Grouping improvement: xp banking system

[Fanaval]

Greetings,

Sometimes it is possible to have a buddy that is only one or two levels higher than you and you would like to enjoy your time questing with him.
In reaper this is a problem due to huge xp penalty for level difference.

To improve grouping chance and experience I propose an xp banking system.

A vendor can remove a quantity of xp from a character to bring him exactly to one xp more than the level requirement.
This, of course, don't completely solve the level difference but can help to permit a more quickly alignment of levels between the two leveling buddies.

The removed xp is then put in a gem (bound to character) that can be eaten only at the minimum level of the character that created the gem with his xp.

Thanks.

[Chacka_DDO]

I also thought already about this issue because in DDO you level quite fast and DDO is in addition very restrictive at the point where you get the optimal experience for a quest (reaper and normal experience). So it is very hard to play together with friends if you don't have exactly the same play time.
My thought was something like a undo function at an NPC trainer. If you use it you temporary level back and then you can group with your lower level friends.
You still get the exp for the quest until the hard experience cap for your real level (in my opinion this hard cap is also some kind of relic and I am not sure this is even needed).

[lifestaker]

Sometimes it is possible to have a buddy that is only one or two levels higher than you and you would like to enjoy your time questing with him.
In reaper this is a problem due to huge xp penalty for level difference.

How about you run the higher level character's level of quest? The amount of XP in this game is insane, and even starting level 16+ quests at level 14 would still allow you to cap out without running everything.

To improve grouping chance and experience I propose an xp banking system.

A vendor can remove a quantity of xp from a character to bring him exactly to one xp more than the level requirement.
This, of course, don't completely solve the level difference but can help to permit a more quickly alignment of levels between the two leveling buddies.

The removed xp is then put in a gem (bound to character) that can be eaten only at the minimum level of the character that created the gem with his xp.

Thanks.

This seems like a lot of code for a system that would be confusing to implement, raises potential issues with people banking entire lives in XP stones, and hold very little gain from the majority of the game.

Would it just be as effective to raise the soft cap range to 1 xp under 3 levels over? This would allow you to party more without having to give up XP to help a friend. Not going to get into the issue that helping a friend should not make you worried about yourself. Of the dozen times I have joined/posted an LFM in the last several lives, I have had most pugs dip out due to being at some cap in XP, or slayers. This is perfectly normal, and acceptable for random people are not your friend.

A guild member of mine leveled a Heroic life recently, going for max favor while running reapers at level. I can not like of a time he was not capped on XP but still running with some of us. His reasons were the favor, the RXP, and the pleasure of our company (we are nicer to people in our guild.... most of the time). Increasing the level cap to 1 less then 3 levels over would not effect him, people running quests for max reaper xp at level, or people running to help a friend. But, the pooling of XP into gems for people like my guild member would result in a stockpile of gems that can be used to flip an entire life. Something that SSG might not like.

Now some of us level fast, doing a heroic life in a day or two. Others have posted about taking over a year to complete a life (I assume that is a 1-30) due to issues in RL, playing alts, or one reason or another. An implemented change of banking XP in gems, with a trainer, reverse leveling, selling XP, trading XP, or anything along those lines would do nothing, at all, for those that level slow. The amount of time invested to implement that change, vs the amount of people finding it helpful or value added would theoretically be a huge variation, and illogical to implement.

As far as reaper, thought it is my interpretation that you desire to run the lower level reaper with a friend for more xp, it should remain unchanged, at least for heroic. Running at level Reaper in heroic is very easy to find parties for (within reason, at least on Gland when I play) if you desire a party. Reaper in Epic though gets a bit sketchy to run things for full reaper, mostly due to the lower XP requirements for the lower epic levels. Some change could be done there to be value added, but I honestly think it is not needed fallowing the level 30+ changes implemented.

Sorry if this was not supportive of your idea, but I think you might want to step back and loot at things from a wider perspective and think of the complications or longevity of a change as well as the time invested to make the change and how many people would be effected by this change. Additionally a bit of research on your end might pull up several ideas already posted on these forums that are similar to your proposed change, and have already had people discuss it (some are well thought out and worded, and torn apart by the forum population). Hope to hear more of your ideas though, maybe with a bit more substance to them with data, or even your thoughts on how it can be used by everyone. May I suggest that you widen your focus to not helping a friend, but to helping everyone in some degree. Easier to get everyone on board to idea when you have a boat large enough to hold everyone.

*Sorry if that seemed long winded. Event farming requires me to step away mentally at times.*
TL;DR version:
No, bad idea.

[Chacka_DDO]

snip

Did you think about a quite simple to use undo function?
With this, it would be very easy to just level back to a previous level.
You just go to a trainer and there you say you want to level temporarily back to your previous level.
Then the trainer level you one or more level back and you can quest with your lower level friends.
No one is basically affected in a negative way, it is easy to use and the goal of the original poster is with this achieved.
Technically this is not a big issue compared to a lot of other things in DDO and this might have a lot of positive effects if players want to play together foremost with our low populated servers.
But of course, it is the question if you want to have this at all.

If I read you, you just suggest how to handle the current system but I doubt the original poster demanded such advice.
I assume the op is well aware of the current system but the problem he describes is still there.

A change needs always more or less effort and this is something the players should not care for at all in this forum!
Or do you think anyone who does a suggestion seriously expects that a change needs no work?
And the same basically for the question if others are affected.
For sure everyone who plays DDO is affected by any change, this is also something we don't need to talk about here.
A reason for a change would be if someone is affected in a negative way.
Maybe I missed something but I read not that you found such a reason?


There only two questions:
1. Is there a real reason not to do it?

2. Is there another better way to archive the goal of the original poster?

[PsychoBlonde]

Not a big issue just to drop back levels? Are you joking?

"Hey, guys, let me just undo my last level so I can run with you."
"Sure."
5 minutes later . . .
"****, I have to go find all my gear from the previous level again."
10 minutes later
"Wait, I have to re-do my hot bars, I lost a bunch of spells."
20 minutes later
"Ooh, all my enhancements re-set. Gonna be a bit, guys."

A much better--and actually potentially workable system--would be to have a toggle that you can set to have quests just give XP stones instead of regular xp. Every quest would then grant an xp stone of a set amount. And, of course, the flat xp stone would be FAR less than the xp given by the quest with optionals, bonuses, etc.

Have it *only* apply the first time you run that quest on that life. After that, no stones for you.

So, yes, you could potentially "abuse" it by building up a big stack of xp stones, but it'd be more efficient for leveling to just do the quest the regular way and get the bonuses.

[PsychoBlonde]

Of course, an even BETTER solution is just to MAKE A SECOND CHARACTER and play THAT ONE when your friend isn't on, so you stay at the same level on the characters you run together.

[Chacka_DDO]

snip

If you would have items scaling with the level this would be no issue at all. You use your items all the way.
Spells and feats you don't have are just not clickable anymore. the same happens with spells in your shortcut bar if you change your memorized spells.
I wonder if you mean it seriously or if you really don't know it better?
Just the question is what happens to your Enhancements if you do this.
I would say the Enhancements just completely reset and you have to spend them again.
And an undo of levels would cost some platin, therefore.
But yes absolutely I don't think it would be any big issue to have this if you do it right!
But the question remains in any case whether you want this. I don't say I want or need it but it is possible for sure.

[PsychoBlonde]

So, in a magical universe where we can have anything we want just by asking for it, and nothing required any time to be built or coded, sure, fine. In the actual universe where changes require work, produce bugs, and have ramifications, no, this is a terrible idea. The implementation would require so much work as to be ridiculous, and the effort actually conserved for the player base would be miniscule, since we always have the purely effortless option to just STOP RUNNING XP while our friends can't be online.

[lifestaker]

Multiple points Hind, will hit base on positive and negative of each as far as I can think of them.

Undo feature:
With the ability to undo levels on whim, you can potentially take a level 30 character and regress to any level for the aspects of farming quests for more reaper XP and rewards, bring yourself to any point for your comfort of when you felt powerful or the most useful, and be able to level back up at any point to fit into any lfm that you desire to be in.
The amount of code required to do this without allowing manipulation of character levels at your leisure I would bet is not easily implemented in the game. Evidence proving that is the effective LR you must do while doing a ER, and the aspect of while doing an LR you must progress from level 1 to current level in an isolated environment. Additionally you could point out the aspect of banked levels needing to be taken prior to any form of reincarnation (I still think you get the error for a heroic TR, if you have an epic level banked, sorry if information is outdated, been a while from testing that).
Undoing a level seems to place the mindset of taking it back, as in undoing a mistake in leveling. At the point that people desire to undo a level and they desire to take it again, you create a potential issue. If you require the person to take the reduced levels exactly the same you will have people apposed to that under the grounds that they may have made a mistake in feat, enhancements, or even in class or spells. To allow them to change anything it is effectively allowing people to LR at any time, for free, all the way to cap. This would break much more of the game in the aspect that people would be able to change entire builds every update with no effort or investment of time, or money.
Limiting the ability to step down levels to anything less then 5 levels would be near useless, and allowing more then 5 could be game breaking. If your friend is 1-4 levels less then you, there is nothing stopping them from questing with you, but they must run what is your level even if it is harder for them, or have you run their level at reduced xp (additional xp sources like BB and Reaper would be first effected, then actual quest XP). There is nothing stopping a lower level player to play with you at that same level variation (save heroic to epic) but favoring your level not theirs save your personal choice or opinion. Neither of what would rationalize the expenditure of the time invested on a business level.
Again realize the potential for abuse of this, the loss of revenue for LRs, the time invested, and the amount of players this would actually help. The value added to a few would be huge, the potential from abuse would be larger, and the amount that never use it might actually be the largest percent. If the value added on average if not worth the investment, then you've been set up for fail prior to it even starting.
Now mind you I do think there is value to this to a lessor degree, but it is beyond the game as it stands. If a system was worked out to reverse level in this lessor fashion, then it could be implemented on a larger scale with reincarnations. Allowing players to flip a ER back into a playable character with all bars set up, enhancements done, and everything else all set up at an accelerated rate. Additional manipulation of the code could potentially allow players to build their own paths at character creation. This would allow a player to take any character up to cap fallowing a build they set up once, and not have to reference notes from the build each time they leveled. Though this would be an improvement, it is a lot to put on a system that works already, and might not be worth any value in the long run to many.

Lower population servers:
Your reference to lower pop servers is small, but it holds an argument. Not in implementing changes to the game to save the server, but more for them to try phasing the servers out. Having 1-3 super servers or a maga server like other games, could solve some issues with needing to have players within your level range. It could cost less to run for SSG. It could cause more people to leave due to "their" server not staying, or not being moved with everyone from their guild.
A lot can be said about this, and though I feel like ranting. I think it is best served for one of the other hundred or so threads to discuss a merge.
Despite server size though, even if there are people on, in level range of a player. What causes them to not run together? Is it the quest being ran, the LFM being posted or not, the people involved, or just a desire to ONLY run with select people (be it your friends, family, guild, or persons willing to teach, or even pass you loot). The root cause of people not parting together is more then just server population and level range.

Your reading of my prior post:
You are correct in that I am suggesting ways to handle things in the current system. Not only is a change that is small easier to code, accept, and rationalize. It also references the OP's desire to run with someone 1 or 2 levels lower then him, something that he is able to do at any level with the only exception to is running heroic reaper on a level 20+ character. If a character is 1-2 levels less then them they are still in BB range of each other, and should not have many issues save a reduction in 25-50% reaper XP, or soft capping on XP. Reaper is newer to the game, and should not be the deciding factor. The soft cap has been there forever and holds very little value due to it only applying to select forms of xp (Monster manual, xp gems, and things like that can put you over soft cap while quest/slayer XP is lost). To run a quest for first time bonus, and get 0 xp makes it pointless to stay that level. Expanding that range would allow for more quests to be ran each level, and people to have a larger flexibility on when they need to level. This does not stop the problem, but makes it longer till when you are "forced" to make the personal decision to level past the person you are leveling with.

Now regarding change. Your last bit there kinda lost me. Yes suggestions are made on these forums about the game and in life that need revisions to be made effective or implemented with ease or in a timely manor. But, if the change requires a lot of time to implement, and only effects a small percent, then it may not have reached the root cause of the problem to begin with. the expenditure of labor and time fixing the not problem leaves you with disgruntled people that would attack the next desired change. The reason not to is that I don't think the risk of abuse, rationalizes the labor used to implement, effectively solve the problem, or really even identifies the root cause effectively. Now that is just business logic, as far as game logic, i think it is just a way to have less alts, or ability to play with people exclusively. Plain and simple, if you join a static group, and level outside the group, that is on you. The game does not need to make a change for your choice to level past someone.

As far as reaching the "goal" of the OP, what is his goal? The ability to run with someone 1-2 levels lower then them? There is already nothing stopping them from doing so. What I read was the desire to get more for less work, something that will get abused. I can be wrong in understanding the real desire for the suggestion, but I personally can not see another reason (save working it differently but meaning the same thing). Questing with people of a level range is the entire game. The 30+ character slots available to players are not so that they can have 29 banks, or characters of each level range. They are there for you to do whatever you want with. It is on you to choose to have a character at your friends level. It is a lot easier to control yourself and change your way of thinking then it is to change the mindset of an entire game or game development company.

*sorry if parts of this are repetitive or hard to read, have been enjoying the night off and might be a bit unsafe to operate many things at this point, but a keyboard is not one of them*

[Chacka_DDO]

Of course, an even BETTER solution is just to MAKE A SECOND CHARACTER and play THAT ONE when your friend isn't on, so you stay at the same level on the characters you run together.

I wonder do you really don't think that anyone gets those simple ideas by themselves?
but I have another brilliant idea, you could stop playing DDO and go drink a coffee or beer until your friend is also online.

[Chacka_DDO]

Multiple points Hind, will hit base on positive and negative of each as far as I can think of them.

Of course, I might be wrong but my impression was the original poster wants the possibility, to group with someone who is normal to low for the level of his character.
The solution he suggests is not ideal in my opinion and I try to suggest a more comprehensive solution to achieve the goal to group with lower level characters.

Undo feature:
Maybe I was not clear enough. I mean you level back temporarily.
So if you want to increase your real level you need to level up to the previous level with everything you took before.
So it is not any kind of a small lesser reincarnation and you can undo your level and take another feat thereafter. This function would be also an option but it is another question.
You get still your reaper experiences and the quest experiences as if you would be in another character level.
If we would have Items scaling with your character level you don't even need to change items but this could be another issue of course but for sure nothing that is not doable.
And to make it also here clear I don't say I want or need it but it would not affect me in a negative way if this would be there.

Lower population servers:
Fact is we have to deal with low populated servers and this causes also issues we have to deal with.
In my opinion, DDO is currently stuck due to bad code.
The server population is low and this is bad for the playing people and if we would merge servers it causes server lag for everyone and this is also very bad.
Now that Night Revels started and Ravenloft is ahead the population increases a bit and I start to notice increasing lag on Ghallanda.
I assume massive development work would need to solve this issue.
I am sure that it would be very good for DDO no matter how many people playing it if we would have only ONE big server.
I basically also don't understand why DDO got such big issues to deal with more players on one server because basically everything is instanced and the instances should not interfere with one another.
But the practice shows, if a quest instance for one party starts to lag heavily, the whole server is affected and this is a sign of bad code.

And for because you are worried about the developers have too much to do.
First of all, ideas and suggestions are GOOD for developers or what you think what would happen if there is nothing new to do and if every player is super happy with DDO?
The majority of the development team just need another job then.
And you should not try to do the job of SSG they have to set priorities and maybe if need even to hire more developers for there team.
It is simply not my job and not your job to be worried about such questions.

[Amundir]

In order to perform an "undo" you have to know what to undo. That means keeping track of what was gained from the last level, in order to revert it. That doesn't just include automatic things. That includes user choices like feats and skill points spent. That's not currently being done, I would guess. So adding that would require more memory usage for every single character created. This gets expounded if you could undo multiple levels in sequence.

But lets assume they can only undo one level at a time. So they have to implement a way to keep track of this extra information for every character created, adding the logic for that and making sure they have the memory to handle that. Next, how are you going to handle for players on day one? You can't back fill create the data for all the existing players to their previous level as you don't know what they choose for their last level. Are they going to have to put in logic that says, hey now, we don't have data for you. You can't do this. They could, but that's more logic. Also the logic to know they've already taken one undo so they can't do another undo would also be slightly more logic.

It's easy to say something is easy when you don't have to do it.

[Chacka_DDO]

In order to perform an "undo" you have to know what to undo. That means keeping track of what was gained from the last level, in order to revert it. That doesn't just include automatic things. That includes user choices like feats and skill points spent. That's not currently being done, I would guess. So adding that would require more memory usage for every single character created. This gets expounded if you could undo multiple levels in sequence.

But lets assume they can only undo one level at a time. So they have to implement a way to keep track of this extra information for every character created, adding the logic for that and making sure they have the memory to handle that. Next, how are you going to handle for players on day one? You can't back fill create the data for all the existing players to their previous level as you don't know what they choose for their last level. Are they going to have to put in logic that says, hey now, we don't have data for you. You can't do this. They could, but that's more logic. Also the logic to know they've already taken one undo so they can't do another undo would also be slightly more logic.

It's easy to say something is easy when you don't have to do it.

Lets start with your last statement.
Did I said it is easy? show me where.
I said it is compared to other things in DDO easy, this is a big difference.
And for the memory space. What do you think how much memory space does it need to just only keep track what feat and how many skill points you took in a level?
That's a few bytes in a file I don't know what you are talking about to be honest.
And if they dont currently track this progression this is no reason that it cannot be done in the future.
This is also obvious I dont expect a programm with supernatural abilities that can evaluate datas from the past and read minds.
And one side effect of this could be the possibility to take this file to follow this path after a Epic Reincarnation or you could share such files to other players so they can take your build as a path for there next character if they wish.
(maybe read this)
And if you read this you see it seems like that they can basically already now evaluate how a character was built. Currently not automatically and complete but you see it is for sure not impossible what I suggest.

[lifestaker]

Okay Hin.
Undo feature:
define temporarily in how it is implemented in this change. hours? days?
Explain the value to the game for allowing this to happen. I see you say "you still get your reaper and quest experiences," but all that seems to me is a way for people to run the same content over and over pooling different forms of XP. Then level back up and use that XP to further progress in level. Does that seem broken to you in the slightest?

Allow me to present you with a scenario. Player levels up to level 5 range, and runs 3BC reaper and goes to level 6. Finishing up some random level 6 quests and starts the level 7s prior to realizing that they are near soft cap on xp and have to level to level 8, but has not done necro 1 yet and never finished some of the other level 5-7 quests. So they just go and level to level 8, then undo to level 5 and rerun everything for full xp and max reaper. After getting the most they can out of the quests they want they then go back to level 8, use the stone and are close to level 9. Now repeat that all the way up using just rerunning high xp quests under your actual level. No need to be a VIP or have packs covering larger level ranges. No need to learn new areas or run what your not 100% comfortable with. No reason to play quests at your actual level either because you can always play lower ones for saga at max xp. That is 100% win.

Lower server Population:
server population and player availability are the biggest conflicts with getting groups together. But even if everyone was on one server you would still have people who do not want to run with you, or even anyone. Others that want to run with only guild, or people they know. These are driven by LAG or bad code to some degree, but the more common logic is that this 11+ year old game that has been in legal issues and swapped hands several times has tried to many times to refocus their priorities against what players want.This causes them to play another game with better graphics, different play styles or types of genre, or a multitude of other reasons. Bad code is only a drop in the reasons people take off. Personally I have more an issue with customer support then a bit of wonky code, but everyone is different.

"And for because you are worried about the developers have too much to do."
I chuckle. Your Opinion of what i think out the developers of this game might be a bit off. Sorry if you failed to see what I was talking about in my comments about implementing change effectively. It is not a way to say they have to much or to little on their plates, it is more about making sure they are eating enough, and it is healthy.
Putting massive amounts of work on the board to implement a change that effects so little is unreasonable.
Asking one person to change something that effects everyone without providing any guidance is a fail setup.
Giving everyone what they want, when they want it... that will only result in obesity and rampant ignorance.

Personally I like suggestions made with value, properly explained, and well thought out. Providing facts, sources, traceable data, timelines, and suggested growth values or return on investment are always received well. Explanation of the root cause leading or motivating the change, clarifying expectations, and outreaching for feedback with direct questions from a larger medium then your own way of thinking is how you ensure you are presenting a change in the most effective manor, and are able to get the most out of the time people invest into the proposition. Ask the direct questions, expect direct answers, and if things deviate from the norm you try to redirect your proposal, or rethink the need for the proposal in the first place. That has nothing to do with just SSG, or any one company or person. It is just a way of presenting information and facilitating change to happen effectively that should leave biased, emotionally driven, or selfish opinions out of it.

Sorry but if I took the OP's request as various reasons why off the gate without applying logic to it I would reach several mindsets. These range from a selfish drive of wanting to level and then feeling guilt for leaving a friend to do so themselves, to a true desire to be a hero to every LFM. Greed of wanting more out of set level ranges (as described above) or the person to whom wants to stockpile xp for easy lives, are also options. I personally don't know the Op's real reason for wanting this change, but at face value I think it is not far from what they had said of having issues with getting groups at friends level range and wanting to be able to help. I don't think that is the only reason, and I can't understand why each of them can only play one character. I just think the labor involved, time invested, issues around the design and implementation, and longevity of the solution are not addressing the issue in the first place. Mostly due to not understanding why there is the issue of running a character in a quest that is 1-2 levels higher then it, or why was the character left behind and not able to catch up themselves.

*regardless I am done for the night, this is making me think to much of work, and is taking the fun out of drinking. Might log back into forums tomorrow to continue this. If not catch yous around next time I log onto the forums (my opinions are not always respectable or well received so I try to not go on here all to often).*

[Chacka_DDO]

Okay Hin.
Undo feature:
define temporarily in how it is implemented in this change. hours? days?
Explain the value to the game for allowing this to happen. I see you say "you still get your reaper and quest experiences," but all that seems to me is a way for people to run the same content over and over pooling different forms of XP. Then level back up and use that XP to further progress in level. Does that seem broken to you in the slightest?

Allow me to present you with a scenario. Player levels up to level 5 range, and runs 3BC reaper and goes to level 6. Finishing up some random level 6 quests and starts the level 7s prior to realizing that they are near soft cap on xp and have to level to level 8, but has not done necro 1 yet and never finished some of the other level 5-7 quests. So they just go and level to level 8, then undo to level 5 and rerun everything for full xp and max reaper. After getting the most they can out of the quests they want they then go back to level 8, use the stone and are close to level 9. Now repeat that all the way up using just rerunning high xp quests under your actual level. No need to be a VIP or have packs covering larger level ranges. No need to learn new areas or run what your not 100% comfortable with. No reason to play quests at your actual level either because you can always play lower ones for saga at max xp. That is 100% win.

So you know how much time it needs so you can say it is not doable and not worth it?
Sorry but I doubt the burden of proof is on my side in this case.
If you claim it is not worth it you must prove it and not I.
I am on the save side because I clearly say i do not know how much effort it is and I do not want to set the priorities.
I'm afraid, you still don't understand.

And for your scenario, I can only say whats your problem?
That he can do things out of order and has more freedom in which order he can do quests?
He can still only get one time first time bonuses for a quest.
And if we would still have a hard cap for experience he can only get reaper experience from a certain point and for this it is better to do this in higher levels.
You should know this.
And to be honest I don't care If someone else get more or less experience than me.
But even if I would be worried about the cup of tea of other people I don't see a possibility to heavily abuse such a system.

Lower server Population:
server population and player availability are the biggest conflicts with getting groups together. But even if everyone was on one server you would still have people who do not want to run with you or even anyone. Others that want to run with only guild, or people they know. These are driven by LAG or bad code to some degree, but the more common logic is that this 11+ year old game that has been in legal issues and swapped hands several times has tried to many times to refocus their priorities against what players want.This causes them to play another game with better graphics, different play styles or types of genre, or a multitude of other reasons. Bad code is only a drop in the reasons people take off. Personally I have more an issue with customer support then a bit of wonky code, but everyone is different.

I really wonder why you think there is any need to tell me this?
Do you expect I think that more players on one server mean everyone wants to group with me and everyone is my friend and we all sing together Kumbaya, My Lord?
More people means just a bigger market and therefore you have a better chance to find more people you like and also more you don't like but overall it is better in my opinion.
And since I tend to see people in a positive way I would look forward to knowing more new players.
And for the bad code issue I wonder if you don't understand? the problem is we need more players on the servers but if we get more people the servers start to lag and then players stop to play because it is no fun to play with lag.
And the result is DDO is stuck due to bad code.

"And for because you are worried about the developers have too much to do."
I chuckle. Your Opinion of what I think out the developers of this game might be a bit off. Sorry if you failed to see what I was talking about in my comments about implementing change effectively. It is not a way to say they have to much or to little on their plates, it is more about making sure they are eating enough, and it is healthy.
Putting massive amounts of work on the board to implement a change that affects so little is unreasonable.
Asking one person to change something that affects everyone without providing any guidance is a fail setup.
Giving everyone what they want, when they want it... that will only result in obesity and rampant ignorance.

Personally, I like suggestions made with value, properly explained, and well thought out. Providing facts, sources, traceable data, timelines, and suggested growth values or return on investment are always received well. Explanation of the root cause leading or motivating the change, clarifying expectations, and outreaching for feedback with direct questions from a larger medium then your own way of thinking is how you ensure you are presenting a change in the most effective manor, and are able to get the most out of the time people invest into the proposition. Ask the direct questions, expect direct answers, and if things deviate from the norm you try to redirect your proposal, or rethink the need for the proposal in the first place. That has nothing to do with just SSG, or any one company or person. It is just a way of presenting information and facilitating change to happen effectively that should leave biased, emotionally driven, or selfish opinions out of it.

Sorry but you can always tell someone who suggests something must bring more details etc. until the point this person has to implement the code by himself and even then it is maybe not enough for you?
I am a player and not an employee of SSG and therefore such things are clearly not my duty.
And what you expect here is something not even for one person it is the work of a whole development team.
I just say what I want, that is all!
And if I have a generous day I can maybe make additional suggestions how this could maybe done but not more.
I think, you completely miss the meaning of this forum.

Sorry but if I took the OP's request as various reasons why of the gate without applying logic to it I would reach several mindsets. These range from a selfish drive of wanting to level and then feeling guilty for leaving a friend to do so themselves, to a true desire to be a hero to every LFM. Greed of wanting more out of set level ranges (as described above) or the person to whom wants to stockpile xp for easy lives, are also options. I personally don't know the Op's real reason for wanting this change, but at face value I think it is not far from what they had said of having issues with getting groups at friends level range and wanting to be able to help. I don't think that is the only reason, and I can't understand why each of them can only play one character. I just think the labor involved, time invested, issues around the design and implementation, and longevity of the solution are not addressing the issue in the first place. Mostly due to not understanding why there is the issue of running a character in a quest that is 1-2 levels higher then it, or why was the character left behind and not able to catch up themselves.

*regardless I am done for the night, this is making me think too much of work, and is taking the fun out of drinking. Might log back into forums tomorrow to continue this. If not catch yous around next time I log onto the forums (my opinions are not always respectable or well received so I try to not go on here all to often).*

It's quite simple If someone tells you he wants something I see no reason to assume he got any bad intentions.
There is a saying in Germany "was ich selber denk und tu das trau ich jedem andern zu!" (you see your own bad intentions in other people) I would not wonder if there similar sayings in other countries.
Don't drink and write!

[Amundir]

Whatever. Given that I believe this suggestion doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hades, good luck. Now to let this thread fade into obscurity.

[Chacka_DDO]

Whatever. Given that I believe this suggestion doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hades, good luck. Now to let this thread fade into obscurity.

Sorry that it is nothing exciting news that development resources are limited like everything in the universe.
Even water is a limited property on earth and I read even sand for concrete is not an unlimited resource.
And I'm afraid you most likely right and nothing will happen in this case, nevertheless, I think it is good to make suggestions.
The question is whether you won or if we lost.
This thread will fade into obscurity but the content will not fade out of my mind an is maybe a part of another suggestion I may make in the future.

[Enoach]

If SSG even wanted to implement a feature like this and committed to starting this today, my guess is that it would still take a very long time to work out how to do this without causing problems. Even then with ML equipment it could be to tedious for the user.

However, I want to point something out in the OP. One point they make is the XP hit, to be fair the XP hit is not in the standard XP it is in the Reaper XP. To me it just seems that Reaper XP is the factor of why you won't run with your friend.

solutions
1. Stop worrying about Reaper XP - It will come in time. I might be more concerned if the normal was 5+ skulls but my guess is we are talking the 1 skull easier then elite
2. Alternate characters - I know it is vogue to have one super powerful character or you are gimp. But that is not as true as people claim it to be.
3. Run a Quest at your friends level - Sure this will put you under level and you may find it more challenging then spamming one or two actions zerging through. May even take you longer. Even find yourself crawling over the finish line. You may even remember that quest with fond memories.

You all do remember Reaper was meant to challenge us.

[Xgya]

I've seen a lot of people in this thread mention this one thing whilst forgetting part of it.

The game ALREADY remembers when you took your feats, so it already saves some information somewhere about what you did with your levels.
It also remembers what class levels you took when you did.
It might not remember skill points, that much is true, but a lot of information about our level-ups is already taken into account.

De-leveling is an awful idea, because it would waste effort on a rather pointless ordeal while I'd rather have devs work on class passes
Banking xp might work, but we all know some levels have FAR more content than others, and allowing someone to stick around before leveling and giving them the full benefits is rather odd.

Want RXP? You can run the quests. You won't earn heroic XP, but the RXP is still the same. I know I did a few times running Gianthold.
Want Heroic XP? Take the 20% RXP hit (something I did too at times).
Another situation I encounter often because I foster many new players to come and play is asking them to wait for me to catch up before they level up to preserve bravery bonuses, because my characters are multi-TR and theirs most certainly aren't.

It's all about choices. You already have the options available.

I could see a halfway solution of granting a fraction of the XP instead of none when you're capped. If that removes part of that sense of loss you're feeling when you're having fun with friends but can't level, I'm not entirely against it.

[Valerianus]

Undo function, or un-level, and banking lives have nothing to do with the OP suggestion.

The OP is suggesting a way to do something we already do, that is bank a level, but for a longer time and without losing xp while waiting for someone to level up. No major changes in the game, no leveling system mods, no cap mods, XP stones already exist. It is viable.

Any suggestion for potentially easier grouping is most welcome. I like it.