Testers Only: Experience Debt Changes

[Blackguard]

Please post issues and feedback related to the experience debt changes in Update #13d here. Thanks! <div></div>

[Micheal]

<DIV>in:</DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=25385#M25385" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=25385#M25385</A></DIV> <DIV>i said.....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>XP debt is yet another of the 'founding principles' of the game that is being eliminated. </DIV> <DIV>Tradeskill interdependencies was a good idea, didn't work, gone.</DIV> <DIV>Limited Access to zones based on lvl/access quests was, imo, a good idea, didn't work, gone.</DIV> <DIV>and now XP debt, again, imo, good idea, doesn't work, gone.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>XP debt is a mechanic that facilitates the whole group being accountable for the whole group, when players aren't necessarily inclined to work that way.  If everyone does their jobs, everyone lives, if everyone doesn't it becomes 'the roles' jobs to keep everyone alive, sometimes at the cost of their life...  but without XP debt there isn't any motivation to try and save group mates, the converse of this, of course is, without XP debt there is, in theory, a better chance that everyone will fight to the bitter end because there are no repercussions other than personal debt that won't take very long to work off...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess my opinion is:  The game evolves in response to player input, I think if you are going to get rid of group XP debt, that is fine, but increase the 'cost' of personal XP debt, as someone earlier said, to make death mean something in this game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My slightly modified, after some thought opinion is:</DIV> <DIV>Changing debt so that it is only 'within range of combat' I think would be viable, but getting rid of group XP debt is not a good fix to the problem.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>there it is my 6 cents . . .</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I keep this up, i'm gonna be at 2 bits soon :smileyvery-happy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I do not like the notion of getting rid of XP debt for the group, I usually group with guildies, or my wife, but I have been in pickup groups where someone (other than me) has done something really stupid that caused a group wipe.  I was healer at the time, so I'm not necessarily saying this as someone who never gets into pick up groups, only rarely . . . . </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think the notion of XP debt was very well thought ought, and while there will be much debate on who is the class that most often dies, every group has one, whether it be the DPS heavy mage, the Heal Heavy Cleric, or the Taunt HEavy Tank.  Each group dynamic is different, and each group structure will have flaws that will lead to generallly one character dying above the rest of the group, I think group XP debt takes this into consideration. and I also think that I am presenting the biggest argument against what I am saying...... pick up groups generally don't want the 'weaker' archtypes, whatever the group organizer thinks those are . . . . and getting rid of XP debt for the group will alleviate some of that, i suspect, so While I can understand the reasons for implementing this change, I think I still don't like it, and I don't wanna do it :smileytongue:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lupus Lazuli 27 Warden / 27 Tailor</DIV> <DIV>Fhir Rhuen</DIV> <DIV>Test Server</DIV></DIV>

[Kaereni]

I say keep the exp debt the way it is.  I see it making the group work together more. <div></div>

[Evadne]

Well, my opinion is the exp debt, group debt worked well. Not harsh enough but worked. However, I reserve final judgement until I test it. My concern was as a healer I took aggro entirely too much as a defiler---in fact quit the defiler to play a bard.  Bard dies, but never like the defiler.  So, I can say with feeling, removing the group debt would not affect my defiler--she would be the one doing the dieing, so still going to have debt. ~Eva <div></div>

[Edowen]

This is my opinion, as a long-time EQ1 player and an EQ2 player since beta last summer.  I don't claim to speak for anyone else. To me, removing group experience debt cheapens the game and makes it less fun.  Without group debt, successfully playing as a group is less meaningful.  It's not just that healers have less motivation to keep everyone alive, and so on.  It's that a clean win - nobody dying - just does not mean as much.  Death without consequences to the group is like food without salt - it makes play more bland. It gets into what makes a game fun.  Some people get a kick out of playing competitively - the first on their server to reach a level, beat some mob, make a discovery.  Others may play to beat the game - they may not have to be first, but what is important to them is that they collect the uber loot, get the fancy title, and travel to the most difficult areas in Norrath.  For both these types of players, how they manage to do those things may be less important than that they do them.  However I am one of a third type of player, those who play to get a sense of achievement based on playing <i><b>well.</b></i>  For me and others like me, <i><b>how</b></i> I achieve my goals in the game is at least as important as reaching them.  I don't have to be first, I don't have to beat every challenge in the game; what is important is that I play skillfully and improve as time goes on.  I enjoy and accept the fact that there may be negative consequences when I screw up.  It makes well executed play that much more meaningful. I can't help but look at this from the vantage point of my real life experience as a product manager.  SoE is in a real bind.  For years, EQ dominated a market.  Now we are all in a second generation of MMORGs.  It is my understanding that the game industry brings in more revenue than movies these days.  There is a major competitor, WoW.  Its player base is signficantly larger than EQ2's.  I can only imagine that higher-ups at Sony are asking why this is, how come EQ2 is not the dominent product just like EQ was in its heyday.  It would be a very reasonable thing to ask, and very reasonable for Sony to want to beat Blizzard.  I am not criticizing at all.  However, every time I think about this, I come to the same conclusion.  There is more than one market segment here.  EQ2 addresses a market segment very similar to that addressed by EQ.  WoW addresses a different group of customers.  It's like automobiles.  EQ and EQ2 are like upscale sedans (from Mercedes Benz, perhaps) - people appreciate them for their design and what it's like to travel in them as well as the fact that they get you from A to B.  WoW is like an inexpensive entry-level hatchback that may be easy to acquire and fun to drive but may not last as long or run as well in all conditions.  It's easier to play when your goal is to beat the game and certainly easier to play when you are new to this kind of product.  It also is not as rich and after a while a player is more likely to become bored playing it.  Without looking at the market numbers, I would bet that Daimler-Chrysler sells a lot more entry-level vehicles than it does its high-end products, both in terms of numbers shipped and revenue.  So, if this analogy holds any water, SoE is now in the position of having this nice Mercedes-like vehicle and asking itself how can it be more like some competitor's fun little inexpensive hatchback, and sell a bunch more units than it has been.  Problem is, people who appreciate and expect the Mercedes would tend to be disappointed by the hatchback.  And that's the dilemma with EQ2.  Ask someone like me about a proposed game change that basically appeals to beginner level players (who are more likely to die in game) or players whose in-game goals are to beat the game or compete with other players, and chances are the response will not be enthusiastic.  The more important question may be whether one game can successfully cater to both market segments.  I certainly don't know the answer.  However all of my teachers and reading and experience with products and markets has been consistant - successful products target a market segment and focus on it like the proverbial laser.  This proposed change appears to me to be a(nother) step in the direction of EQ2 trying to address the entry-level hatchback market even though it started out as an upscale sedan.  In trying to make two different groups of players happy, SoE may end up satisfying fewer of each group.  Maybe SoE needs to cut a clone of EQ2 (EQ2 lite?), simplify gameplay, re-brand it as "Adventurers of the Shattered Lands", and operate it as a separate game that may end up eventually feeding players into EQ2 as their tastes evolve towards more demanding play.  I enjoyed EQ, have been enthusiastic about EQ2's potential (now really beginning to be realized in places like Splitpaw and DoF), and have continued to be impressed by the earnestness and creativity of various SoE devs and QA folks I have encountered.  I want you guys to succeed.   I hope that shines through here, even though I realize this post may come across as presumptuous. Edowen <div></div>

[EtoilePirate]

<DIV>I fought in a duo tonight.  Was puzzled, after we wiped out, about why I only had 1% debt.  Then logged into the boards and remembered, heh.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I read the bit on the noisy board about where group debt is a reason people quit the game.  I have to say... that's pretty lame.  If you always have debt from groups, why not find more efficient people to group with?  I've been in some groups and raids that weren't so hot.  There was one that just wiped so much we all went home naked and without loot.  I went back to Freeport, hit a mender, and have never, ever again so much as duoed a green with that supposed "raid leader."  Did it suck?  Sure, but I'm still *oh so very close* to hitting 50 and in the grand scheme of things that wretched, awful excuse for a raid didn't cost me anything, and taught me quite a lot.  I'm genuinely surprised to hear that so many people can't take a learning experience.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, I'd agree that there should be a debt radius.  After all, buffs have a limited radius.  If my Pathfinding or Evac don't apply to a group, why should their debt apply to me?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I wonder, also, if it's worth the trouble to change the way debt is calculated.  At the highest levels, it takes a hell of a lot of hard, miserable wipeouts to accumulate any significant amount of debt, and those are the levels at which debt hurts most.  Under level 25 however, that 50% cap is woefully easy to hit.  If there was a way to make debt a more even proposition across the levels, I'd say go for it.</DIV>

[goboy]

<P>I would hazard a guess that most who quit and cite xp debt as the reason quit at lower levels.  I personally like the idea of a radius from the person who died.  I would set the radius to whatever the maximum spell distance is.</P> <P>Another idea would be to remove shared xp debt for groups with an average level below 25.  After 25, people should be more comfortable in their roles.  </P> <P> </P>

[WuphonsReach]

I stated this in the open thread, but I'll rehash it again here.The problem with group debt lies not in the concept (which is good, unique, and one of the reasons I continue to play EQ2), but in the execution/implementation and perception. The issues basically fall into a few buckets:1) There was no range limit on earning debt for the death of a teammate. This should have been the first issue addressed. Set the range to 1x or 2x the range at which you can still get XP for defeating the counter. That would have eliminated nearly all of the complaints from folks who like to invite players into their group, but get tired of the invitee dying on the way and adding to the debt.It would've been a positive step, simple to implement (you already make this calculation for XP), and might have quelled numerous complaints over the past 9 months.2) Debt is not a fixed percentage.Which means that at lower levels, death's negative effects are magnified (by as much as an order of magnitude compared to later levels). The perception of a young player is that a huge bar full of red is a really bad thing. Even though it takes almost no time to work off. Why? Young players don't have the perspective that older players have. Older players (higher levels) have learned that debt is minor, doesn't impact gameplay or fun, and has a very small impact on whether they are having fun. They don't have the life experience to put debt into proper perspective. At an early stage in the game, you don't have enough experience with the world to understand that a bar full of red isn't the end of the world. You have nothing to compare it to, so it's simply "bad".In the teens, it's extremely easy to rack up half a bar full of red (each full group wipe is around 12-15%). At higher levels, a group wipe might only result in 2%.Debt should have always been a fixed amount. Around 0.2% debt for someone else in the group dying, and 5% for you dying that gets reduced to 1% if you recover your shard. That would place a full group wipe at around 2% debt. At lower levels, that would make debt fairly painless (a single pull would eliminate most debt). At higher levels, that would be slightly less then the current penalty.3) Debt decay is too slow (and the player has no control, other then logging off in frustration)This is another spot that should have been tuned before ditching the entire system (which, even though you deny it, still looks and feels like a knee-jerk reaction).All debt should have vanished within 72 hours. Just like shards. So that by the next weekend, deaths of the previous week are a vague memory.- Debt should decay while you are logged in. Let's set the bar at 0.25% per hour. Or maybe apply vitality to debt.- Offline debt should decay at the 4x rate over the logged in value, so 1% per hour.- Any time spent in a tradeskill, house or city zone should reduce debt at a faster pace (3x to 4x faster). The idea being that if you have a good bit of debt, taking a break and unwinding at a pub or going and doing some tradeskilling should be a good alternative to just logging off completely. Heck, it would provide another incentive for folks to actually go back and visit the city zones.(You could probably get away with reducing debt based on their location at the top of the hour. Or increase the frequency to every 30 minutes. I don't see much of an exploit if someone wants to run back to a city zone every 30 minutes to lower their debt amount at the 4x rate.)

[goboy]

<P>I think snabbik hit it spot on.</P> <P>The experience debt is not the problem - it's the mechanics.  </P> <P> </P> <P>Personally, I am all for bringing in naked corpse runs and real xp loss.  But, that is just me.  For the health of the game, that would be a bad chagne.</P>

[Kuulei]

<DIV>I love to group with one or more players while messing around in the t5 zones, letting them get experience.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not sharing the experience debt will quelch that.  Today in lavastorm, I was duoing with Murdoch, doing writs and letting him get experience but due to him being 42 and unfamiliar with avoiding heroic encounters, I helplessly watched him die twice *yay healing nerfage* and only he received debt.  I do NOT like the idea that I don't share in a partner's / group's debt.  With combat / spell changes, its still a learning process as a Warden and to have people die is bad enough, to have them die and only they receive debt is just wrong... There is absolutely no reason to group up ever again for fear of adding debt to anyone I can't keep alive. :smileysad:</DIV>

[Dyeana]

<P>I enjoyed not getting exp debt today when I zoned into a group that was in the process of dying because they felt they could continue on.  I tend to not prefer grouping if I know there are going to be deaths, as with some folks, they tend to constantly overextend themselves and the group.  WIth the forced groupage for more mobs being placed upon us soon, I guess this would be a needed change.  But please don't think I prefer to have the forced grouping, I can think of other things to do with my time without the tells / invited coming even before I am fully logged on.  I'll leave the guild I am in if all they think I am good for is to support healing them with no time to myself playing the game as I want to play it or to do anything else.  </P> <P>I would say get rid of all exp debt due to death.  Once I get exp debt, I prefer to leave the group than spend the next hour trying to get back to some reasonable exp from a mob.  Might as well log for the night and do something else.</P> <P>This is the opinion of this healer only.  </P>

[Grimsore]

I liked group debt myself. Only time I didn't like it was in a raid and wouldn't mind it being personal debt only if your in a raid and group debt if your in a single group.

[Wodo]

If group exp debt goes away, I will no longer play this game! Someone had to say it. <div></div>

[Heiro]

<P>Death in EQ2 was already so watered down in impact, that it really doesnt matter...</P> <P>Group debt was a good idea,  and one that I personally liked... worried about getting debt because you grouped with a bad player?  dont group with that player.  It provided some small incentive to learn how to properly  play your class.</P> <P>Getting rid of group debt would be another in a long line of "dumbing down" that seems to be the trend as of late.</P> <P>I know this isnt eq1 , and isnt supposed to be ... but the one aspect that I did like was the fact that in EQ 1 when you died, you lost exp and gear.  Corpses were recoverable, and the debt was able to be earned back... but I actually liked the fact that if you died too many times from stupid stuff.. you could actually de-level.</P> <P> </P> <P>Anyway,  my personal prefrence for Group EXP debt is that it should remain... its not like it was ever that hard to work off... and if you had more than 20% exp debt, then its not the mechanics that have the problem, its the player.</P>

[Kwoung]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Heiro wrote:<BR> <P>Death in EQ2 was already so watered down in impact, that it really doesnt matter...</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Bingo!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I was one of the big proponents of much harsher penalties.. but alas... the wimps won out. Death in EQ2 is meaningless, so I basically have no opinion on whether this is a good or bad change, it only takes a few minutes to erase debt, so who cares?</DIV>

[Naknek]

<DIV>Leave it as it is. </DIV>

[Wodo]

I wonder if SOE checks out from whom  specific comments about the game are made.   If this recent change was made due to a number of player complaints, who are these players?  I'm talking about RL demographics.  Do they  ever graph out or analyze the number of complaints vs. the number of non-complaining customers? My concern comes primarily from my work with pre- and post- pubescent people.  Complaints about group exp debt sounds like every other "great injustice" this age of people feel the world thrusts upon them.  I am fully aware I am making a generalization, thus the concern about statistics to support or refute my claim. In addition to age related data, I would be just as interested to see information on the total number of complaints vs. the "silent" majority. My personal opinion since joining beta last fall, is this game was directed at a younger audience.  Prior to release it was labled EQ- Lite, by many.  In the beginning I enjoyed the less competitive nature of the game, locked encounters, instanced zones, no exp loss upon death, etc....  The loss of group death experience would be the final straw in "dumbing down" or wimping out the game for me. <div></div>

[Shantee]

I dont mind group debt as long as they put a radius on it.  It's not fair for a group on one side of the zone to get debt for a person who just joined on the opposite side of the zone. <div></div>

[Grimsore]

as far as how the change has been working mechanicly, not seen any problems. It also makes no difference in the amount of debt I end up with at the end of the day as I lose a percent of debt in 2 or 3 kills anyway.

[WuphonsReach]

Probably the big issue with debt at the moment is that it does not auto-decay in a predictable manner. Seems like 1% debt at 28 takes quite a while to decay, when it should have vanished in the space of about 4 hours of being off-line.

[Jiggers]

<DIV>nothing new to say, but ill add my voice to the crowd. . .</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i like the idea of group debt and hope it stays in the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i dont mind it in combat, where there is a chance i could do something about it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i do mind it out-of-combat, as i dont like sharing in debt because, halfway across the zone, player x decides to jump down to the bottom of some mine, because, hey, its not that high is it?  (. . . like i did in the orcish mines last night :smileytongue: )</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>. . .but id still rather take that debt, then have it removed completely</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(jigs)</DIV><p>Message Edited by Jiggers on <span class=date_text>08-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:46 PM</span>

[Proudfoot]

<span><blockquote><hr>Edowen wrote:This is my opinion, as a long-time EQ1 player and an EQ2 player since beta last summer.  I don't claim to speak for anyone else. To me, removing group experience debt cheapens the game and makes it less fun.  Without group debt, successfully playing as a group is less meaningful.  It's not just that healers have less motivation to keep everyone alive, and so on.  It's that a clean win - nobody dying - just does not mean as much.  Death without consequences to the group is like food without salt - it makes play more bland. It gets into what makes a game fun.  Some people get a kick out of playing competitively - the first on their server to reach a level, beat some mob, make a discovery.  Others may play to beat the game - they may not have to be first, but what is important to them is that they collect the uber loot, get the fancy title, and travel to the most difficult areas in Norrath.  For both these types of players, how they manage to do those things may be less important than that they do them.  However I am one of a third type of player, those who play to get a sense of achievement based on playing <i><b>well.</b></i>  For me and others like me, <i><b>how</b></i> I achieve my goals in the game is at least as important as reaching them.  I don't have to be first, I don't have to beat every challenge in the game; what is important is that I play skillfully and improve as time goes on.  I enjoy and accept the fact that there may be negative consequences when I screw up.  It makes well executed play that much more meaningful. I can't help but look at this from the vantage point of my real life experience as a product manager.  SoE is in a real bind.  For years, EQ dominated a market.  Now we are all in a second generation of MMORGs.  It is my understanding that the game industry brings in more revenue than movies these days.  There is a major competitor, WoW.  Its player base is signficantly larger than EQ2's.  I can only imagine that higher-ups at Sony are asking why this is, how come EQ2 is not the dominent product just like EQ was in its heyday.  It would be a very reasonable thing to ask, and very reasonable for Sony to want to beat Blizzard.  I am not criticizing at all.  However, every time I think about this, I come to the same conclusion.  There is more than one market segment here.  EQ2 addresses a market segment very similar to that addressed by EQ.  WoW addresses a different group of customers.  It's like automobiles.  EQ and EQ2 are like upscale sedans (from Mercedes Benz, perhaps) - people appreciate them for their design and what it's like to travel in them as well as the fact that they get you from A to B.  WoW is like an inexpensive entry-level hatchback that may be easy to acquire and fun to drive but may not last as long or run as well in all conditions.  It's easier to play when your goal is to beat the game and certainly easier to play when you are new to this kind of product.  It also is not as rich and after a while a player is more likely to become bored playing it.  Without looking at the market numbers, I would bet that Daimler-Chrysler sells a lot more entry-level vehicles than it does its high-end products, both in terms of numbers shipped and revenue.  So, if this analogy holds any water, SoE is now in the position of having this nice Mercedes-like vehicle and asking itself how can it be more like some competitor's fun little inexpensive hatchback, and sell a bunch more units than it has been.  Problem is, people who appreciate and expect the Mercedes would tend to be disappointed by the hatchback.  And that's the dilemma with EQ2.  Ask someone like me about a proposed game change that basically appeals to beginner level players (who are more likely to die in game) or players whose in-game goals are to beat the game or compete with other players, and chances are the response will not be enthusiastic.  The more important question may be whether one game can successfully cater to both market segments.  I certainly don't know the answer.  However all of my teachers and reading and experience with products and markets has been consistant - successful products target a market segment and focus on it like the proverbial laser.  This proposed change appears to me to be a(nother) step in the direction of EQ2 trying to address the entry-level hatchback market even though it started out as an upscale sedan.  In trying to make two different groups of players happy, SoE may end up satisfying fewer of each group.  Maybe SoE needs to cut a clone of EQ2 (EQ2 lite?), simplify gameplay, re-brand it as "Adventurers of the Shattered Lands", and operate it as a separate game that may end up eventually feeding players into EQ2 as their tastes evolve towards more demanding play.  I enjoyed EQ, have been enthusiastic about EQ2's potential (now really beginning to be realized in places like Splitpaw and DoF), and have continued to be impressed by the earnestness and creativity of various SoE devs and QA folks I have encountered.  I want you guys to succeed.   I hope that shines through here, even though I realize this post may come across as presumptuous. Edowen <div></div><hr></blockquote>Resintment should not be a part of <b>any </b>game. Group Debt is a very effect trigger for resintment. By removing it, you allow more 'relaxed' play. If SOE wants EQ2 to survive, they can't rely on the handful of players who want an uber hard game. Sorry, the market is not for narrow minds.</span><div></div>

[Edowen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Proudfoot wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>Resintment should not be a part of <B>any </B>game. Group Debt is a very effect trigger for resintment.<BR><BR>By removing it, you allow more 'relaxed' play. If SOE wants EQ2 to survive, they can't rely on the handful of players who want an uber hard game. Sorry, the market is not for narrow minds.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Who said anything about "resintment"?  Or wanting "an uber hard game"?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If a player screws up a lot, other players who are more skilled probably will not want to group with him or her, whether group debt exists or not.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Finally I am surprised (and a bit dismayed) to see a comment about "narrow minds" in this forum.  It's not the kind of thing that gets said around here about anything, let alone a perfectly polite discussion in which people are giving their opinions as requested.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edowen</DIV>