to level 40 ?
For starters we wouldn't be leveling up to 40. This is D&D and not some garbage MMO. But let's pretend we had no choice because the CEO, CFO, and board want to get as much cash as possible before ruining the game...

Make all level 31 gear a few points better than the LV 29 gear from pre nerf feywild , then scale up from there?

Or make all level 31 gear a few points better than the lv29 ravenloft gear , then scale up from there ( I'm guessing this wouldn't work as all gear would not get past feywild til level 55 ) ?
Level 30/31 gear would have the same stats as Feywild but moved around to cause direct conflicts with current itemization. I would have also brought back effects that prior developing teams discontinued. The results if properly done correctly is a net gain of about 5% for classes lagging behind while classes at the top remained even.

I would introduce a new NPC mechanic where they have a flat (depending on difficulty) percentage resistance to different weapon damage. Of course the level 30+ content would have various weapons to overcome this weapon damage reduction. This would force melee to find multiple weapon sets because no longer would NPC's simply shrug off 156 damage (for example) but instead they would shrug off 50% or more of the weapon damage. Great, your attack did 2k damage on that crit but the NPC only took 1k (or less, if we stack DR with the new percentage).

On the caster side, they would gain pure immunity (overriding the debuff that currently casters enjoy) while simultaneously granting spells of an opposing school more DPS. This forces casters to train in at least 2 x schools (it would also force the team to actually fix casters in a meaningful way besides nerfs). So you cast a fire spell, the NPC gains "immunity to fire" that shows up in its buff bar and lasts 6 seconds. It can't override itself. It also places a debuff on itself that makes it 500% more susceptible to one of the other 3 elements (random) for 6 seconds. It can't override itself.

These are "Legendary/Godly" levels so there is no "hand holding" by the development team any longer. NPC's are going to be harder to kill and switch immunities quickly. Players need to adjust just as quickly.

By time players reach 40, melee should be expected to have Blunt, Pierce, Slashing, alignment, and metalline bypassing weapons. As packs are released the composition of immunities should be cycled. This will favor spell casters in inventory management but they have their own suffering if the RNG doesn't pick their second element.

Never go beyond level 30 and just stick with constantly adding new level 30 content and then increase power with every level ?
Causing gear conflicts and cycling gear properties can sustain the game for long past the life of DDO. I kind of introduced you to it above (with weapons and spells). People who constantly chase the 1% in my experience burn out on an MMO and chase the next MMO. I literally watch players come back for an expansion. Burn through it with timers and rerolls then quit until the next expansion. Some stay for the perfect mythic/reaper combo but they are exceedingly rare.

Seems to be a lot of angry peeps about the stat squish/legendary monster squish . But not seen many solutions to what should have happened?
Solutions? They should have listened to the players who said it was a bad idea before RL was released. It actually took them how long to start putting set bonuses on gear so they didn't have to keep raising stats? I'll be civil but if you want my unbridled feelings about this...these are not the forums that will allow me, and many others, to truly express our hatred for SSG's (and prior development teams) literal mismanagement of DDO. SSG has to take FULL responsibility for the mess they (and their predecessors caused) and quit jerking us around with nerfs under the guise of "balance" and "lag fixes." yeah. must. remain. civil.

Oliphant

09-11-2021, 10:20 AM

I have no virtue signaling, first order issue with the changes but worry about the complex system with this much disruption occurring.

Ghallanda is slowly reforming but it felt pretty dead since last update.
Low population perspective: worries about them doing virtuous things like attempting to flatten all content (is there enough player icing for such a large game cake?)
So not mad, more worried for us and them. Should be navigable but also perilous right now.
Major danger if they nerf any form of Completionist benefit, even perceived. On this day the game will surely die.
People been saying they don't want level 40. I don't really care either way as long as the people stick around.
Maybe listen to the people though, they demonstrate they have other things they could be doing lately.

Marshal_Lannes

09-11-2021, 12:24 PM

I'd look at why there is a need to go toward level 40. Is it to allow more character progression? To sell +9 ability tomes? To phase in +15 gear? I believe there are other ways to provide for character progression. We just reduced the stats on all items, I don't really think we need +15 items and I suspect there will be a large backlash against them from the you took it away and now are selling it back to us crowd. If you went through all the trouble of scaling things back why push them up again 6 months later? So that seems to leave selling +9 stat tomes - remember +8 tomes were just 75% off leading me to believe the upgrade is coming sooner rather than later. If the game needs the revenue from +9 tomes can't they just be applied to level 30?

What would I do if I can't keep the cap at 30? I'd build out the current level system. So right now you're still technically level 20 then 1-10 Epic. I'd add in a Legendary tree. So once you hit 30, you stay 30 but the experience you earn can be spent in the Legendary tree(s) which might look something like the reaper trees. Well, wait isn't that confusing since we already have revamped epic trees plus reaper trees and now you want to add another tree? OK maybe you're right so we just make one tree and what do most people want from the reaper trees anyway? More HPs. I don't know this isn't perfect but who wants to be L36 and running "dailies"? That just seems stupid. And what is going to be the difference between being L30 now and L40 in six months? The average player might have slightly more power but the very good players will have a lot more power and the game will need to be balanced around them. Then what have we achieved? If the design philosophy is to make the game more fun and give players something more to do I'd like to see the big picture on how that is going to work.

DRoark

09-11-2021, 01:00 PM

Level cap increase? No. Other games have an Alternate XP system, something you can put XP into once you hit cap. They provide quality of life perks.
You don't get full XP in them, to slow power creep, just a percentage similar to Reaper. The things in the alternate XP Tree are always active even when
you TR, like other passive past-life class bonuses, and are account-wide. They would take longer to level up, but would aid alternate characters as well.

For axample:
Minor Healing Amplification: Each point in this skill increases your Heal AMP by 1% (Maximum 20%).
Minor Swiftness: Each point in this kill increases your base run speed by 1% (Maximum 10%).
Endless Ammo: Points in this skill give your ammunition a chance to Return (Maximum Whatever, but eventually 100% would be useful for non-summoning builds).
Various Skills: Points in this increase your Skill by (1) per stack (Maximum 10). Considering you get +19 augments, and +20 from gear, this example isn't OP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are not meant to be more powerful then existing bonuses you already get from past lives, or gear, merely to augment via XP things you already can get,
and give you a way to spend XP post-30, without needing some god-awful increase to further expand the ever-widening player grouping gap from he11.

Chai

09-11-2021, 02:59 PM

Valerianus

09-11-2021, 03:57 PM

It all hinges on not going with a p2w revenue model in the first place back in 2009. This creates a situation where you no longer have to leverage massive increases in character power to sell content. Character power can still increase, but in very small increments. Invest in the art team and create a bevy of cosmetics straight out of the old school PHB, DMG, MM, other splat materials, and covers of novels. Player housing. Voice call out sound boarding. Characters from novelization as hirelings. Different methods of transport and mounts. Hundreds of dye colors for all of it, from the walls of your house to the armor on your back. Guild logos. Furniture. Guild banners for bringing buffs with you. Character make over kits. etc...

thanks old turbine for being short sighted. or maybe just unable to do stuff right. i mean, they did some stuff really good, but imho by mistake. in my humble opinion ddo is really good and interesting because it is not a trinity game, do not rely all the time on fixed attack rotations, and it has some deep char customization. basically old turbine wanted to do a mmo but instead they did a single player game with multiplayer options. a happy accident. e.g. outdated interface, like, inventory, and e.g. ammo count, weight count, breaking barrels like diablo...luckily, sort of, nice old school. like, old baldurs gate or neverwinter, but with more multiplayer and some nice way to move and jump around. unluckily, all instanced, not even a real general chat, do we ever think about this, ddo has no real general chat, no housing, no cosmetics, no pvp, no way to set up a decent storage, no guild tools, no real events, the world is not lively, no user-made plugins, whatever comes into your mind, is not there, nothing, nothing, literally nothing except instanced dungeon crawl and probably working on the code to create something new is a nightmare or impossible. it is not a mmo.

15 years later, we are still here. cause after all we are still here while we really like that single player game with multiplayer options setup and anything changing this core setup, we will oppose it. like that charger\builder\spender\whateveritwas thing. and anything against that core setup, expecially not being a trinity game, will hurt the game.

how much more time should we wait to see ddo become a mmo, retaining these special core features, but selling us stuff and be functional like a proper mmo? i admit my hopes are high about hearing something about these issue from the new producer.

voxson5

09-11-2021, 05:11 PM

...what should have happened?

I quite like Destiny 2's power system, where if you're under/over the recommended for the activity you are slightly handicapped/slightly overpowered.

If they could make 30-40 a lateral progression (so it's lv 30 tier 1-10), and make dynamic power scaling per player, might be good.

Otherwise I think a cap increase is a bad idea as it just stretches the diminishing player base even further.

Shavron

09-12-2021, 02:33 AM

Worst idea
I can't even comprehend how the **** will they do it in a game with few players such as DDO.

FFS many people can't find group already from 1 to 30 now it will be 1 to 40?

bryanmeerkat

09-12-2021, 04:39 AM

Very intresting stuff . I guess the question it asks now is .

Does anyone actually want level 40 ?

Seems like it's only real purpose will be to create a third hamster wheel.

I can't see them stretching the requirements for epic past lives to require lv 30 to 40. Think this would cause a huge and justified anger.

So I can only imagine them adding a 30 to 40 climb . So what would that look like. Regardless of how steep they make it can't take the Uber levelers more than a week or it will be a crazy long climb for the less grind inclined.

You can't leave it as a once and done . I imagine that very few people are ready to commit to a final LV 40 . So getting 30 to 40 would have to be incentivised with a legendary past life .
So that would add another X times 3 lives to go through . 30 to 40 .

Which means that half the people currently doing epic lives will switch to legendary lives and half the people doing heroics will switch to legendary.

So there won't be enough people in heroics or epic and after the initial burst into legendary . There won't be enough people there anyway for groups.

Not sure how those who are already completionist feel . Maybe they are ready for this 30 to 40 push. Maybe they are those waiting to return with a fresh wheel.

Is adding levels an inevitable requirement of an mmo .

I know that adding guild shields and housing had interest for some but I know there are many myself included have no interest in at all.

It seems that there is a commitment to LV 40 from the Devs but I can see a lot of people being a bit stranded by another 30+ lives to work through and a further split in grouping ranges.

Strider1963

09-12-2021, 05:22 AM

bryanmeerkat

09-12-2021, 05:31 AM

Im sorry to disagree, but I would never pay for useless eye candy. I played ESO for a short while and they had this stuff galore, so many different armors, housing and furnishing, even house guests, and then on top of that, you can waste your time gathering mats to craft your own useless stuff. This isnt playing a mmo, its decorating a house. Besides that, that game is pay for everything also, they're always selling this junk to players, along with DLC. So I would imaging that every other game out there is P2W also.

With you on this . It's like playing Sims 4 . Which while it may appeal to some will certainly not interest others. Would hate for them to spend time on this unless it can fund itself somehow through extra staffing required .

Weemadarthur

09-12-2021, 10:42 AM

It all hinges on not going with a p2w revenue model in the first place back in 2009. This creates a situation where you no longer have to leverage massive increases in character power to sell content. Character power can still increase, but in very small increments. Invest in the art team and create a bevy of cosmetics straight out of the old school PHB, DMG, MM, other splat materials, and covers of novels. Player housing. Voice call out sound boarding. Characters from novelization as hirelings. Different methods of transport and mounts. Hundreds of dye colors for all of it, from the walls of your house to the armor on your back. Guild logos. Furniture. Guild banners for bringing buffs with you. Character make over kits. etc...

I am just going to point you in the direction of a game that does exactly what you are asking for here. Its name is Vindictus.

Vindictus is completely F2P allowing access to all content. It has very decent graphics (way better than DDO's) with a truly awsome, simple yet extremely effective combat system. In short its actually a good game with nice graphics, great combat and lots of quests. Almost all of its money is made through the sales of cosmetics. Sounds good yes? The problem is it has 2 servers (1 EU & 1 US) that are both less populated than Wayfinder. It still just about ticks over due to (like DDO) a loyal hardcore fanbase that invests a lot of money in keeping the game going but I would hazard a guess it only makes a fraction of what DDO makes per anum.

So what does this have to do with DDO? Well that is exactly what you could turn DDO into with your suggestions. What may work on a game with millions of subscribers won't realistically work here. By following your suggestions you could in short turn DDO into a much less successful version of Vindictus. If a game that has much better graphics and way better outfit customization can barely keep afloat on cosmetic sales why do you think a game that lets be honest here looks like a 2006 indi game would do any better. People interested in DDO are people who generally are interested in story and questing. Trying to turn it into a viable dressup game isn't really a guaranteed model for success. You could quite quickly find yourself losing the major portion of the population that are keeping the game afloat atm without being able to pull any new players in.

I feel selling content is a far safer bet considering that is what the general DDO populace is interested in. If they want to expand the playerbase by a large margin I think they would be far better served by updating the games graphics and game engine rather than trying to sell cosmetics.

I agree that your idea is nice and it would be great if it would work but I honestly don't believe this is the right market for a cos-play game or a D&D version of pokemon. The risks are just too high and I think the rewards would be way to low to be a viable success.

Aelonwy

09-12-2021, 10:53 AM

Aelonwy

09-12-2021, 10:58 AM

I feel selling content is a far safer bet considering that is what the general DDO populace is interested in. If they want to expand the playerbase by a large margin I think they would be far better served by updating the games graphics and game engine rather than trying to sell cosmetics.

I don't think Chai was saying it shouldn't sell content. He said less P2Win model so less AS reroll, less revenue based on Tome sales, less raid bypass timers, less Ottos boxes, less pay to bypass artificial hurdles put in place to increase time consumption so you get bored or aggravated enough to pay to get past them faster.

He didn't say less quests, raids, classes, races, wilderness zones, etc.

Weemadarthur

09-12-2021, 11:15 AM

OMG the game would have been so much more awesome with ALL of that^. I had hopes for some of it at one point because I saw it in other games and expected it eventually but the years passed and the studios didn't re-invest the DDO profits in DDO they used them for awful mobile games and start-up capitol for other games. *smh*

I would like if you don't mind to ask you a question in regards to cosmetics. As you seem from your post history to be one of the players that is most interested in the cosmetic side of the game I think you would be the perfect person to ask.

How much money per year do you think you would spend on cosmetics if there were more available? This includes (but isn't limited to) outfits, pets, housing, titles and auras.

This isn't a trick question and I'm not looking to trip you up or prove a point here, I am just curious what extra money could be made via cosmetics from players like yourself who are more interested in that aspect of the game. I personally would be happy to pay something like $10 for an outfit i liked but would likely only ever do that spend once. I would however pay a substantial amount (around about $1000 over a year) to buy and upgrade my own house. Again though I would look at this as a 1 time investment so once I had it how I wanted it I doubt I would ever spend any more on it. So my answer would be around $1000 but only once.

Please don't feel the need to answer this question if it makes you uncomfortable in any way (or you just don't want to) but I would appreciate it if you would.

Kielbasa

09-12-2021, 01:14 PM

Rotating bonuses to xp and loot in different content to keep the meta of only playing certain high xp quests from getting stagnant. We already have double comms and challenge mats weekends. No reason they couldn't do a double xp and loot drops weekend to specific adventure packs or a double slayers weekends. I'm surprised with all the store freebies every week there isn't a revolving guest pass code for different adventure packs weekly or even expansions that pops up once a month or so for free or premium players. The ddofreequests code a while back was great for the game something similar to that but on a smaller scale would be healthy to encourage returning players to stick around if they missed that.

Chai

09-12-2021, 07:13 PM

Im sorry to disagree, but I would never pay for useless eye candy. I played ESO for a short while and they had this stuff galore, so many different armors, housing and furnishing, even house guests, and then on top of that, you can waste your time gathering mats to craft your own useless stuff. This isnt playing a mmo, its decorating a house.

Compared to what? The inventory nightmare in DDO where you play "press your luck" each time you TR to see if you lose all your stuff?

Besides that, that game is pay for everything also, they're always selling this junk to players, along with DLC. So I would imaging that every other game out there is P2W also.

Plenty of MMO with multiplicatively higher player counts, zero p2w, and lots of cosmetics have proven it can be done, and in fact many have proven it works better than monetizing character power acquisition. For every player like yourself who doesn't care about cosmetics there are dozens who buy them all.

Chai

09-12-2021, 07:21 PM

I am just going to point you in the direction of a game that does exactly what you are asking for here. Its name is Vindictus.

Vindictus is completely F2P allowing access to all content. It has very decent graphics (way better than DDO's) with a truly awsome, simple yet extremely effective combat system. In short its actually a good game with nice graphics, great combat and lots of quests. Almost all of its money is made through the sales of cosmetics. Sounds good yes? The problem is it has 2 servers (1 EU & 1 US) that are both less populated than Wayfinder. It still just about ticks over due to (like DDO) a loyal hardcore fanbase that invests a lot of money in keeping the game going but I would hazard a guess it only makes a fraction of what DDO makes per anum.

So what does this have to do with DDO? Well that is exactly what you could turn DDO into with your suggestions. What may work on a game with millions of subscribers won't realistically work here. By following your suggestions you could in short turn DDO into a much less successful version of Vindictus. If a game that has much better graphics and way better outfit customization can barely keep afloat on cosmetic sales why do you think a game that lets be honest here looks like a 2006 indi game would do any better. People interested in DDO are people who generally are interested in story and questing. Trying to turn it into a viable dressup game isn't really a guaranteed model for success. You could quite quickly find yourself losing the major portion of the population that are keeping the game afloat atm without being able to pull any new players in.

I feel selling content is a far safer bet considering that is what the general DDO populace is interested in. If they want to expand the playerbase by a large margin I think they would be far better served by updating the games graphics and game engine rather than trying to sell cosmetics.

I agree that your idea is nice and it would be great if it would work but I honestly don't believe this is the right market for a cos-play game or a D&D version of pokemon. The risks are just too high and I think the rewards would be way to low to be a viable success.

Selling content is fine. Get rid of the p2w and the game no longer needs to sell you the solution to every issue a-la-carte.

The risk is higher in the p2w model DDO uses than it is in the flat character power model GW2 uses for instance. When you have ~1-3% of the playerbase paying ~50% of the revenue, that's a substantial risk. Every single decision has to, and I mean absolutely MUST, cater to that crowd, but also not cause other premium and VIP players to leave. p2w players don't play on servers populated only with other p2w players.

Aelonwy

09-12-2021, 07:52 PM

I would like if you don't mind to ask you a question in regards to cosmetics. As you seem from your post history to be one of the players that is most interested in the cosmetic side of the game I think you would be the perfect person to ask.

How much money per year do you think you would spend on cosmetics if there were more available? This includes (but isn't limited to) outfits, pets, housing, titles and auras.

Idk its a difficult question to answer. I don't think I spent a lot at any one time but I've spent quite a bit over the years.

I have the most expensive version of every expansion so far and at least part of those purchase decisions were for cosmetics. I purchased the White Plume Mountain Cosmetic Bundle but not the KotB one... because I just couldn't see myself wearing it. I have 44 cosmetic pets. I had purchased more than a dozen of the old BtoItem Cosmetic kits. I have no idea off the top of my head how many Mirrors I've purchased and used. I can try to list them to the best of my memory at this moment. This may get embarrassing.

3 or 4 used on old Elven Chainmail
2 used on Celestial Platemail with a Xoriat style
1 used on Celestial Chain with a House Cannith style
1 used on a Breastplate with a Samurai style
1 used on a Violet Chainmail, just looked cool
1 used on a generic robe, pleasant
1 used on Robe of Dissonance
1 used on Green Dragonscale Robe
1 used on Green Dragonscale Medium Armor
1 used on the Light Armor from Ravenloft
1 used on Graz'zt Habiliment
1 used on the light Armor from Mines of Tethyamar
1 used on Embrace of the Spider Queen
1 used on a Platemail similar to but not exactly like the Plate Armor of the Deep
4 or 5 used on Shields, one of them a store-bought shield cosmetic that is BtoItem/BTC but the wrong character
3 for orbs, Violet Nether, Book, and the super shiny platinum one with purple sparkles.
1 used on Totemic Lavalier
1 used on Boundless? the helm that changes with what you wear.
1 used on Crystal Cove Swashbuckler hat
1 used on Darkstorm Helm? the one from Servants of the Overlord
1 used on Elemental Victory from ToEE
1 used on Crown of Butterflies
1 for Goggles item that looks like spectacles
9 weapons so far, a couple with additionally purchased imbues

Surprisingly no cloaks yet but there are so many cosmetic cloaks I can cover just about anything ugly with something matching or just toggle off. In addition I have a handful of Glowing Eyes - Red, Violet, and Blue, the Glowing Circlet, Gold Party Hat, got the Festivult Cosmetics through Glamer Dust not the Snowpeaks festival.

Additionally through Glamer Dust I have the Thinking Cap, Spiral Turquoise Skirted, and Spiral Turquoise robe, I have Pale Violet & Tan Leaf Skirted with Accessories, but I also have 3 Pale Violet and Tan Leaf directly from the store. And the Traveler's Outfit.

I have purchased Hairstyles and Exclusive Dyes but sparingly since they are lost on TR.

As long as they put out cosmetics I like I will continue to purchase them as the mood takes me. I have repeatedly asked for certain cosmetics such as particular pets (unicorn foal, shadow beholderling, baby flumph, fairy dragon), certain cosmetic pet gear pink dust, violet dust, rainbow dust, new mounts (horse from Witch Hunt?, Kirin, Drake, Flying Carpet, Cannith Floating Platform, Warforged Horse), New Hair Dyes - Periwinkle, Ultraviolet, Rainbow, new hairstyles - I'd be happy if they shared some of those sweet gnome styles with the other races.

And yes I have an alt just to store the cosmetics I'm not currently using.

Seph1roth5

09-12-2021, 11:36 PM

I would/ve done 30-40 in the same vein as 20-30. A separate tree system (legendary) that doesn't kick in til you take 30.

Apparently there WAS a system like that but player's council didn't like it? Personally I think that would've been the best option because it wouldn't have required any changes to existing stuff. We'd still have lv 29 power levels but the higher level quests would be tougher and then loot could've gotten STRONGER instead of squishified.

erethizon

09-13-2021, 02:54 AM

Very intresting stuff . I guess the question it asks now is .

Does anyone actually want level 40 ?

Seems like it's only real purpose will be to create a third hamster wheel.

I can't see them stretching the requirements for epic past lives to require lv 30 to 40. Think this would cause a huge and justified anger.

So I can only imagine them adding a 30 to 40 climb . So what would that look like. Regardless of how steep they make it can't take the Uber levelers more than a week or it will be a crazy long climb for the less grind inclined.

You can't leave it as a once and done . I imagine that very few people are ready to commit to a final LV 40 . So getting 30 to 40 would have to be incentivised with a legendary past life .
So that would add another X times 3 lives to go through . 30 to 40 .

Which means that half the people currently doing epic lives will switch to legendary lives and half the people doing heroics will switch to legendary.

So there won't be enough people in heroics or epic and after the initial burst into legendary . There won't be enough people there anyway for groups.

They made a huge mistake when they made epic past lives drop you only to 20. This created the situation where people ran dailies of the same quests every day and caused people to be bored and frustrated with the game more than ever before. Yes, the players chose to do this to themselves (they didn't have to run the same quests every day) but people tend to do things like this unless you make it impossible to do. Then they blame the developers for their choice to play the game in the most boring way possible.

That said, I really do hope they add a legendary past life, but it needs to require level 40 (or whatever the cap is) and drop us all the way down to level 1. This ensures that heroic and epic levels are still full of players on the TR cycle and prevents people from boring themselves to death by repeated the same quests every day. I'm perfectly fine with the drop from 40 down to level 1 coming with 2 to 4 past lives (it could even come with a heroic, racial, and epic past life, in addition to the legendary past live to fully reward all 40 of the levels earned), but it needs to drop people back down to level 1 both to keep all levels filled with players and to ensure a wider variety of quests are run.

erethizon

09-13-2021, 03:05 AM

I am just going to point you in the direction of a game that does exactly what you are asking for here. Its name is Vindictus.

Vindictus is completely F2P allowing access to all content. It has very decent graphics (way better than DDO's) with a truly awsome, simple yet extremely effective combat system. In short its actually a good game with nice graphics, great combat and lots of quests. Almost all of its money is made through the sales of cosmetics. Sounds good yes? The problem is it has 2 servers (1 EU & 1 US) that are both less populated than Wayfinder. It still just about ticks over due to (like DDO) a loyal hardcore fanbase that invests a lot of money in keeping the game going but I would hazard a guess it only makes a fraction of what DDO makes per anum.

So what does this have to do with DDO? Well that is exactly what you could turn DDO into with your suggestions. What may work on a game with millions of subscribers won't realistically work here. By following your suggestions you could in short turn DDO into a much less successful version of Vindictus. If a game that has much better graphics and way better outfit customization can barely keep afloat on cosmetic sales why do you think a game that lets be honest here looks like a 2006 indi game would do any better. People interested in DDO are people who generally are interested in story and questing. Trying to turn it into a viable dressup game isn't really a guaranteed model for success. You could quite quickly find yourself losing the major portion of the population that are keeping the game afloat atm without being able to pull any new players in.

I feel selling content is a far safer bet considering that is what the general DDO populace is interested in. If they want to expand the playerbase by a large margin I think they would be far better served by updating the games graphics and game engine rather than trying to sell cosmetics.

I agree that your idea is nice and it would be great if it would work but I honestly don't believe this is the right market for a cos-play game or a D&D version of pokemon. The risks are just too high and I think the rewards would be way to low to be a viable success.

You seem to be implying that people don't play Vindictus because it sells cosmetics instead of power. If Vindictus were an amazing game and free to play it would have a huge player base. Players don't play games only because they cost them money. They play games because they are fun. If Vindictus has such a small player base that means the game must not be that fun for most people.

To put it another way, if WoW suddenly went fully free to play and only charged for cosmetics that wouldn't cause 90% of its players to leave the game. Players don't play games just so they can be charged money. Selling cosmetics instead of power isn't going to make DDO less popular than it already is. It might make the game less money, but it wouldn't cause people to not play it.

Saying selling only cosmetics isn't a viable revenue model is one thing (I don't know for sure if this is true, but it is certainly worth arguing), but saying that having a cosmetic revenue model will cause people to not play a game is silly. The game would be the same as it is now except with more cosmetic options (which don't appeal to me personally, but wouldn't cause me to run away from the game).

erethizon

09-13-2021, 03:23 AM

How much money per year do you think you would spend on cosmetics if there were more available? This includes (but isn't limited to) outfits, pets, housing, titles and auras.

This isn't a trick question and I'm not looking to trip you up or prove a point here, I am just curious what extra money could be made via cosmetics from players like yourself who are more interested in that aspect of the game. I personally would be happy to pay something like $10 for an outfit i liked but would likely only ever do that spend once. I would however pay a substantial amount (around about $1000 over a year) to buy and upgrade my own house. Again though I would look at this as a 1 time investment so once I had it how I wanted it I doubt I would ever spend any more on it. So my answer would be around $1000 but only once.

I would point out that this is true for both revenue models. There are always people that will pay little to nothing. I pre-ordered the collectors edition of MoTU with the 12k store point add-on for $145 including tax. This purchase is the only purchase I have ever made in this game. So while there are certainly people that won't pay much, if anything, if all the game sells are cosmetics, there are also people that won't pay much, if anything, if all the game sells is content and power.

Axeyu

09-13-2021, 03:35 AM

To join the off-topic discussion, I am glad that DDO focuses more on making money from content than from cosmetics because it means more money is spent on developing content than cosmetics.

bryanmeerkat

09-13-2021, 05:25 AM

They made a huge mistake when they made epic past lives drop you only to 20. This created the situation where people ran dailies of the same quests every day and caused people to be bored and frustrated with the game more than ever before. Yes, the players chose to do this to themselves (they didn't have to run the same quests every day) but people tend to do things like this unless you make it impossible to do. Then they blame the developers for their choice to play the game in the most boring way possible.

That said, I really do hope they add a legendary past life, but it needs to require level 40 (or whatever the cap is) and drop us all the way down to level 1. This ensures that heroic and epic levels are still full of players on the TR cycle and prevents people from boring themselves to death by repeated the same quests every day. I'm perfectly fine with the drop from 40 down to level 1 coming with 2 to 4 past lives (it could even come with a heroic, racial, and epic past life, in addition to the legendary past live to fully reward all 40 of the levels earned), but it needs to drop people back down to level 1 both to keep all levels filled with players and to ensure a wider variety of quests are run.

The developers could easily stop people having to run dailies by giving other quests higher xp .

The fact that running 8 quests over and over is the fastest way to level is a design flaw not a player issue . They could easily sort this but seem happy .

Having to run 1 to 40 for each past life would be truly awful unless they had very few of them and the reward was huge .

They could have you run 1 to 40 and at the end you get to choose a racial past life , an epic past life and the legendary past life . So three feats awarded to drop you from 40 to 1 in one fell swoop .

Sucks if you are already complesionist . But a catch up for newer players anyhow

bryanmeerkat

09-13-2021, 05:26 AM

sturmbb

09-13-2021, 07:56 AM

Worst idea
I can't even comprehend how the **** will they do it in a game with few players such as DDO.

FFS many people can't find group already from 1 to 30 now it will be 1 to 40?

i agree with this comment. Grouping never used to be this hard when the lvl cap was 20. I realize we did have a lot more players but now the cap is at 30 and we don't have the player base we used the grouping is painfully slow.

Now their going to increase the cap to 40 you can practically say goodbye to any grouping. They really need to do a megaserver and combine the population all on to one server. That would at least give more grouping opportunities.

The main reason i play this game is for the grouping (and social experience) and to play as a team (rather than one person steam rolling the quest while the rest of us follow in his wake which hopefully with these nerfs that may encourage more team play).

I am not sure what the logical reason SSG are increasing the cap to 40 unless they are trying to appeal to a different crowd that they are hoping will join our community. Unfortunately this is a 15 year old game so i cant really see anyone other than DnD enthusiasts trying this game out and by increasing the level cap i cannot see this becoming more appealing to those that haven't already tried it yet.

Aelonwy

09-13-2021, 09:43 AM

I am not sure what the logical reason SSG are increasing the cap to 40 unless they are trying to appeal to a different crowd that they are hoping will join our community.

As I understand it, and note I don't agree with it but from what I have seen disseminated in discussion since raising the level cap was first mentioned it seems that there is a portion of the playerbase and devs that feel there needs to be even more character progression or the game will stagnate. For me there is plenty of character progression available but I don't play 24/7, and I refuse to relinquish my alts. I imagine for someone that plays less than 5 characters and perhaps only one they might have attained everything there is for their character(s) and be utterly unwilling completely reasonably to begin that grind on another so they want more for their mini-god(s) to do. Also once sales of the top + tomes have reached saturation they like to add new higher + tomes to the store. The fact that they reduced the level at which lower +tomes applied to our characters in order to add a higher + tome at cap should have been the first sign to us that the level cap would be raising to make room for even higher + tomes in the store.

There is also the loot development, if cap stays in one place for long why do we need more loot with all the same stats? Results : Reduced content sells to those that only buy content for new more powerful loot. Raise stats to sell content? Results : Powercreep.

My characters have more than enough to do both in questing and character progression. I mostly only look at loot for the item appearance. I do sometimes look at loot for something I'm currently missing be that a particular effect or set bonus or item type *looking at you Heavy Crossbow*. I'm not really looking forward to cap increase but they have decided to move forward with it regardless. I'm only glad they are taking it slow.

The logic is to continue to sell character progression and power to those at the tippy top that have everything and are getting bored from having already grinded out everything they can from the current progression and content. I'm assuming, of course, that these tippy-top, at-risk for loosing due to boredom players must be the whales we hear so much about on the forums.

salmag

09-13-2021, 12:57 PM

I would not raise the level cap to 40.

I would've done what they should've done in the first place.

1. Make reaper experience and their respective trees Epic (level 21-30) only. This would offer character progression.

2. Re-organize the levels of the quests in Epic. i.e. Saltmarsh should not be level 30, it should be level 23-24. Ravenloft should be level 25-26, etc. etc. etc.

3. Revamp all the quests in Epic to be "Return to..." quests. They should not be the SAME EXACT quests with inflated mob hit points. That is boring. It should offer a different experience although it uses the same map. Also, offer Epic Favor for those "Return to..." quests.

4. Make Epic Wilderness Zones have Reaper levels and more randomization. i.e. traps in different areas, different explorer locales, different Rare encounters (unique to Epic zones), etc. Also, remove the limits on Kills in Epic levels - just give xp per every 1500 kills (including reaper xp). This would give people reasons not to skip (or run-through) Epic wilderness zones, and add to point #1.

5. If a character has reached level 30 with ALL favor (EPIC favor (see point #3) included) accumulated, offer a ETR/TR option to give Racial AND Class past lives.

Just some ideas.

However, that ship has sailed.

erethizon

09-13-2021, 01:03 PM

Maybe people don't play vindictus because they spend all their money on developing cosmetics to sell and none of it on content ....

If they do that would be short-sighted as no game is played for the cosmetics. The content keeps people playing no matter what the source of revenue.

erethizon

09-13-2021, 01:07 PM

i agree with this comment. Grouping never used to be this hard when the lvl cap was 20. I realize we did have a lot more players but now the cap is at 30 and we don't have the player base we used the grouping is painfully slow.

Now their going to increase the cap to 40 you can practically say goodbye to any grouping. They really need to do a megaserver and combine the population all on to one server. That would at least give more grouping opportunities.

The main reason i play this game is for the grouping (and social experience) and to play as a team (rather than one person steam rolling the quest while the rest of us follow in his wake which hopefully with these nerfs that may encourage more team play).

I am not sure what the logical reason SSG are increasing the cap to 40 unless they are trying to appeal to a different crowd that they are hoping will join our community. Unfortunately this is a 15 year old game so i cant really see anyone other than DnD enthusiasts trying this game out and by increasing the level cap i cannot see this becoming more appealing to those that haven't already tried it yet.

Well hopefully the stat squish will make it so that level 40 isn't much stronger than the old level 30. Then they just need to make one change. They already removed the power leveling penalty for level 20+ (and that should continue so a level 20 and a level 40 can group together). Now they just need to make it so that if you are in the correct level range for Bravery Bonus then you get 100% BB even if someone else in the party is not in the right level range. If you are level 24 and running A Small Problem you should get the full Bravery Bonus even if everyone else in the party is max level. If they made that one change it would make is so that all these quests that run in tight level ranges in epics would be open to everyone.

erethizon

09-13-2021, 01:10 PM

Also once sales of the top + tomes have reached saturation they like to add new higher + tomes to the store. The fact that they reduced the level at which lower +tomes applied to our characters in order to add a higher + tome at cap should have been the first sign to us that the level cap would be raising to make room for even higher + tomes in the store.

Oddly enough they lowered it so that +8 applies fully at level 22 and then they never sold +9 or +10 tomes even though there is clearly space for them while keeping the level cap at 30.

Saekee

09-13-2021, 02:46 PM

the reaper trees are the perfect legendary leveling.

Get rid of actually benefitting from them until cap. Then you use them AT CAP ONLY. This way even in a level 3 quest you can choose to BUILD towards endgame by running reaper or skip it if that is your choice. Now, the choice to skip reaper is a setback.

Instead reaper became power creep to the point that vet toons can run quests easier on R1–they have more power, get more xp and even floating spell point refills! Wow who thought of that one? Many of us were against the trees from the start and easily predicted the current implementation failings

I like the stat squash btw

Axeyu

09-13-2021, 04:12 PM

FengXian

09-13-2021, 05:37 PM

I don't think they should have gone past level 20.

This. There were other ways to add challenge/content/progress.

Weemadarthur

09-14-2021, 01:22 AM

Maybe people don't play vindictus because they spend all their money on developing cosmetics to sell and none of it on content ....

Close but not quite right. Vindictus gains a level cap raise and new content on pretty much an annual basis. The problem arises more around the fact that as all content and new classes are free the effort put into them is a lot lower than the effort put into the content here. The effort put into their cosmetics though is very high and it does show. The character models in Vindictus are very good and the cosmetics cover a very broad selection from semi naked bunny girls right through to full suits of armour. As they have chosen cosmetics as their main source of income most of the work there goes into making new outfits, armours, hairstyles etc look as good as possible and each new character they release will have its own unique armours to be either earned through game achievements or purchased via the store.

The population problem is mainly from 2 sources. 1 like here is lack of player awareness as Vindictus has very little marketing. The other is due to the financial model they chose (which is very close to what Chai was asking for in the post I quoted) their revenue stream is low. This has a knock on effect that equates to slow release of content as most effort has to go to supporting what does make them money.

The point I was initially trying to make though is that although I would love it if a purely cosmetic revenue model was a viable option I really don't think it would be the case. The revenue model that Turbine and SSG have gone with on the other hand I honestly don't think is that bad. I can find fault with quite a lot with this game (although I will still say imo it's still by a large margin the best MMO I have played) but the revenue model isn't something I would criticize. IMO almost everything that's for sale is more pay for convenience than pay to win. Almost everything can be earned in game without spending a penny if you choose (and that's from someone who earned all content bar x-packs, all classes and quite a few races through in game DDO store points). The few items that I would say are bordering on p2w (e.g. tomes) I am quite happy for SSG to sell if it keeps the lights on.

In short its very easy to claim that other valid financial models exist but without a very large playerbase to reap the benefits from they are generally high risk for low reward. I used Vindictus purely as an example of a game that has tried to do this and how it wasn't as successful as you would expect. I am not trying to compare games as both are good games in their own right, both have their strengths and weaknesses and both are very different from the average mmo.

Weemadarthur

09-14-2021, 01:53 AM

You seem to be implying that people don't play Vindictus because it sells cosmetics instead of power. If Vindictus were an amazing game and free to play it would have a huge player base. Players don't play games only because they cost them money. They play games because they are fun. If Vindictus has such a small player base that means the game must not be that fun for most people.

To put it another way, if WoW suddenly went fully free to play and only charged for cosmetics that wouldn't cause 90% of its players to leave the game. Players don't play games just so they can be charged money. Selling cosmetics instead of power isn't going to make DDO less popular than it already is. It might make the game less money, but it wouldn't cause people to not play it.

Saying selling only cosmetics isn't a viable revenue model is one thing (I don't know for sure if this is true, but it is certainly worth arguing), but saying that having a cosmetic revenue model will cause people to not play a game is silly. The game would be the same as it is now except with more cosmetic options (which don't appeal to me personally, but wouldn't cause me to run away from the game).

Just to clarify (as I did address this a bit in my previous post) I was stating that although I would personally love it if DDO could make a purely cosmetic financial model viable I don't think we have anywhere near a large enough playerbase to make it work or that the playerbase we have contains enough cosmetic chasers to generate the kind of income this game requires. Switching to that revenue model would be bad financially for the game. This would have a knock on effect of less content and that is what makes the players leave. I used Vindictus purely because it does exactly what Chai was asking for. It was just an example that although some bigger games can make these models work (GW2 as an example that Chai gave) for smaller games like DDO it can be a slippery slope.

Arctigis

09-14-2021, 03:20 AM

Adding an extra 10 levels (33%) to a game where there are effectively 7 servers currently
averaging about 1500 players per day, across all of them, seems like a bad idea to me.
However, most of what the devs have done this year and what they've revealed for their
future plans seems bad to me so...

In any case, we went 20->25 then 25->28 and finally 28->30. I imagine people still playing
will see similar increments. I very much doubt they'll go straight to 40. Or maybe they will,
games needs a new grind, right?

Zakharov

09-14-2021, 03:44 AM

... Like it or not MOTU and the cap raise did bring a lot of players back and for quite a long time epics kept the game feeling fresh. I'm not 100% sure that could have been done with the 20 cap remaining in place.
I had basically the opposite experience. My then raid guild and most of the friends we ran with almost all quit not long after MotU launched because there was nothing left to do at end game except for 1 raid which many people did not like. (I liked it, but many did not). The new "end game" forced on us was the TR treadmill which was not the game we had been playing up to that point and felt like the devs telling us to go play something else. "If you like raiding, this game is not for you anymore" was the feeling.

I don't think they should have gone past level 20.
Fully agree.

Level cap increase? No. Other games have an Alternate XP system, something you can put XP into once you hit cap. They provide quality of life perks....
Yes, like AA points in EverQuest. There are many methods of providing additional advancement at 30 without raising the lvl cap.

Worst idea
I can't even comprehend how the **** will they do it in a game with few players such as DDO.

FFS many people can't find group already from 1 to 30 now it will be 1 to 40?
Cast [Maximized] agreement!

.. Grouping never used to be this hard when the lvl cap was 20. I realize we did have a lot more players but now the cap is at 30 and we don't have the player base we used the grouping is painfully slow.

Now their going to increase the cap to 40 you can practically say goodbye to any grouping. They really need to do a megaserver and combine the population all on to one server. That would at least give more grouping opportunities.

The main reason i play this game is for the grouping (and social experience) and to play as a team...
Fully agree here also.. the funnest part of the game for me is adventuring with other people. Playing through a quest once on my own is enjoyable, but everything past that without other people to socialize with is a tedious and unfun grind. Raising the lvl cap will just make things worse.

I wish we knew what methods SSG is using to calculate the need for a lvl cap increase. If I could log into a character of any lvl at any time of day, put up an LFM and fill the group within a few minutes.. wouldn't that kind of environment be more likely to bring in players both old and new? And the more players, the more $$ right? Raising the lvl cap would have the opposite effect.

The first month of hardcore servers are the most fun this game has been in a decade because there are so many people to group with. I just wish we could get that same feeling on the other servers.

Firebreed

09-14-2021, 06:00 AM

sturmbb

09-14-2021, 06:40 AM

The logic is to continue to sell character progression and power to those at the tippy top that have everything and are getting bored from having already grinded out everything they can from the current progression and content. I'm assuming, of course, that these tippy-top, at-risk for loosing due to boredom players must be the whales we hear so much about on the forums.

I must admit pre MOTU i used to enjoy having multiple capped toons, and joining groups that were looking for specific classes. So i could try and get the relevant items i was trying to farm for. Heck even if the quest/raid didnt have anything i really needed, i still joined up because i was playing for fun and the social aspect. Rather than trying to gain power on the toon i was playing.

I can understand that some people might not want to play there characters if they have everything their character needs, but i believe there is better ways of doing character progression than just raising the level cap. An example of this is like Diablo (completely different game but they have a great looting concept at level cap.which keeps people coming back to play, which ironically DDO use to have before MOTU). I actually quite like the reaper tree's because it gives character progression without messing with the level caps.

Now they just need to make it so that if you are in the correct level range for Bravery Bonus then yo If they made that one change it would make is so that all these quests that run in tight level ranges in epics would be open to everyone.

This is an excellent idea, everyone in epic levels being able to group together would really help.
It would be interesting to see what the split is between people who prefer to run in a group and people who prefer to solo. I don't think SSG should alienate either types to be honest.

Fully agree here also.. the funnest part of the game for me is adventuring with other people. Playing through a quest once on my own is enjoyable, but everything past that without other people to socialize with is a tedious and unfun grind. Raising the lvl cap will just make things worse.

I wish we knew what methods SSG is using to calculate the need for a lvl cap increase. If I could log into a character of any lvl at any time of day, put up an LFM and fill the group within a few minutes.. wouldn't that kind of environment be more likely to bring in players both old and new? And the more players, the more $$ right? Raising the lvl cap would have the opposite effect.

The first month of hardcore servers are the most fun this game has been in a decade because there are so many people to group with. I just wish we could get that same feeling on the other servers.

This is one of the main reasons why i only play on HC now. Before HC came along i used to log in put an LFM up and hope id get even 1 taker. Most nights i wouldn't get anyone interested and id just log off and reminisce of the good old grouping days :( . In the end i found it easier to just create a toon at lvl 1 and help new players run the korthos and harbour quests (and by help i don't mean i run off in front and complete the quest for them lol, i usually played a healer/rogue and stayed at the back and alerting people to traps, keeping people alive etc) . i think the Korthos chain is the one i have ran the most by far. When borderlands came out i was pretty giddy because it gave me a completely new chain to run at low levels. Alas because it's a paid chain i never really ran it that much as new players didn't have the pack. I think i can run Korthos blindfolded now lol.

Epicsoul

09-14-2021, 07:34 AM

I maintain the position that raising the level cap (and thus making the hoard of ML29 gear obsolete, more so than U50 did with ML30 items in stark constrast to what the devs stated the goal of the update was), will in my opinion be the biggest mistake the game has seen.

Implement all the new progression systems you want, but don't **** with the loot.

This makes zero sense. Most players do not want to use the same gear for years on end. Gear updates/changes is one of the most common components of MMOs. The gear you're using now will still be relevant for the level range.

boredGamer

09-14-2021, 07:47 AM

This thread boils down to “I can’t Zerg r10 on my current build” , “I can’t 1 button sorc r10” “I think three OP twists that everyone uses is the definition of build diversity “. or “ I’m scared of things I haven’t seen “

Most of the people that threaten to quit do it every big change. And then they’re still here on the forums. How about we see how it goes and then complain? As you know the complaints will mostly fall on deaf ears.

Maybe u51 kills the game. Maybe it won’t. Some of you sound so angry I don’t know why you care. Take a break and see if u54 fixes it.

I for one am playing and having fun just fine. And alts no less !

SerPounce

09-14-2021, 09:25 AM

Although I partially agree with the sentiment I'm really not sure that the game would still be here if they had kept the cap at 20. It's easy to look back at the golden era of DDO and remember things being much better balanced and end game being a lot more fun but the fact is we only really had level 20 as cap for a very short time. Without a significant change in how the game played I think there is a good chance the game would have stagnated after a few more years if they hadn't raised the cap. Like it or not MOTU and the cap raise did bring a lot of players back and for quite a long time epics kept the game feeling fresh. I'm not 100% sure that could have been done with the 20 cap remaining in place.

MotU included a lot of stuff and the actual level cap increase was a relatively minor part. Tiered epic difficulty and epic destinies created the lion's share of new stuff for lvl 20 characters to do. A lot of people didn't even lvl past 24 for the first ~6 months or so because there was so little point in doing so.

We definitely need new stuff to do and ways to progress at lvl cap, but cap increases have always seemed like ham-handed approach with intervals that have been far too large. The goal should be to add to the current endgame tapestry, not wipe it all clean so you can get people to do basically the same thing over again.

I had basically the opposite experience. My then raid guild and most of the friends we ran with almost all quit not long after MotU launched because there was nothing left to do at end game except for 1 raid which many people did not like. (I liked it, but many did not). The new "end game" forced on us was the TR treadmill which was not the game we had been playing up to that point and felt like the devs telling us to go play something else. "If you like raiding, this game is not for you anymore" was the feeling.
THis also. Sure there was a burst of activity when the new stuff dropped, but it burned out quickly since most old content was made irrelevant, and there were no longer lockout timers to slow people down.

SerPounce

09-14-2021, 09:32 AM

This makes zero sense. Most players do not want to use the same gear for years on end. Gear updates/changes is one of the most common components of MMOs. The gear you're using now will still be relevant for the level range.

"DDO should do things this way because it's something all the vanilla standard MMOs do" isn't the compelling argument you think it is. Next we'll be hearing how critical it is that we add more "quests" where you kill 15 rats and bring their ears to an NPC. I mean, if it's a mechanic that's been spammed in every uninspired derivative MMO over the last two decades it can't be wrong!
'

Vish

09-14-2021, 10:18 AM

ok.
33
to test
each level legendary feats, for hp and sp gain
base on half hit die, barb would be 600 hp, wiz would be 200 hp
based on spell pool, based on class, fvs like 400, wiz like 300, minors at 200

need new content
follow up hand and eye of vecna, as new legendary content
start making quests base 33, 34, 35

meanwhile, imagine getting all that juicy xp at 30 u dont get,
for pushing thru to level 31, 32, 33

need new content, need new story line
what is the legendary angle?

as for items
i wish they would have been more selective for minor artifacts
like a quest per item to explain its inclusion in the game
we need more lore like that
also, since theyre not power creep
fill out sets currently existing
but saltmarsh is another set...
make stuff work together
instroduce a new line of craftable gear for legendary, with more emphasis on swapable items

i gave them planar adventure to 33, where no team has gone before 2017
that involved 9 quests 2 raids to visit Tiamat
gave them psionics based on ki
and told them the story of the reapers as presented by duality, by grandmaster kilgore

im sure they have pleny ideas of their own,
but thats what id like to see

additionally, as for the 40 cap, i would rather see 20/20 that 20 10 10.
but i think the constraints of current design trend towards the latter

for real, to go above 30 requires DDO2

GoldyGopher

09-14-2021, 10:49 AM

So how would all the the don't nerf the gear ! <SNIP> But not seen many solutions to what should have happened?

I am not a member of "Don't nerf the Gear" crowd, more of a "it shouldn't have been so powerful in the first place" crowd.

There are many problems in DDO that contribute to holding back the game, making it less than friendly to variously named groups of players. People throw out names like New, Casual, Alt, Hard Core, Solo, RP, and on and on it goes. It seems like the only thing that all these different complaints have in common, is the end result is they are unfriendly.

To address raising the level cap the first step should have been addressing a significant number of the issues plaguing players today.

All Named Loot and all Randomly Generated Loot should be built to the same standard. Older loot needs to be brought up to the current standard.
Significantly reduce the number of crafting systems.
Standardize the Combat System by reducing the number of different effects
Replace the Common Epic Level Class.
Adjust the current ED system rather than replace.
Build upon systems players like.
Reduce the number of times players zone between instances. Create more of an Open Landscape Game.
More character build variety is good.

Weemadarthur

09-14-2021, 11:00 AM

MotU included a lot of stuff and the actual level cap increase was a relatively minor part. Tiered epic difficulty and epic destinies created the lion's share of new stuff for lvl 20 characters to do. A lot of people didn't even lvl past 24 for the first ~6 months or so because there was so little point in doing so.

We definitely need new stuff to do and ways to progress at lvl cap, but cap increases have always seemed like ham-handed approach with intervals that have been far too large. The goal should be to add to the current endgame tapestry, not wipe it all clean so you can get people to do basically the same thing over again.

I don't disagree with anything you have said here. I personally am very much against another cap raise. I spent a while in a post about a year or so ago arguing in favor of the cap raise despite being personally against it for a number of reasons. The current stat squish and U51's ED update however resolve every issue I had and invalidate every reason I could think of for raising the cap further. I personally now can see no logical reason to raise the cap post U51 and can only see it having a negative effect on the game as a whole at this time.

The problems with the cap raise from 20-30 is it happened way too quickly and there was never enough end game content until we finally got 30 and the game settled down to making an end game again. I don't think the problem was raising the cap from 20 so much as the fact that Turbine and SSG rushed to 30 far too quickly and never fleshed out the levels between. Even to this day there is much too little to do in epics and they seem to have been forgotten entirely to push ahead with legendary content.

As it stands atm I would much rather that SSG went back and actually gave us an epic game finally. Leave the cap at 30 and instead of pushing forward actually make epics relevent. I would love to see some more quests that actually feel epic like HH rather than the generic heroic quests with hp inflated mobs we have atm.

So to sum up I don't think the cap raise from 20 was as much of a problem as its implementation. The idea was good but they rushed ahead much too fast and never spent enough time at any level range before 30 to make enough content to make epics worth while. I think SSG would actually be far better served at this point to actually flesh out epics finally than to keep going onward pushing legendary content. If and when epics feel fleshed out with an abundance of content and the 1-30 game feels like a continuous progression then the idea of another cap raise can be raised. By that time I would hope the devs had also got a handle on lag and at least had an idea of how to implement server merges (both of which should be addressed long before the cap raise).

Axeyu

09-14-2021, 11:17 AM

To address raising the level cap the first step should have been addressing a significant number of the issues plaguing players today.

All Named Loot and all Randomly Generated Loot should be built to the same standard. Older loot needs to be brought up to the current standard.
Significantly reduce the number of crafting systems.
Standardize the Combat System by reducing the number of different effects.
Replace the Common Epic Level Class.
Adjust the current ED system rather than replace.
Build upon systems players like.
Reduce the number of times players zone between instances. Create more of an Open Landscape Game.
More character build variety is good.

Isnt that what they are doing? U50 and U51 checks most of those boxes. The ED system has been adjusted for a decade already, it is inherently bad and we will be better off without it. Replacing it with something that builds upon a system that players like is a great move.

GoldyGopher

09-14-2021, 11:23 AM

Isnt that what they are doing? U50 and U51 checks most of those boxes. The ED system has been adjusted for a decade already, it is inherently bad and we will be better off without it. Replacing it with something that builds upon a system that players like is a great move.

The current ED system has not significantly been touched since it launched. We have had two minor balancing passes and added one destiny.

The proposed ED system is awful, okay it probably worse than that. Replacing the ED system that most people like but think needs improvement with something that players don't want is a bad move.

Epicsoul

09-14-2021, 11:44 AM

"DDO should do things this way because it's something all the vanilla standard MMOs do" isn't the compelling argument you think it is. Next we'll be hearing how critical it is that we add more "quests" where you kill 15 rats and bring their ears to an NPC. I mean, if it's a mechanic that's been spammed in every uninspired derivative MMO over the last two decades it can't be wrong!
'

It's common because it's successful. Good luck with future updates that don't involve some sort of gear incentive. To not do so would be insanity for a game like DDO.

Axeyu

09-14-2021, 11:51 AM

The current ED system has not significantly been touched since it launched. We have had two minor balancing passes and added one destiny.

The proposed ED system is awful, okay it probably worse than that. Replacing the ED system that most people like but think needs improvement with something that players don't want is a bad move.

What adjustments to the current system do you suggest?

The new ED system mirrors the enhancement system which is time-tested and well liked, that's not what I would call aweful.
That a few vocal forum posters hate change does not mean that players dont want the new system.

Axeyu

09-14-2021, 11:54 AM

"DDO should do things this way because it's something all the vanilla standard MMOs do" isn't the compelling argument you think it is. Next we'll be hearing how critical it is that we add more "quests" where you kill 15 rats and bring their ears to an NPC. I mean, if it's a mechanic that's been spammed in every uninspired derivative MMO over the last two decades it can't be wrong!
'

No, DDO should keep doing it because DDO has done it since day one.

GoldyGopher

09-14-2021, 01:18 PM

What adjustments to the current system do you suggest?

The new ED system mirrors the enhancement system which is time-tested and well liked, that's not what I would call aweful.
That a few vocal forum posters hate change does not mean that players dont want the new system.

The enhancement system is not time tested nor well liked, it never was. It is more begrudgingly accepted because Turbine invested too much money into developing it and as an organization wasn't going to listen to the player-base as it called for changes.

The vast majority of posters on these forums have voiced their displeasure with many aspects of the proposed system.

Chai

09-14-2021, 01:49 PM

No, DDO should keep doing it because DDO has done it since day one.

Has it though?

I was here on day one and there was no enhancement system. Then we got a system where you could use 3 AP. Then we got the old enhancement system which did not have tiered abilities (no tier 5/capstone restrictions). Remember the fuss when people wanted to keep their old crit-rage barbarian from the old file tree looking AP system rather than engage in the new AP tree looking system?

One thing they did to placate the negative feedback was, you guessed it, lather up the new system with more character power than the old system had. The bigger numbers and faster elite zergs saw the power gamer feedback die down to a low murmur. The reason I bring this up is the opposite is being done here. People who were used to being able to have a full capped ED at level 20 for leveling purposes will now be limited in their EDP in lower epics and not be able to be full capstone while leveling.

Power creep is a helluva drug.

Artos_Fabril

09-14-2021, 03:17 PM

So how would [...] have done to move to level 40 ?
Clearly the answer is "Do not do this thing".

But thats not relevant because no one believes SSG will heed this advice.

So, how do we get legendary content for legendary levels, accepting that we have already thrown out the lore of Eberron anyway?

Well, there's one cannon D&D setting and storyline that lends itself both to legendary adventures and the way DDO implements content. So we're off to Sigil!
-Stormreach is already, in a sense, a City of Doors, since all content is instanced and most of those instances are accessed through some sort of doorway.
-Planar cosmology in DDO has already shifted away from Eberron (Carceri pact, rather than Risian)
-There are actually legendary threats to face and stories to tell in Planescape, and we can let this stupid Codex storyline die.

Axeyu

09-14-2021, 03:26 PM

Has it though?

I was here on day one and there was no enhancement system. Then we got a system where you could use 3 AP. Then we got the old enhancement system which did not have tiered abilities (no tier 5/capstone restrictions). Remember the fuss when people wanted to keep their old crit-rage barbarian from the old file tree looking AP system rather than engage in the new AP tree looking system?

One thing they did to placate the negative feedback was, you guessed it, lather up the new system with more character power than the old system had. The bigger numbers and faster elite zergs saw the power gamer feedback die down to a low murmur. The reason I bring this up is the opposite is being done here. People who were used to being able to have a full capped ED at level 20 for leveling purposes will now be limited in their EDP in lower epics and not be able to be full capstone while leveling.

Power creep is a helluva drug.

Yes, DDO has always had loot progression. Misquote?

Axeyu

09-14-2021, 03:34 PM

The enhancement system is not time tested nor well liked, it never was. It is more begrudgingly accepted because Turbine invested too much money into developing it and as an organization wasn't going to listen to the player-base as it called for changes.

Not true.

The vast majority of posters on these forums have voiced their displeasure with many aspects of the proposed system.

Also not true. That people provided feedback about a very early preview of a new system when asked for it does not mean that people does not want it.

Chai

09-14-2021, 07:27 PM

Yes, DDO has always had loot progression. Misquote?

Not recently in a quality fashion. Through the last few previous eras there have been lower level sets you wear that are better than any gear you can get in quests many levels higher, until you get to level 15 then you wear your relevant set(s) from 15 until 29 because that level 15 set is better than everything until endgame.

Then someone finally realized (after reading our feedback over the past 5 years no doubt) that "loot progression" is supposed to progress based on quest level and not time proximity to expansion release. When done correctly, the level 15 items you got in Sharn are not supposed to be better than the level 28 set you put together from the Devil's Gambit, and everything else before that as well. Oops.

This happens in a game where they have an absolute need to incentivize grinding (and paying to lessen the grind) the new gear by making it so much better than the previous stuff that its not even a debate. This of course is what lead to the stat squish as well as the ED revamp.

p2w has caused a pile up of progression/balance/QoL design debt they are now just starting to address.

Edit: What's worse is they are doing this years after people paid to reroll those chests to farm that old loot. This is what happens when you charge to acquire the new toys more quickly, then nerf the bees knees out of the new toys later on. First they do it with the gear, now with the progression system people bought and paid for years ago. Much of the negative feedback is not from the resulting relative balance, but from altering what was paid for pretty drastically after dangling a much more powerful form of it in the market audience's faces to entice them to pay for it or pay to acquire it much sooner.

Cant tell us it was an honest mistake. But hey, I'm more than happy to read any comedy that attempts to convince us that no one understood the negative game system impact having level 15 sets that are better than level 28 sets from previous eras, and only get changed out for....wait for it...the legendary version of the same set from...you guessed it...the same expansion.

Revenue from power creep is a helluva drug.

Film at 11.

Axeyu

09-14-2021, 09:49 PM

Not recently in a quality fashion. Through the last few previous eras there have been lower level sets you wear that are better than any gear you can get in quests many levels higher, until you get to level 15 then you wear your relevant set(s) from 15 until 29 because that level 15 set is better than everything until endgame.

Then someone finally realized (after reading our feedback over the past 5 years no doubt) that "loot progression" is supposed to progress based on quest level and not time proximity to expansion release. When done correctly, the level 15 items you got in Sharn are not supposed to be better than the level 28 set you put together from the Devil's Gambit, and everything else before that as well. Oops.

This happens in a game where they have an absolute need to incentivize grinding (and paying to lessen the grind) the new gear by making it so much better than the previous stuff that its not even a debate. This of course is what lead to the stat squish as well as the ED revamp.

p2w has caused a pile up of progression/balance/QoL design debt they are now just starting to address.

Edit: What's worse is they are doing this years after people paid to reroll those chests to farm that old loot. This is what happens when you charge to acquire the new toys more quickly, then nerf the bees knees out of the new toys later on. First they do it with the gear, now with the progression system people bought and paid for years ago. Much of the negative feedback is not from the resulting relative balance, but from altering what was paid for pretty drastically after dangling a much more powerful form of it in the market audience's faces to entice them to pay for it or pay to acquire it much sooner.

Cant tell us it was an honest mistake. But hey, I'm more than happy to read any comedy that attempts to convince us that no one understood the negative game system impact having level 15 sets that are better than level 28 sets from previous eras, and only get changed out for....wait for it...the legendary version of the same set from...you guessed it...the same expansion.

Revenue from power creep is a helluva drug.

Film at 11.

Misquote again?

Chai

09-15-2021, 11:52 AM

Misquote again?

Nope, nailed it twice.

No one playing DDO this long is afraid of change. This game swaps metas regularly. Those folks left long ago. Everyone still here is used to it.

There are other reasons than "afraid of change" for disliking the way this is all going. I gave several. Please address those, specifically.

Axeyu

09-15-2021, 12:46 PM

Nope, nailed it twice.

No one playing DDO this long is afraid of change. This game swaps metas regularly. Those folks left long ago. Everyone still here is used to it.

There are other reasons than "afraid of change" for disliking the way this is all going. I gave several. Please address those, specifically.

Poster 1: They should stop with gear progression.
Poster 2: People like gear progression, it is virtually the core of all MMOs.
Poster 3: DDO should not do something just because other MMOs does it.
Me: DDO should keep gear progression because DDO has had gear progression since day 1.
You: Long rants about the enhancement system, the ED system, p2w and powercreep.
Me: huh?
You: I nailed it.

Pretty funny.

Chai

09-15-2021, 12:55 PM

Poster 1: They should stop with gear progression.
Poster 2: People like gear progression, it is virtually the core of all MMOs.
Poster 3: DDO should not do something just because other MMOs does it.
Me: DDO should keep gear progression because DDO has had gear progression since day 1.
You: Long rants about the enhancement system, the ED system, p2w and powercreep.
Me: huh?
You: I nailed it.

Pretty funny.

I talked about gear in two out of the three posts.

Further avoidance of addressing the posts content specifically tells us what we need to know though. The "afraid of change" position was a misrepresentation all along. Several solid reasons were provided for people giving negative feedback which cited the history of enhancement system changes, the ED system, p2w and power creep. Having no answer for those, some other narrative needs to be constructed for any possible reason why someone might not like the current changes. No one left here currently is afraid of change in a game that has swapped METAS repeatedly for over a decade now. We all got used to it 12 years ago. Keep talking past the good points being made here. Its all you've got.

Axeyu

09-15-2021, 01:56 PM

I talked about gear in two out of the three posts.

Further avoidance of addressing the posts content specifically tells us what we need to know though. The "afraid of change" position was a misrepresentation all along. Several solid reasons were provided for people giving negative feedback which cited the history of enhancement system changes, the ED system, p2w and power creep. Having no answer for those, some other narrative needs to be constructed for any possible reason why someone might not like the current changes. No one left here currently is afraid of change in a game that has swapped METAS repeatedly for over a decade now. We all got used to it 12 years ago. Keep talking past the good points being made here. Its all you've got.

If you want to talk to me about the "afraid of change" position then quote me in a conversation of that so I know what you are talking about. I am more than willing to discuss all those things. What you can't do is quote something completely different and expect me to know what the hell you are waffling about. I asked you twice if you misquoted me because the post above the one you replied to did indeed talk about "afraid of change" but you said you didn't. I don't think I disagree with anything you said, it just made no sense in context of "DDO should keep loot progression not because other MMOs do it, but because it has been a core part of DDO since day 1". It had nothing to do with U50, U51 or any other update.

Yeah there are legit criticisms of U51, the lost flexibility at cap being the primary one in my opinion.

Chai

09-15-2021, 03:39 PM

If you want to talk to me about the "afraid of change" position then quote me in a conversation of that so I know what you are talking about. I am more than willing to discuss all those things. What you can't do is quote something completely different and expect me to know what the hell you are waffling about. I asked you twice if you misquoted me because the post above the one you replied to did indeed talk about "afraid of change" but you said you didn't. I don't think I disagree with anything you said, it just made no sense in context of "DDO should keep loot progression not because other MMOs do it, but because it has been a core part of DDO since day 1". It had nothing to do with U50, U51 or any other update.

Yeah there are legit criticisms of U51, the lost flexibility at cap being the primary one in my opinion.

I misquoted zero times. This is being used to talk past good points made for which there is no answer for. But since you want to keep making it solely about loot (likely also because there is no answer for the other messed up aspects) - Loot progression has been screwed up in DDO for quite some time (more like loot regression), refuting the "since day 1" claim. Real loot progression means the stuff you get out of higher level quests replaces the stuff you get out of lower level quests. Third time stating this. Still dont see it addressed. Unless someone thinks level 10, & 15 loot should be better than level 28 loot and only replaced by the same set of the legendary version of that loot at level 29 - already explained this one twice too. Thats been the previous few years of "loot progression. (loot regression)" There are other eras where much lower level loot invalidated higher level loot. This has been an ongoing thing in DDO for quite some time (about 4 years, since ravenloft for current era reference).

The short short version example: My level 15 sharn sets shouldnt be better than my level 28 devils gambit sets. Thats not "loot progression since day 1."

Now, why does this occur?

p2w which is ABSOLUTELY related to the topic, as it is the very reason why they need to increase loot power in such a vertical fashion where level 15 sets in recent content are better than level 28 sets from previous era content. Claiming "misquote" because I bring up the very reason this all needs to occur in order to drive the revenue system is simply put, incorrect. In order to solve the issue, this reliance on p2w as a main revenue stream would need to be addressed. SSG clearly understands this as they have bottlenecked every single old world loot upgrade to legendary version by needing to obtain an item which only drops in the new expansion, which has literally zero lore/immersion/progression sense. It ONLY makes sense from a p2w perspective. When this is ignored (accusations of misquote abound) the issue cannot be resolved, because you cannot have consistent linear loot level progression while leaning heavily on time proximity progression (current lower level loot is better than previous era higher level loot). In short, the revenue method and logical game system balance are once again...in direct contradiction.

Understanding the entire issue is not a misquote. You want a logical game system? You cant have that while it is tethered to p2w as much as DDO is.

Axeyu

09-15-2021, 04:19 PM

I misquoted zero times. This is being used to talk past good points made for which there is no answer for. But since you want to keep making it solely about loot (likely also because there is no answer for the other messed up aspects) - Loot progression has been screwed up in DDO for quite some time (more like loot regression), refuting the "since day 1" claim. Real loot progression means the stuff you get out of higher level quests replaces the stuff you get out of lower level quests. Third time stating this. Still dont see it addressed. Unless someone thinks level 10, & 15 loot should be better than level 28 loot and only replaced by the same set of the legendary version of that loot at level 29 - already explained this one twice too. Thats been the previous few years of "loot progression. (loot regression)" There are other eras where much lower level loot invalidated higher level loot. This has been an ongoing thing in DDO for quite some time (about 4 years, since ravenloft for current era reference).

The short short version example: My level 15 sharn sets shouldnt be better than my level 28 devils gambit sets. Thats not "loot progression since day 1."

Now, why does this occur?

p2w which is ABSOLUTELY related to the topic, as it is the very reason why they need to increase loot power in such a vertical fashion where level 15 sets in recent content are better than level 28 sets from previous era content. Claiming "misquote" because I bring up the very reason this all needs to occur in order to drive the revenue system is simply put, incorrect. In order to solve the issue, this reliance on p2w as a main revenue stream would need to be addressed. SSG clearly understands this as they have bottlenecked every single old world loot upgrade to legendary version by needing to obtain an item which only drops in the new expansion, which has literally zero lore/immersion/progression sense. It ONLY makes sense from a p2w perspective. When this is ignored (accusations of misquote abound) the issue cannot be resolved, because you cannot have consistent linear loot level progression while leaning heavily on time proximity progression (current lower level loot is better than previous era higher level loot). In short, the revenue method and logical game system balance are once again...in direct contradiction.

Understanding the entire issue is not a misquote. You want a logical game system? You cant have that while it is tethered to p2w as much as DDO is.

I agree with the issues you are raising, but it is a separate discussion from the one you jumped into.
Look, it is very simple. Someone said that the fact that loot progression exists in other MMOs is not a reason to have loot progression in DDO so I pointed out that it has been a part of DDO since day 1 so one does not have to look to other MMOs to find an example of it. I did not say or imply that DDO has had a perfectly consistent loot progression over all levels and all iterations. There is no issue to be solved or p2w aspect to be analyzed in my very minor point.

Please rant at someone else.

SoVeryBelgian

09-15-2021, 10:37 PM

I don't know if this is the thread to post this in but:

I would have continued with the Treasure Levels mechanic that already existed in some form with Crafted items and just make it an actual level mechanic.

IE:

You level past 30, to Treasure Level 31. You can go from 30 to 35.

1. Content would scale to be ONLY Legendary, with CR going to 37/38 at the top.

2. Casual & Normal are LOCKED and you can only play Hard or Elite. Reaper still has 10 Ticks.

3. More Champions spawn that usual. More diverse Mobs in quests (Actual Monster Ecology, Coordinated Enemies).

4. Access to 2 more Legendary Feats, New Attack Feats.

5. Rare Loot / Bragging Rights items, Cosmetics and other doodads like the Hardcore Server.

6. Make it grueling and punishing and varied. Raid-Heavy, Long-Form Quest Heavy. Like a Mini-Expansion or w/e.

7. Can craft items to Cap now, and only use them at the relevant Treasure Level.

8. Completing certain actions at the new Cap adds perks like Guild Airships, Amenities, Mounts, Pets, Bank Space etc. Like Achievements in a way.

That's my two cents. (As someone who won't really bother with going past 30)

erethizon

09-16-2021, 02:47 AM

I misquoted zero times. This is being used to talk past good points made for which there is no answer for. But since you want to keep making it solely about loot (likely also because there is no answer for the other messed up aspects) - Loot progression has been screwed up in DDO for quite some time (more like loot regression), refuting the "since day 1" claim. Real loot progression means the stuff you get out of higher level quests replaces the stuff you get out of lower level quests. Third time stating this. Still dont see it addressed. Unless someone thinks level 10, & 15 loot should be better than level 28 loot and only replaced by the same set of the legendary version of that loot at level 29 - already explained this one twice too. Thats been the previous few years of "loot progression. (loot regression)" There are other eras where much lower level loot invalidated higher level loot. This has been an ongoing thing in DDO for quite some time (about 4 years, since ravenloft for current era reference).

The short short version example: My level 15 sharn sets shouldnt be better than my level 28 devils gambit sets. Thats not "loot progression since day 1."

Now, why does this occur?

p2w which is ABSOLUTELY related to the topic, as it is the very reason why they need to increase loot power in such a vertical fashion where level 15 sets in recent content are better than level 28 sets from previous era content. Claiming "misquote" because I bring up the very reason this all needs to occur in order to drive the revenue system is simply put, incorrect. In order to solve the issue, this reliance on p2w as a main revenue stream would need to be addressed. SSG clearly understands this as they have bottlenecked every single old world loot upgrade to legendary version by needing to obtain an item which only drops in the new expansion, which has literally zero lore/immersion/progression sense. It ONLY makes sense from a p2w perspective. When this is ignored (accusations of misquote abound) the issue cannot be resolved, because you cannot have consistent linear loot level progression while leaning heavily on time proximity progression (current lower level loot is better than previous era higher level loot). In short, the revenue method and logical game system balance are once again...in direct contradiction.

Understanding the entire issue is not a misquote. You want a logical game system? You cant have that while it is tethered to p2w as much as DDO is.

I know pay to win is your favorite topic but you take it a bit too far. Having access to content isn't pay to win. In order to "win" any game you need to actually play it and if you can't play it because you don't have access to it then you obviously are not going to "win." I don't have Saltmarsh and I don't consider it p2w that there is good stuff in their that upgrades items from content I do own. People that choose not to access content are obviously not going to benefit from that content. That is significantly different from buying a +8 Supreme Tome or a stack of Spell Point potions from the DDO store. I can understand why the latter two examples would be considered p2w, but having access to the game content is the most basic thing that all players should be reasonable expected to do and if they choose not to they are naturally going to be missing out on some stuff. I went a year without buying Ravenloft and thus not having a sentient weapon while those around me did. They did pay to win. They simply were playing the full game while I had chosen not to.

Chai

09-16-2021, 09:43 AM

I know pay to win is your favorite topic but you take it a bit too far. Having access to content isn't pay to win. In order to "win" any game you need to actually play it and if you can't play it because you don't have access to it then you obviously are not going to "win." I don't have Saltmarsh and I don't consider it p2w that there is good stuff in their that upgrades items from content I do own. People that choose not to access content are obviously not going to benefit from that content. That is significantly different from buying a +8 Supreme Tome or a stack of Spell Point potions from the DDO store. I can understand why the latter two examples would be considered p2w, but having access to the game content is the most basic thing that all players should be reasonable expected to do and if they choose not to they are naturally going to be missing out on some stuff. I went a year without buying Ravenloft and thus not having a sentient weapon while those around me did. They did pay to win. They simply were playing the full game while I had chosen not to.

We are familiar with the rules lawyering and term parsing people use to justify it, so continual repetition of said justification is simply copium.

These justifications are also easily defeated. Example:
You say having access to content isnt p2w...but you're not addressing the real issue there.
Only dropping the item needed to upgrade loot from 12 year old packs inside the new pack. No new expansion purchase = no legendary s/s/s upgrade. p2w
Setting ransack limits on chests then allowing people to pay their way past the ransack limit. chest rolls by spenders/non spenders = 4/1. p2w
Setting 3 day timers on raids and selling a timer bypass. p2w

The rules lawyering of "if you cant 'win' its not p2w is refuted by the understanding that the player sets the win condition, and then purchases it outright or purchases far quicker acquisition of it.

When theres a market audience for this in a game and the revenue generation leans heavily on this method, there are a few indicators which show this, including but not limited to the actual game environment deteriorating (note the never ending lag complaints), solutions to years-long discussions being sold to you rather than patched in as QoL, and massive loot value bumps at cap. That last one is what got adjusted, but only AFTER people paid to acquire the previous versions of said loot.

This gets brought up alot because its relevant to every balance discussion. Balance cannot be achieved when you have two classes of players. Big spenders and regular spenders/non spenders. I see many references to the "have nots" being people who cannot afford the lengthy grinds needed to have an optimal character. It doesn't get "fixed" because this is the "solution" they are selling you. The expectation is you will buy your way past the hilariously long grind.

This also gets brought up alot due to the fact that the p2w revenue method often is in direct conflict with system balance. In the case of U50 + U51 most people arent irritated at the resulting balance vs power level they had in the past. They are mad because they spent on chest rerolls and bypass timers only to have the relative conditions of the acquired loot altered. When the user sets the win condition, and pays to acquire/pays to acquire more quickly, then the company changes that win condition claiming its needed to balance the system, that is the direct contradiction being referred to here. Once money changes hands in a situation like this you have to be real careful not to alter the win condition of the spender - those people who this type of revenue model is targeted at, and when the game leans on it this heavily, a significant portion (likely a majority portion) of the revenue comes from.

Bringing this up is never "going too far" as claimed. It is showing understanding of how (and why) this all happens in the first place. Having a "Darth Vader in Empire" (I have altered the agreement...) attitude toward this risks losing the market audience that funds the game. No amount of rules lawyering or term parsing of the definition of p2w gets past that. Sell X and deliver X for a time then change it to X-5 is a great formula for disaster in business.

Axeyu

09-16-2021, 10:03 AM

Setting ransack limits on chests then allowing people to pay their way past the ransack limit. chest rolls by spenders/non spenders = 4/1. p2w
Setting 3 day timers on raids and selling a timer bypass. p2w

To be fair, chest ransack and raid timers were a part of the game long before it became free to play. So the claim that the addition of chest ransack and raid timers were motivated by p2w is patently false.

Epicsoul

09-16-2021, 10:12 AM

/snip

I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, but your communication style and overwhelming abundance of your opinions one can find on these forums leads me to two conclusions: (1) you talk about the game, but don't play it, and (2) I am naturally inclined to disagree with you.

Alrik_Fassbauer

09-16-2021, 10:29 AM

So how would all the the don't nerf the gear ! Guys have done to move to level 40 ?

I'm quoting myself on that :

In my opinion, it is as if the game was hijacked my "MMO folks" who are used to the formula of most of MMOs : Build a character to the top - mostl via min-maxing - show and brag about the power the own character has acquired throughout the game - and play the MMO for nothing but power gaining - sometimes for socializing as well - but for the majority of contemporary "MMO folks", power is the thing why people play MMOs.

Consequently, they want levels beyond level 20, because level 20 doesn't feel like "power", especially if 2 dudes come together for a talk about MMOs and the one says : "My powerchar is at level 80, and yours ?" "Well ... mine is at level 20 ... but that's the absolute top in my MMO !" he hurries to add.
"How can they do a friggin' level 20 MMO when everyone knows that in all MMOs there's level 80 the top level ???" the other one scratches his head. The level 20 guy only shrugs, because he has no answer to that.

That's just an example how it feels to me, and why I feel constant pressure from the forum folks here. They don't want a game, they want power-accumulating.

Poster 1: They should stop with gear progression.
Poster 2: People like gear progression, it is virtually the core of all MMOs.
Poster 3: DDO should not do something just because other MMOs does it.

This is casically the way of ALL MMOs : People demand more power in a) loot b) character building c) both combined, because "that's just the way MMOs have always been". And that's a fairly conservative look on MMOs, if you ask me.

I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, but your communication style and overwhelming abundance of your opinions one can find on these forums leads me to two conclusions: (1) you talk about the game, but don't play it, and (2) I am naturally inclined to disagree with you.

Nobody likes META discissions if they aren't about either progression or mechanics.
The term "theorycrafting" has even become an exclusive mathematics term. Players aren't even "theorycrafting" regarding plot or setting or lore anymore, and if they did, I bet that a "theorycrafter" would deny them to do so, because "you are not using maths".

Chai

09-16-2021, 10:43 AM

To be fair, chest ransack and raid timers were a part of the game long before it became free to play. So the claim that the addition of chest ransack and raid timers were motivated by p2w is patently false.

The fact that makes it p2w is instead of patching in a QoL solution for a design irritant they charge for the solution. The reason the design irritant exists is irrelevant. The timeline between designing the irritant and selling the bypass of said irritant is also irrelevant. The excuse for the irritant being in place is...you guess it...irrelevant.
Usually those are brought up as just more copium.

The fact is the players set the win condition (in this case "we want to run raids without a three day timer") and the company sells them the solution rather than patching it in as QoL. p2w - and creates two classes of players. System "balance" (lol) will only happen for one of those groups.

This type of thing would need to be addressed before we can discuss any kind of game system balance.

Chai

09-16-2021, 10:45 AM

I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, but your communication style and overwhelming abundance of your opinions one can find on these forums leads me to two conclusions: (1) you talk about the game, but don't play it, and (2) I am naturally inclined to disagree with you.

(1) is incorrect. I play DDO.

(2) can disagree with the facts, but can't really avoid the consequences of doing so, as seen in the last few updates.

erethizon

09-16-2021, 11:18 AM

We are familiar with the rules lawyering and term parsing people use to justify it, so continual repetition of said justification is simply copium.

These justifications are also easily defeated. Example:
You say having access to content isnt p2w...but you're not addressing the real issue there.
Only dropping the item needed to upgrade loot from 12 year old packs inside the new pack. No new expansion purchase = no legendary s/s/s upgrade. p2w
Setting ransack limits on chests then allowing people to pay their way past the ransack limit. chest rolls by spenders/non spenders = 4/1. p2w
Setting 3 day timers on raids and selling a timer bypass. p2w

The rules lawyering of "if you cant 'win' its not p2w is refuted by the understanding that the player sets the win condition, and then purchases it outright or purchases far quicker acquisition of it.

I knew it was risky to address you about p2w because once you start talking about it you can't stop. Yes, chest rerolls and raid bypass timers are pay to win. Having to actually own all the content in order to get the items within that content is not p2w. If it were then every expansion in every game ever would make said game p2w unless they made sure that all expansions never had better items in them, even if said expansion came with a level cap increase. There are plenty of p2w examples in this game but having to own the content (or rent it with VIP) does not make a game p2w. It makes it pay to access which every subscription based has always been. If having to pay to access makes a game p2w then WoW has been p2w since the day it was made and so has DDO since you used to need a subscription to play.

The new item with Saltmarsh that makes upgrades possible is very similar to the addition of sentient gems with Ravenloft. I didn't have Ravenloft (or WPM) for a long time and so I could not make a sentient weapon even though the items I had from older content were able to accept sentience. That didn't mean every person that purchased Ravenloft was paying to win while I was morally superior for not participating in the new content. It simply meant that I was choosing to miss out due to my unwillingness to pay full price for the recent expansion and quest packs.

It is a time honored tradition to release more powerful items (usually along with a level cap increase) with each expansion in most games. DDO is a little weird in that it avoids the level cap increase most of the time which makes similar practices somehow suddenly become pay to win. When new content adds a new feature to the game you are expected to buy that new content to access the new feature. They have even said they will eventually drop the upgrade item from other content eventually. Why not now? Because they are using it as bait to sell the mini-expansion. All new content comes with bait. That is how they sell it. The mere existence of something desirable in new content that is not available elsewhere does not make that content pay to win. I'm currently helping a new player level up and there are all kinds of things I would like to get for him but cannot because he only owns 2 packs. It's too bad he isn't paying to win like all those dirty VIP's that just swipe their credit card so they can access better items in better content or all those dirty players in other games that buy the expansions rather then just playing only the original content for years on end (this last sentence is sarcasm).

Chai

09-16-2021, 11:35 AM

I knew it was risky to address you about p2w because once you start talking about it you can't stop. Yes, chest rerolls and raid bypass timers are pay to win. Having to actually own all the content in order to get the items within that content is not p2w. If it were then every expansion in every game ever would make said game p2w unless they made sure that all expansions never had better items in them, even if said expansion came with a level cap increase. There are plenty of p2w examples in this game but having to own the content (or rent it with VIP) does not make a game p2w. It makes it pay to access which every subscription based has always been. If having to pay to access makes a game p2w then WoW has been p2w since the day it was made and so has DDO since you used to need a subscription to play.

The new item with Saltmarsh that makes upgrades possible is very similar to the addition of sentient gems with Ravenloft. I didn't have Ravenloft (or WPM) for a long time and so I could not make a sentient weapon even though the items I had from older content were able to accept sentience. That didn't mean every person that purchased Ravenloft was paying to win while I was morally superior for not participating in the new content. It simply meant that I was choosing to miss out due to my unwillingness to pay full price for the recent expansion and quest packs.

It is a time honored tradition to release more powerful items (usually along with a level cap increase) with each expansion in most games. DDO is a little weird in that it avoids the level cap increase most of the time which makes similar practices somehow suddenly become pay to win. When new content adds a new feature to the game you are expected to buy that new content to access the new feature. They have even said they will eventually drop the upgrade item from other content eventually. Why not now? Because they are using it as bait to sell the mini-expansion. All new content comes with bait. That is how they sell it. The mere existence of something desirable in new content that is not available elsewhere does not make that content pay to win. I'm currently helping a new player level up and there are all kinds of things I would like to get for him but cannot because he only owns 2 packs. It's too bad he isn't paying to win like all those dirty VIP's that just swipe their credit card so they can access better items in better content or all those dirty players in other games that buy the expansions rather then just playing only the original content for years on end (this last sentence is sarcasm).

As a blanket statement the bolded is just copium. Theres a major difference between adding new (sometimes better) loot in new content, versus adding an upgrade to loot from previous eras due to positive feedback about that specific loot being better than this current era of loot, but walling it behind purchasing the entire new pack.

Feedback: We want loot to be more like previous eras when some items had unique effects rather than just generic number scaling of same effects.

Response: Here, you can have upgraded loot sets for heroic and epic from those packs but the legendary versions will only upgrade if you buy the expansion and farm an item there which has literally zero lore ties to any of the packs the actual old world loot came from.

Why: Theres a specific market audience in game who will pay their way past artificial barriers. Everyone else has to deal with the designed barrier.

Result: Game has two classes of players. Those who pay to acquire or pay to acquire far more quickly and those who still spend but play the game not engaging with any of these p2w/paywall mechanisms.

"Balance" will occur for the former. The latter has to deal with whatever artificial barriers were put in place. Can't really make a game system argument that helps all players when the expectation is they need to buy their way past whatever barriers are put in place to leverage/incentivize the purchase.

These "new player retention" positions I read often are especially negatively affected by this type of design.

Any kind of response to "what would you do to progress the game to 40" using specifically a game system argument, would need to address this in some way shape or form.

Faltout

09-16-2021, 11:53 AM

I knew it was risky to address you about p2w because once you start talking about it you can't stop.
This is extremely rude. Chai does not repeat themselves, reads the post before replying and answers are relevant to the source. They are much better than a regular person that just spews their view repeatedly until someone gets tired. Listing "Can't stop talking" as a bad thing (when in a constructive discussion) is rude.

Btw, I agree with you that having to purchase content in order to upgrade old items is not pay to win. Especially considering they are not competing in the same levels as the old items. If they were competing, it would be considered p2w.

Axeyu

09-16-2021, 01:19 PM

The fact that makes it p2w is instead of patching in a QoL solution for a design irritant they charge for the solution. The reason the design irritant exists is irrelevant. The timeline between designing the irritant and selling the bypass of said irritant is also irrelevant. The excuse for the irritant being in place is...you guess it...irrelevant.
Usually those are brought up as just more copium.

The fact is the players set the win condition (in this case "we want to run raids without a three day timer") and the company sells them the solution rather than patching it in as QoL. p2w - and creates two classes of players. System "balance" (lol) will only happen for one of those groups.

This type of thing would need to be addressed before we can discuss any kind of game system balance.

Ofcourse the reason for the limitation matters. Games are full of limitations, for some of them the benefit of letting people pay to bypass them outweighs the reason it was added. Chest ransack makes perfect sense, but it's not the end of the world to let some people bypass them. It does not affect character balance. That's not to say p2w can't be bad. The old level sigils we used to have made no sense and was added just as a paywall, but were luckily quickly removed. Raid timers are more complicated. When first added they, along with the store sale of tomes, decimated the raiding scene. Nowdays I feel like they are good for puggers who have little control over what raids they run and when, while for the guild groups who dont use bypasses the timer adds cohesion and consistency.

EDIT: Otto boxes and XP pots as catch up mechanics is IMO the worst p2w offender by far.

anangel22

09-16-2021, 04:10 PM

I'm quoting myself on that :

This is casically the way of ALL MMOs : People demand more power in a) loot b) character building c) both combined, because "that's just the way MMOs have always been". And that's a fairly conservative look on MMOs, if you ask me.

Nobody likes META discissions if they aren't about either progression or mechanics.
The term "theorycrafting" has even become an exclusive mathematics term. Players aren't even "theorycrafting" regarding plot or setting or lore anymore, and if they did, I bet that a "theorycrafter" would deny them to do so, because "you are not using maths".

pompous and self-righteous as ever. There is no morality to different play styles. Do you even play P&P roleplaying games? I imagine you will have been kicked out of most groups because of telling people how they have to play according to your gospel. I certainly would have. And I actually value the acting/roleplaying aspect above all else at the table. I just understand these are different types of games. Unlike you.

Weemadarthur

09-16-2021, 06:48 PM

As a blanket statement the bolded is just copium. Theres a major difference between adding new (sometimes better) loot in new content, versus adding an upgrade to loot from previous eras due to positive feedback about that specific loot being better than this current era of loot, but walling it behind purchasing the entire new pack.

Feedback: We want loot to be more like previous eras when some items had unique effects rather than just generic number scaling of same effects.

Response: Here, you can have upgraded loot sets for heroic and epic from those packs but the legendary versions will only upgrade if you buy the expansion and farm an item there which has literally zero lore ties to any of the packs the actual old world loot came from.

Why: Theres a specific market audience in game who will pay their way past artificial barriers. Everyone else has to deal with the designed barrier.

Result: Game has two classes of players. Those who pay to acquire or pay to acquire far more quickly and those who still spend but play the game not engaging with any of these p2w/paywall mechanisms.

"Balance" will occur for the former. The latter has to deal with whatever artificial barriers were put in place. Can't really make a game system argument that helps all players when the expectation is they need to buy their way past whatever barriers are put in place to leverage/incentivize the purchase.

These "new player retention" positions I read often are especially negatively affected by this type of design.

Any kind of response to "what would you do to progress the game to 40" using specifically a game system argument, would need to address this in some way shape or form.

There is one major flaw in your argument here. Claiming that having better loot in the newest content is P2W is only the case if you need to have that level of power to be able to complete content. This is most definitely not the case with this game. All content to date can be completed with the use of just random gear. At no point is anyone forced to have the newest content or not be able to play. I don't own saltmarsh but can still (and occasionally do) run R10 content at cap which is the only place where the new gear has any effect. So without it I can still contribute, still play and still have fun at the absolute highest difficulty the game has to offer.

So what you have in reality is a choice of having slightly broader options now at end game compared to using the plethora of end game gear we already have. Yes some of that new shiny end game gear will be better (but this is always the case with any new content) and you may have a couple of BIS items but nothing requiring Saltmarsh completely invalidates what we already have.

If new content was impossible to complete without this new gear you would have a point. The closest we have had so far was Sharn pre nerf. This was obviously designed with having RL gear as a minimum but was at least possible for the majority of players even if they had to knock the difficulty down a setting or 2.

Now I'm not claiming that SSG's financial model is good or morally right but it does work. SSG is making money. That fact allows them to produce new content for us to complain about and keeps the game running. I personally would have done things differently but that doesn't mean my ideas would have been any more profitable and quite possibly they could have been a disaster. The same applies to your ideas. Yes I agree it would be nice if in a perfect world that this game could be perfectly balanced, free to all and get by on just the sales of cosmetics alone but unfortunately this is not that perfect world and the reality is if we want a game to play it has to generate enough revenue.

Chai

09-16-2021, 07:47 PM

Ofcourse the reason for the limitation matters. Games are full of limitations, for some of them the benefit of letting people pay to bypass them outweighs the reason it was added. Chest ransack makes perfect sense, but it's not the end of the world to let some people bypass them. It does not affect character balance. That's not to say p2w can't be bad. The old level sigils we used to have made no sense and was added just as a paywall, but were luckily quickly removed. Raid timers are more complicated. When first added they, along with the store sale of tomes, decimated the raiding scene. Nowdays I feel like they are good for puggers who have little control over what raids they run and when, while for the guild groups who dont use bypasses the timer adds cohesion and consistency.

It does not matter when the design irritation was created, or if it was done on purpose, the fact is they sold you the solution. Rather than make the game system better, they provide the solution for the swipers/spenders while those who will not p2w (but spend on other things, including buying the very content the issue exists in) still have to deal with the irritant.

EDIT: Otto boxes and XP pots as catch up mechanics is IMO the worst p2w offender by far.

Yes, but this does not diminish that due to the sheer volume of other p2w which has entered the game (most solutions to issues being something you buy), and thus heavy reliance on it as a revenue source, has changed the entire feedback culture. Where before in previous eras when no p2w existed, or when far less degree of p2w existed, our feedback might be responded to by a QoL line item in a patch, now the majority of the QoL requests are either responded to by selling you the solution, or since a solution is already sold in the store, nothing further is done as the expectation is you will buy your way past it if you dislike the specific irritant so much. That type of QoL request is an indicator that the irritant was designed correctly to net the expected response - the solution being purchased.

These new player retention positions I see in these balance threads/future meta game threads is highly negatively affected by this. The expectation that you must either deal with all irritants which you request a fix for, or pay your way past it is a huge turn off even for 15 year vets, but those with far less time investment (and this far more catching up to do) are less inclined to hang around in such an environment. There are other games which are f2p where this expectation does not exist.

Balanced game system environment and revenue model are in direct contradiction with each other. A solid example of this is when the reincarnation grind is complained about we got told there needed to be some replay-ability through repetition because they cannot create content as quickly as we can consume it. The correct game system argument is "well then buying our way past that grind is much worse, as it gets you the reward without having to consume the content." This falls on deaf ears though because as long as the money is made, the fact that the logic in the response is handedly refuted, is ignored.

Another example is when we asked for older raids only to be set to 1 day timer rather than 3 days. The response we were provided is the influx of even older named items would disrupt game balance. Then they started selling timer bypass. Following the logic here when the excuse is we cant give you this for free due to upholding game system balance, but we are willing to sell it to you, they are selling circumvention of game balance. When this is brought up (and it has been by myself as well as other posters a few times per year) it is ignored. Game system environment < Making money.

Things which are either not in conflict in most other games, or not nearly in as much conflict in most other games. Most games where these are in conflict are shameless p2w games where the best items are bought in the store. There is no lawyering of terms, parsing of words, or arguing of definitions that it isnt p2w because blah blah blah circumstance. They own it face up, call it what it is, and sell game rewards straight cash. Everyone clearly understands the game system is merely the environment where the new shiny you just bought gets used.

Chai

09-16-2021, 07:52 PM

There is one major flaw in your argument here. Claiming that having better loot in the newest content is P2W is only the case if you need to have that level of power to be able to complete content.

I haven't made that claim.

My claim is:
Hearing feedback that many of us like the older loot system over the current loot system got responded to by giving up updated versions of the older loot. In order to upgrade this loot to legendary version, you must use an item ONLY (for now) found in the current expansion, which has literally zero do to with any of the older packs the updated loot are found in lore wise or timeframe wise. The only link is needing the item from there in order to upgrade older loot you've held onto for 10 years.

This type of p2w is called paywalling.

EDs are also paywalled. No expansion purchases yet? No EDs. Can buy them separately but it makes more sense to get it with an expansion.

Weemadarthur

09-16-2021, 09:16 PM

I haven't made that claim.

My claim is:
Hearing feedback that many of us like the older loot system over the current loot system got responded to by giving up updated versions of the older loot. In order to upgrade this loot to legendary version, you must use an item ONLY (for now) found in the current expansion, which has literally zero do to with any of the older packs the updated loot are found in lore wise or timeframe wise. The only link is needing the item from there in order to upgrade older loot you've held onto for 10 years.

This type of p2w is called paywalling.

EDs are also paywalled. No expansion purchases yet? No EDs. Can buy them separately but it makes more sense to get it with an expansion.

So if they released legendary "return to demon sands" or "return to Red fens" etc as individual packs that you had to buy to upgrade your legendary items with individual drops from each pack though it would be fine as at least it was thematic?

The fact that you upgrade epic loot to legendary loot with a drop from a legendary pack makes perfect sense both thematically and financially. The fact that (currently) those items only drop in a $20 expansion really isn't too big an issue and no different to having the next choice of items attached to any other x-pack. Every x-pack needs some form of progression to be a viable x-pack, whether thats loot, ED's, sentient gems or a new race/class doesn't matter but if you just drop an x-pack with extra content and nothing else almost everyone would be here complaining that they had to pay for what is in essence just a glorified quest pack. Tbh those accusations have been aimed at Saltmarsh even with these "P2W" extras.

Now I expect that (unfortunately as far as I'm concerned as I don't like the new loot mechanics) we will see a lot more places to do this in the near future and we will see this loot system implemented quite a bit going on. Just like it was with sentient gems and filigrees what was initially exclusive to 1 x-pack will quickly become just another drop in multiple packs. So although I agree right at this time the new shiny is paywalled (but not excessively so at $20) it's unlikely to stay that way for long.

Now to address the flip side to your constant claims of p2w you also have to take into account that in this game you are actually paid to play. I don't know any other game where you can literally earn everything in the game be it content or cosmetic, power or convenience by just playing. The amount of free store points you can earn in one life as a f2p player is by any margin extremely generous. All of the "P2W" extras you complain about can and frequently have been purchased at a cost of nothing but time spent enjoying the game. With that in context I really don't think that $20 is too much to ask for the latest content plus access to the latest loot. If it is just wait 6 months and you can have it all at no cost using the points that SSG paid you while you played.

Chai

09-16-2021, 09:30 PM

So if they released legendary "return to demon sands" or "return to Red fens" etc as individual packs that you had to buy to upgrade your legendary items with individual drops from each pack though it would be fine as at least it was thematic?

No. It just means theres no other copium someone can use to justify the obvious paywalling.

Selling content a-la-carte this way is a mechanism that can be used to paywall at will. What other MMOs (other than LOTR, another SSG game) sell content in small packs? Whats more hilarious (and refutes the copium used) is when people have reincarnated enough to earn a large number of points so they wont have to pay actual money, they put the equivalent of 2 packs together, call it a mini expansion, then only allow cash purchase (for now). One of the arguments used to lobby this all in was "you can earn points in game so its not p2w" (more copium) - didn't hold up to well to the test of time.

CanBeEarnedInGame™ **

** (until it can't be).

Now to address the flip side to your constant claims of p2w you also have to take into account that in this game you are actually paid to play. I don't know any other game where you can literally earn everything in the game be it content or cosmetic, power or convenience by just playing. The amount of free store points you can earn in one life as a f2p player is by any margin extremely generous. All of the "P2W" extras you complain about can and frequently have been purchased at a cost of nothing but time spent enjoying the game. With that in context I really don't think that $20 is too much to ask for the latest content plus access to the latest loot. If it is just wait 6 months and you can have it all at no cost using the points that SSG paid you while you played.

Its an argument by degree, and by degree DDO paywalls things they know players will set as "win conditions" behind expansions (or mini-expansions LOL) more than most other MMOs. Ive already refuted the "can be earned in game" premise in the previous paragraph.

Cant have game balance in a game that sells circumvention of game balance, by their own logic (using game balance as the excuse to keep artificial barriers in game but then selling circumvention of the artificial barriers).

So what will they do for 30-40? Something akin to legendary TR. Legendary Ottos boxes. +9-12 tomes in the store. All the while funneling the same range of values back into the gear you will earn that you already had on your gear pre-nerf. The same market audience who paid to obtain the gear more quickly the first time pre-nerf will pay to obtain their progression through the exact same stat values yet again all while rules lawyering and term parsing that it isn't p2w because you can't win in the most literal sense. Dogs and cats will live together. Meat will be back on the menu. The big spenders will rejoice, while the rest of us slog though additional grind systems at a rate designed to be irritating enough to keep us on the forums constantly having this same conversation over and over again to no avail, as the expected QoL move is to buy your way past it.

Weemadarthur

09-16-2021, 10:58 PM

What other MMOs (other than LOTR, another SSG game) sell content in small packs?

What other MMO's don't put all content behind subscription and/or expansions that have to be purchased? Although You have to pay to access saltmarsh now within 6 months you can essentially have it free. This has been the same for ALL the content released in x-pack form to date and as they have already stated when Saltmarsh will be available it doesn't seem to be changing. So refutation refuted as it will still be purchasable in game with in game currency. Everything can still be earned in game just by playing. It's only as p2w as you make it.

The fact is that very few MMO's release content outside of paid expansions so yes you are correct that very few MMO's put out content like DDO. I however will take 3 or 4 small packs a year (equivalent to 1 paid expansion in those games) that can be purchased immediately with in game currency over having maybe 1 x-pack a year that I have to buy with cash and never being able to get it otherwise (the norm for MMO content releases although there are a few exceptions I am aware)

I will be honest and state I'm personally not sold on the mini x-pack idea but if players are willing to pay for it then that's the choice they made. If no-one had bought Saltmarsh and it had been an abject failure that would have been the last we saw of that idea. As it stands though it looks as if most of the playerbase (even those complaining beforehand) did purchase it so I fully expect it to be a staple from now on. I will state though that I don't think $20 was an overly large amount to ask for for what was delivered.

Now to put this into perspective for you. I am a freemium player and my only purchases to date have been the 1st 4 x-packs (I would also have bought Feywild if it let me). I have all content except saltmarsh (I had all except restless Isles before the freequest coupon), all classes and most races. I have a mix of +7 & +8 tomes on my main and +5's on my 4 alts. I am able to run on any difficulty and keep up just fine with the wallet warriors. So if this game is so P2W why has it cost me less than $20 a year? Why am I not so far behind the wallet warriors that I can't keep up?

I say again this game is only as P2W as you make it.

spifflove

09-17-2021, 11:02 AM

WruntJunior

09-17-2021, 11:51 AM

I hate to throw my 2cp in because I have no idea what the endgame is like but I would have allowed 2 more heroic levels at a time until we reached 60 heroics and 10 epic while still caping the the heroic classes at level 20. So the new meta fighter (the proud creator might call it the lettuce) would be 1 favored soul/1 monk/20 fighter for example until it wasn’t with the next level increase.

Everyone could strut their new build and pat themselves on the back at least until the next update and the process would continue. New content could be sold and yes cosmetics and tomes all with minimal dev work.

This would be both really interesting and very quickly VERY broken, especially if every heroic level came with more enhancement points. Just at level 35, my sorc would have PM self-healing, dust, ash, ooze, and salt snapshotted between death aura and warlock aura, and potentially more ALL while still being a level 20 dps sorc.

People smarter than me could probably find absurd builds with just a couple more heroic levels. As you get closer to 20 levels of an extra class, you hit gestalt levels of broken.

Would definitely be fun though.

Verlok_the_Red

09-17-2021, 12:14 PM

erethizon

09-18-2021, 10:47 AM

As a blanket statement the bolded is just copium. Theres a major difference between adding new (sometimes better) loot in new content, versus adding an upgrade to loot from previous eras due to positive feedback about that specific loot being better than this current era of loot, but walling it behind purchasing the entire new pack.

Feedback: We want loot to be more like previous eras when some items had unique effects rather than just generic number scaling of same effects.

Response: Here, you can have upgraded loot sets for heroic and epic from those packs but the legendary versions will only upgrade if you buy the expansion and farm an item there which has literally zero lore ties to any of the packs the actual old world loot came from.

Why: Theres a specific market audience in game who will pay their way past artificial barriers. Everyone else has to deal with the designed barrier.

Result: Game has two classes of players. Those who pay to acquire or pay to acquire far more quickly and those who still spend but play the game not engaging with any of these p2w/paywall mechanisms.

"Balance" will occur for the former. The latter has to deal with whatever artificial barriers were put in place. Can't really make a game system argument that helps all players when the expectation is they need to buy their way past whatever barriers are put in place to leverage/incentivize the purchase.

These "new player retention" positions I read often are especially negatively affected by this type of design.

Any kind of response to "what would you do to progress the game to 40" using specifically a game system argument, would need to address this in some way shape or form.

Free to play games have always had two classes of citizens (or at least the ones I have played, since I have never experienced one where the sales were purely cosmetic and didn't make the purchaser stronger or at least mitigate the grind). You have the people that spend money and the people that exist just so the money spenders have people to be around. I have always been in the latter category so I am used to it and truly don't mind it. I don't expect to be as strong, or level as quickly, as the people that pay money and that is fine because I don't view these games as a competition (even though many of my fellow players do).

In fact, I play F2P games specifically because they have so much more grind. Ever since WoW came along and ruined MMO's by introducing the players to the idea that the "real game" is the end game, people have expected to be able to reach the level cap in games quickly. Well as the name suggests, the end game is when the game is over and there is no reason to play. I quit games when the character advancement is over (gear does not count as character advancement, since the smartest way to get the best gear is just to leave the game for 10 years and come back and be handed much stronger stuff than you would have gotten by raiding for the first 9 of those 10 years).

As for retaining new players, this game has a lot of problems, but mostly they are about content. All content that is more than 5 years old (with the possible exception of expansions) should be 99 DP or less in the store. New players should get the satisfaction of shopping and be able to access most of the game quickly.

spifflove

09-18-2021, 11:18 AM

Free to play

As for retaining new players, this game has a lot of problems, but mostly they are about content. All content that is more than 5 years old (with the possible exception of expansions) should be 99 DP or less in the store. New players should get the satisfaction of shopping and be able to access most of the game quickly.

So true. In fact, I would suggest a 10% yearly depreciation on new content until it becomes completely free.

Also, if you allow DOGE payment, you will make national news and an explosion in the millennial population.

Lonesols

09-18-2021, 03:15 PM

So how would all the the don't nerf the gear ! Guys have done to move to level 40 ?

Make all level 31 gear a few points better than the LV 29 gear from pre nerf feywild , then scale up from there?

Or make all level 31 gear a few points better than the lv29 ravenloft gear , then scale up from there ( I'm guessing this wouldn't work as all gear would not get past feywild til level 55 ) ?

Never go beyond level 30 and just stick with constantly adding new level 30 content and then increase power with every level ?

Seems to be a lot of angry peeps about the stat squish/legendary monster squish . But not seen many solutions to what should have happened?

I would of focused on fixing the **** game, and severs before i bothered to add more useless garbage, its like your house basement is flooded, and you start making a new kitchen haha. But its clear the people running this game into the ground, dont give 2 craps about anything other than milking people like the beasts they are for a few more dollars with carrot on the string nonsense, and cash shop garbage. It just saddens me you guys give them money to make this game worse and worse, all but accepting how terrible the game runs. There is literally no online MP game that runs as bad as this one, some one should give them award for the longest running laggy, rubber ban **** server ever created, and the community a reward for most gullible MMO audience. If d2 beta was even 10 percent as laggy as this game, the game would of already failed, but some how these special people kept a lag feast, rubber band server going for years.

It would be like taking your car in to get it fixed, and they just go sorry but your cars transmission is always gonna skip, but you have to come back to us every month and give us 20 dollars, plus every so often 59 to 200 or we will turn your car off ahah, and you going YEAHHHHHHHH SIGN ME UP.

anangel22

09-19-2021, 05:57 AM

I would of focused on fixing the **** game, and severs before i bothered to add more useless garbage, its like your house basement is flooded, and you start making a new kitchen haha. But its clear the people running this game into the ground, dont give 2 craps about anything other than milking people like the beasts they are for a few more dollars with carrot on the string nonsense, and cash shop garbage. It just saddens me you guys give them money to make this game worse and worse, all but accepting how terrible the game runs. There is literally no online MP game that runs as bad as this one, some one should give them award for the longest running laggy, rubber ban **** server ever created, and the community a reward for most gullible MMO audience. If d2 beta was even 10 percent as laggy as this game, the game would of already failed, but some how these special people kept a lag feast, rubber band server going for years.

It would be like taking your car in to get it fixed, and they just go sorry but your cars transmission is always gonna skip, but you have to come back to us every month and give us 20 dollars, plus every so often 59 to 200 or we will turn your car off ahah, and you going YEAHHHHHHHH SIGN ME UP.

so the players are gullible and special needs? Lol, will be interesting to see public opinion shift from sympathy to screw you. Exciting!

erethizon

09-20-2021, 05:33 PM

I would of focused on fixing the **** game, and severs before i bothered to add more useless garbage, its like your house basement is flooded, and you start making a new kitchen haha. But its clear the people running this game into the ground, dont give 2 craps about anything other than milking people like the beasts they are for a few more dollars with carrot on the string nonsense, and cash shop garbage. It just saddens me you guys give them money to make this game worse and worse, all but accepting how terrible the game runs. There is literally no online MP game that runs as bad as this one, some one should give them award for the longest running laggy, rubber ban **** server ever created, and the community a reward for most gullible MMO audience. If d2 beta was even 10 percent as laggy as this game, the game would of already failed, but some how these special people kept a lag feast, rubber band server going for years.

It would be like taking your car in to get it fixed, and they just go sorry but your cars transmission is always gonna skip, but you have to come back to us every month and give us 20 dollars, plus every so often 59 to 200 or we will turn your car off ahah, and you going YEAHHHHHHHH SIGN ME UP.

Simply put, this is the only MMO that feels even remotely like D&D. I realize they keep making new rule sets for D&D that are more and more compatible with MMO's, but when I played Neverwinter I didn't for a moment think I was playing anything that even touched on D&D. It just felt like a different version of World of Warcraft. People put up with the stuff you mentioned in your post simply because they want a game that feels at least something like D&D and no developer seems to be interested in making a better D&D game.