"You can only have 5 item bonuses active at once. There is a meter in the character UI which shows how many bonuses you have active, so it is very clear that once you hit 5, putting on an additional item will provide no additional bonus."
We have a lot more than 5 gear slots. How would the top 5 get chosen? It would be odd if we had to equip our gear in such a way as to get the 5 bonuses as we want.
This is not a bad idea per se, DnD 5 edition has something called "attunement" and you can only have 3 strong items "attuned". Is a bond between the character and the item and you need some time to get full benefits from the item.
I like that idea but not sure if it would work in this game.
We come again to the point that we need to have good options and not obvious options in items so the choice is hard. But we also need that in boons, feats, class features, companions etc. Now there are only few clear BIS items / feats / features, etc.
Coming back to crafting I would agree with those who say that crafting should be orthogonal to items you can drop.
It works well for adding something to existing items, like kits do, but putting it in competition with items you can drop will always lead to issues, especially when the droppable item is better than the Masterwork like we have today. On the other hand if masterwork items are better then people will start to forego the content where items drop, to focus on farming what they need to craft.
That hasn't been true before tho. The newest content always has stuff worth grinding. And the majority of players don't have the patience for mc. There is enough room for gear in dungeons and mc to coexist
Ehm, this is actually the reason why crafting is pretty much dead.
?? not true. the reason it's dead is because the devs introduced an entirely new workshop and then didn't give us new mc recipes and it's been like a year now.
3
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
Perhaps, it may not ultimately be the game some of us hope it will be, but it certainly wont be if people dont share their ideas. The directions the game has been going apparently isnt working for enough people, so some alternate perspectives are needed.
There are some changes that can be made to the game and there are others that can't be, because then the game would not be what it is now. There are a lot of things I want in a game, which I do not suggest, because I acknowledge that the game would no longer appeal to the current audience if those changes were made. Part of game development is accepting that some changes that you want to make, cannot be made now and would have had to have been made before anyone played the game to begin with.
For example, something that I think could greatly improve the genre is frequent server resets (as in, all of your progress is lost and you start with nothing). It solves the problem of old players having a significant gear advantage over new players, because there would always be a point where they start on the same level in the future. It also solves the problem of people running out of content, because the entire game is essentially recycled. It also, incidentally, would make the game not neverwinter and so it is not something that I would propose or recommend was changed about this game.
Making this game adhere to the rules of DND, is also something that would completely change the game. As much as people might want it to be a dnd game, it isn't one. It is an action game set in a dnd world, with dnd characters, stories and themes. Change the gameplay to make it a dnd game and you have just lost a significant part of the game's audience, because the people who play the game because of its gameplay would no longer want to play.
This is another example of why so few voices are heard on the forums. Shy and less confrontational people have good ideas too but no way to share without exposing themselves to the wolves. And before someone says "this is the internet". no, this isnt the general internet. this is a place where we come because we share a love for a GAME. Everyone that wants a voice should be able to share in its development (since input has been asked for) even if they dont have that confrontational personality that people seems to think are required for valid input. Long before today, I have wanted some sort of way to submit in-game feedback without coming to the forums. Other games have it where you can submit an idea in-game that may not warrant a whole post or you can even give kudos for some detail you liked. (NW currently just uses this for bug reporting)
The value of an idea is determined by how well it upholds itself in the face of confrontation. If an idea cannot withstand the heat of debate, it is an idea which should probably be discarded, or modified in such a way so that it can. This is how ideas evolve and become better, by being put through scrutiny. Everyone is able to share ideas. Incidentally, everyone is also able to tell people who share their ideas if they think that idea is good or bad and why. Am I harsh in my criticism? Probably. I could probably do much better to phrase it in a way which is less offensive, I admit, I am not the best at being nice in my delivery. I do my best and do generally try, but that is just the way I am. Most of my criticism however, comes with a reason attached to it, it is constructive. Where it is not, feel free to point it out and bash me over the head for it. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong.
i also like a good story but this game has never ever delivered that part for me. if you can't impart a story during actual game play it isn't getting thru. if you expect me to find lore and read it.. it ain't happening. I've never found anything in this game engrossing enough that'd I'd do that. If I wanted to read it (other than subtitles) I'd sit down and read a book. I might have enjoyed the 1-80 path more if it had been a clear story but I never got that. it was just a bunch of pointless dumb quests. I agree with the statements that this is just a game set in the d and d universe not d and d.
Also, what do you mean that "crafting by nature is easy to exploit, especially on the pc"? Care to share with the class?
If I have 50 characters, would I sit for hours doing mundane crafting tasks? It's pretty easy to set up a macro program to do the repetition for me. Against TOS, but I highly doubt everyone who does it gets caught. Looking at the difference between PC and console economies, my guess is that automation is at least partially to blame.
I could also have multiple accounts, each with 50 more characters.
Add to that, if one was looking to make money outside the game, craftable BiS items would be a prime target.
... and making temp Guilds to farm guild marks has always been a bit of a loophole.
From a systems and game health standpoint, attaching the economy to crafting in a major way has serious pitfalls.
But this is all way off-topic. Mastercrafting is like the end-game of the end-game, so I'll avoid touching it further until we have a specific CDP on it.
No, you would not. I will tell you exactly how you would go about masterwork. You would unlock it on a single character, you would buy ingredients in bulk from other players, because your time is valuable and you could do better things with it. You would craft intermediate steps in bulk during gms discounted using the gm vendors and lastly, you would rush every single craft.
People who think the big time crafters craft on many characters are fooling themselves, its inefficient to unlock mw on many characters, it costs a fair amount and there isn't any real benefit to do so. The people listing every mw item on the ah, crafted all those items on a single character and just soaked up the rush costs. Been there, done that. Just going through all the steps takes quite a bit of time, even if you have an efficient production line.
In some cases, you would even pay other people AD to craft intermediate steps for you, because you simply do not have enough time.
it does make sense with how cheap everything is atm in mc though with the assumption that at some point it will be worth while again. but not for the big time mastercrafter. for the lower level it does make sense though because you can make more without paying the rush fees from your pool of daily free morale. and you can have the lower level stuff churning on a low level mc toon while working on the later level things on your main mastercrafter. But I don't think an army of them would make sense. one or two does though.
[Re: Possible Crafting Exploit] If I have 50 characters, would I sit for hours doing mundane crafting tasks? It's pretty easy to set up a macro program to do the repetition for me.
Thanks sheeho. If someone had the patience to get 50 pain in the rear workshops up and running to max level (I assume you need that to make decent gear), kudos to them. I can't be bothered upgrading one. :P
[Re: Crafting BiS stuff] the difficulty needs to be roughly equivalent from both sources [...] and the crafting system isn't developed enough for that
Actually the crafted version should be slightly harder to obtain since it's tradable. If the system can handle it depends on the devs, but this way they don't have to have a separate set of gear (stat wise) for crafting and gear for dropping per mod, relieving extra balancing issues.
Its quite possible to normalize the difficulty of all old campaigns down to the easiest campaign level. I agree that fun also comes down to player perspective, which is why which campaigns people run should be optional.
I like this idea but something also feels off about it. We/they would need to come up with some really valid boons / rewards per campaign to lure people to play them. Any that gives flat damage/power would pretty much be mandatory. Having something of +5% damage when fighting one enemy vs +3% damage when fighting 5 or more, I'd always pick the fighting 5 or more as that is most of the game so not really a choice...
Maybe boons with negatives that you can balance out with other boons? Obviously "boons" would not be the correct term anymore. Something like:
A ) +50% HP, -50% Stamina B ) +50% Attack, -50% HP
If both were active, you'd get +50% attack but -50% stamina? Hmm yeah, tough one.
Maybe if the boons/benefits per campaign were more fleshed out I could get behind it more.
If you can't stand on a chest, it is a mimic!
1
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
Its quite possible to normalize the difficulty of all old campaigns down to the easiest campaign level. I agree that fun also comes down to player perspective, which is why which campaigns people run should be optional.
I like this idea but something also feels off about it. We/they would need to come up with some really valid boons / rewards per campaign to lure people to play them. Any that gives flat damage/power would pretty much be mandatory. Having something of +5% damage when fighting one enemy vs +3% damage when fighting 5 or more, I'd always pick the fighting 5 or more as that is most of the game so not really a choice...
Maybe boons with negatives that you can balance out with other boons? Obviously "boons" would not be the correct term anymore. Something like:
A ) +50% HP, -50% Stamina B ) +50% Attack, -50% HP
If both were active, you'd get +50% attack but -50% stamina? Hmm yeah, tough one.
Maybe if the boons/benefits per campaign were more fleshed out I could get behind it more.
That was the goal yes, that the bonuses are very strong and worth grinding for.
rickcase276Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,404Arc User
The biggest issue I see is not with dungeon rewards it is with rewards for non-dungeon content. As it is right now, almost all of the things that most would consider BIS come from dungeons, with very little ways that those that cant or don't run dungeons can acquire them. At the very least I feel that each campaign zone should have a vendor, even just a normal seal vendor, that you can buy the gear from. Even make each piece of the items that drop from a dungeon cost the maximum number of seals allowed to be kept, so those that can run the dungeon can get the items quicker, but everyone can still get the items over time.
I put in a few ideas for SH's, and I think I could expand on that, go into more detail, maybe clear it up a bit, but I'm sure there's a lot more we could do for SH's than the basics ideas I put forward.
Feedback Overview Small guilds need a hand up in earning currency to work on getting their boons up (at least that's the hook I'm using to put this in a "rewards" CDP).
Feedback Goal Have an "buildable" temporary NPC who gives quests.
Feedback Functionality Much like the one that generates influence or the mysterious merchant, this NPC is a temporary and cheap "installment" but instead of generating anything all they do is give quests which need to be handed in before they vanish.
These could be new tasks to areas far and wide but I was thinking more simply for starters, along the lines of - they offer all the quests that the builder doesn't offer that day.
At the very least it would reduce the time gate for some of the stronghold related currencies, which I'm guessing is ideal based on the roadmap video where Cryptic mentioned that they wanted to "help people get to the end game quicker".
Also it makes it really easy for guilds to schedule a "stronghold run". Just log in when your guild master says so, visit this new NPC and bam, all of you have all the same quests to complete.
Risks & Concerns This makes it less of a hand out since guild leads still need to hire the guy and then subsequently get members to do the tasks within the time frame. Also, it might still be simpler to just impose a mathematical discount across the board rather than go through all of this.
After seeing the roadmap today I think I understand a little better how the CDP influences this process. I’ll try to keep this in mind in future posts. (Not so much in this one.)
I've read several posts (30) talking about Crafting and how to implement "New" items and rewards through this system. Some of the ideas that stood out to me:
If more MW weapons or gear are added to the game the main ingredients for those should come from the latest content, dungeon and trial as discussed by @marvyn#9793
Use masterwork to craft appearance/cosmetic items @trelamy
All of these are really interesting ideas that IMO deserve further discussion. Many would require a CDP of their own. As far as what can be done right now or within the next few months to be included as part of the roadmap, I think just updating the MW recipes to reflect the current state of the game would go a long way in acting as a bandaid until a more detailed discussion or CDP could be planned.
QOL / Rewards that could be used as progression mechanics or AD sinks in crafting
Increase crafting storage or implement an Account wide crafting bag as discussed by @mystar and @thefiresidecat
Upgrading workshops / custom workshops
These two topics were mentioned several times. I think both could provide either great additions to the Zen store or be used as big AD sinks without giving an unfair advantage to those who purchased them.
Specific concerns related to crafting that may require a future CDP
Crafting as it relates to Strongholds and Guilds.
RNG - Maps and gathering resources / ingredients
RNG - Failure -vs- loss of ingredients
Devaluation of Forge hammer and older assets
Keep masterwork equipment up to date, regardless of the module
Relevance of rewards / crafted items from MOD to MOD
Make gathering of resources rewarding to both new players and endgame players
Resource gathering - time -vs- reward, fun -vs- chore
Botting concerns as it relates to crafting and gathering
All of these concerns were mentioned in various posts. IMO they are all very valid and deserve further discussion in a Master work or Crafting CDP.
I admit to being one of those that heavily invested into Master work crafting and crafting in general back when I first started playing Neverwinter. At one time I had 2 MW crafters with everything unlocked and 20 or so with 3 or 4 professions at rank 20 (or whatever the max rank was at the time.).
I gave up on crafting when it was radically changed in AI. I don’t think I’ll ever get back into crafting because of this experience, but I do think it is an important part of the game that provided hours of entertainment to me at one time. Some people really do play the game just to craft and sell their wares. Thus the name of my avatar.
As a dwarven character I would RP crafting, and I think I was trying to make it into something that it wasn’t or trying to recapture a crafting experience I had in another game. This is why I don’t have much to contribute to this specific topic. Sadly, that part of the game is over for me now.
To read specific posts from each author just click on their name in this post and look through their comments. You will see this CDP title under the relevant comment. That will take you to the right page but you still have to search for the comment using their name and Control+F. Sorry I could not quote all of the authors in this post it would have been over 9k words long.
After seeing the roadmap today I think I understand a little better how the CDP influences this process. I’ll try to keep this in mind in future posts. (Not so much in this one.)
I've read several posts (30) talking about Crafting and how to implement "New" items and rewards through this system. Some of the ideas that stood out to me:
A few talked about changes to the crafting system as a whole and presented several ideas. @thefabricant , @sheeho#6228 and @lordaeolos all proposed several great ideas.
Crafting New Unique Gear From Old Gear as discussed by @sandukutupu
If more MW weapons or gear are added to the game the main ingredients for those should come from the latest content dungeon and trial as discussed by @marvyn#9793
Use masterwork to craft appearance/cosmetic items @trelamy
All of these are really interesting ideas that IMO deserve further discussion. Many would require a CDP of their own. As far as what can be done right now or within the next few months to be included as part of the roadmap, I think just updating the MW recipes to reflect the current state of the game would go a long way in acting as a bandaid until a more detailed discussion or CDP could be planned.
QOL / Rewards that could be used as progression mechanics or AD sinks in crafting
Increase crafting storage or implement an Account wide crafting bag as discussed by @mystar and @thefiresidecat
Upgrading workshops / custom workshops
These two topics were mentioned several times. I think both could provide either great additions to the Zen store or be used as big AD sinks without giving an unfair advantage to those who purchased them.
Specific concerns related to crafting that may require a future CDP
RNG with maps and crafting
RNG Failure -vs- loss of ingredients
Devaluation of Forge hammer and older assets
Keep masterwork equipment up to date, regardless of the module
Extreme cost involved in crafting as discussed by @shrineerune
Profiteering and unrealistic AD sinks
Relevance of rewards / crafted items from MOD to MOD
Make gathering of resources rewarding to both new players and endgame players
Resource gathering - time -vs- reward, fun -vs- chore
Botting concerns as it relates to crafting and gathering
All of these concerns were mentioned in various posts. IMO they are all very valid and deserve further discussion in a Master work or Crafting CDP.
I admit to being one of those that heavily invested into Master work crafting and crafting in general back when I first started playing Neverwinter. At one time I had 2 MW crafters with everything unlocked and 20 or so with 3 or 4 crafting disciplines at rank 20 (or whatever the max rank was at the time.).
I gave up on crafting when it was radically changed in AI. I don’t think I’ll ever get back into crafting because of this experience, but I do think it is an important part of the game that provided hours of entertainment to me at one time. Some people really do play the game just to craft and sell their wares. Thus the name of my avatar.
As a dwarven character I would RP crafting, and I think I was trying to make it into something that it wasn’t or trying to recapture a crafting experience I had in another game. This is why I don’t have much to contribute to this specific topic. Sadly, that part of the game is over for me now.
i'm genuinely just glad to see the mw recipes. other than not having them (recipes) in the game I don't think masterworks needs a lot of work. I think there are other areas in much deeper need of attention. I'd also love to know what the scaling blurb is about. if I knew more I might just shut up..
My biggest fear regarding Master Crafting, (and Crafting in general) is that the easy option is taken and rather than fixing the process already in play, a new level or levels are shoved on top, making what people have now redundant. MW 1 to 3 need to remain viable. And (including all MW) preferably removed from the Stronghold as a gate.
The idea to have Campaign based Masterwork was used in Chult, did no one consider continuing that idea and adding situational, ad hoc, sets of Crafting Recipes?
It's also worth remembering that it doesn't have to be expensive to get MC. I have MC 3 on 7 characters, still turn a profit from it, and have reserves of those items needed for level advancement (stuff like Lacquered Ebony) waiting in nice stacks of twenty for when people eventually start doing it again. It's time consuming when there are double professions events to spend a few days running charts, and of course you need patience to see it work, but I don't think I've ever bought a single MC required ingredient on the AH. I sell a tonne, but never buy them. Having 7 lots of free daily Morale makes this much easier. Since the L80 Tools and Supplements mean that a Forgehammer is no longer necessary, Masterwork is no longer the impossible dream it once was for so many people.
But the whole of the Professions system needs to be valid, not just "What can Master Crafters make that can keep up with BiS Campaign Weapons and be sold for millions a pop on the AH?" The only reason it is even vaguely useful to run sub MC professions is that Mod 16 saw L80 recipes, which outstripped Master Craft. If MC1-3 is fixed, but renders L1-80 redundant then you are unlikely to see anyone new to the game ever go on to chase Master levels as there will be such a huge grind with no intermediate reward to keep them interested.
Professions (1-80) need to be relevant beyond being a route to Master Crafting. By the nature of the game, unless someone is playing a very slow, deliberate, route; Professions will always be far behind the character in terms of level. You won't be making level appropriate gear. Ever. There is no need to have so many level breaks in the Professions system. Once every ten levels, buy new tools, start back at low return on Professions XP as better grinds unlock, make loads of stuff you don't want/need and either sell it for less than it cost to make or hope your Guild has space for the junk in the Mimic. At best it gets used as transmute/fashion.
Is there a reason that Professions need to be stepped in grades of 10 levels? If there isn't a specific reason beyond "Ten is a round number and it needs to be grindy" then reduce the number of steps. Dump much of the gear within (it shouldn't be hard to work out what isn't being crafted/used) and have some models left over for future transmutes.
At lower levels it might be perceived that advancement is faster by virtue of being able to run lots of low cost, fast commissions. This is true, while you are actually playing, but that low level delivery box fills up real quick when you have even ONE task running on "As many as possible" and the task takes only 5 or 10 minutes. High level Crafting, down time auto fills are a Godsend, Low level it's a handicap.
It's been suggested already but the scope for item buffs is massive and Professions is the ideal place to put that to use. Overloads, Armour Reinforcement Kits, and Jewels. But spice it up a bit. Extend that principle and drill down into specific class/role boosts. New enhancement specifically for one item type - Take Boots... Spurs for heavy armoured characters, Buckles for those in robes or leather. Temporary buffs, with countdowns (like the current overload timers) or Charges, (e.g. an Enchanted Feather that sits in a Wizards Hat and "Adds XX Bonus On Daily Use - 100 charges")
Make this stuff more interesting than generic "Kit" "Jewel" or "Overload" that adds +XXXX to Stat A or +YY% Damage and people will feel a modicum of increased investment in participating.
Make variants of these things available at lower levels, beneath Master, but instead of making the lower level stuff flat out garbage, give them half decent bonuses, but crappy charges or timers. That way usefulness vs redundancy isn't a binary issue.
Oh, while I remember... something I begged and hoped for before Mod 15 dropped the new Professions on us, and still believe is a valid and viable option for Professions. Allow the crafting of Treasures for Guild Donations. Yeah, we can make Astral Diamond coffers, and Gold, and toss the regular junk we make in the Professions box, but the facility to craft Crates of Treasures would see Professions get used more.
Maybe even make the Guild Stuff we craft Unbound? (Shock, Horror...) If you want to genuinely see Professions used more and the economy shift as a result of that, allow the Guild Crates from Crafting to be sold on the open market.
That "AI dungeon" is not "AI", it's a machine learning "hack" (it was actually first made at a hackaton IIRC) that is interesting experiment, but nothing more than that. There is no AI. AI is just a buzz word used as a gimmick. OpenAI the piece of software that powers that specific example can do many things, but while the name is all buzzy wazzy, it's a Neural Network Machine learning system, and just that.
Such system that can reach human capability in terms of "DMing" perhaps within reach, but I don't see companies like IBM do a "Lets close the Watson and focus all our research in making an AD&D Virtual DM". Don't forget that a human is limited to their imagination and set of experiences, such program perhaps will be limited to its programed "imagination" but not limited in examples to learn from, when you can process every written word humans created (I don't want to go into the actually interesting part of learning machines that they "learn to emulate imagination").
In any case, and I don't mean this as in insult to the players nor the game, but I don't see a good reason to play Neverwinter for the story. More so I consider the story as the weakest side of it.
I can understand the limitations, and I don't expect someone to do an amazing story when they need to fill it with daily fetch quests for 3 months of a mod life in probably at max month work, and do all the surrounding story line. Anyway, there are good story driven games, they are not f2p MMOs, Mass Effect comes to mind, or larian studios which invest a lot into it. And there are good books, I've red one or two, or some hundreds.
NW in many ways is a clickbait in that regard, it pulls people who are fans of the Forgotten Realms or D&D in general but it's at its base an MMO in a setting and relativity good combat system.
When we keep playing the game, I believe we learn what to expect, and like the combat oriented MMORPG that it is, I would say it is a glorified spreadsheet with built in chat. Not a spreadsheet in terms of "is +10 power better than +10 jumping" but a spreadsheet that makes the dice rolls, tracks the goblins you fight, and the loot you get. But if something it is not, is a PnP game where the story is the driving force, imagination is key, and player creativity in over-smartassing the DM is the cherry on top of the cake. No, here, over-smart-assing the "spreadsheet" is violation of the ToS.
Mickey, I respect your opinion but my feeling is that you and @thefabricant come from a certain subset of players but there many more out there. By the way some D&D books are pretty good too, say The Legend of Huma for example. The game in the last two mods has ben catering to certain groups of players but there's a vast majority that would enjoy other things.
I'm not sure I implied anything about D&D books. I don't really know how to classify them as D&D or not. While today I don't read as much, I'm over ~600 read books, mostly Fantasy and Sci-Fi, that including the Dragonlance series (though it was about 20 year ago), at the time, for me as a teenager, it was great series, now things probably changed as I have much more to compare with, as experience and points of view change.
In regards to NW, I can't point a single mod, where the story was worth following. I'll admit that I'm not impressed with forgotten realms nor read the books nor plan to. But I can point out so so many games that the dialog and story were the driving force there, and none of them is NW, in any mod.
Again I don't point fingers on the devs here, as much as I would like engaging story, I understand the limitations of their release cycle and need for repeated "fetch quests"
I believe you mistake the "subsets" here. I have the original CDs of BG1 with the map still lying around somewhere, and consider planscape torment as one of the better games, with original fallout and many more, including countless hours with old stuff like eye of the beholder. I don't do spreadsheets to play games (yes, shocking), my intuition and reading the in-game information is usually enough to get by, and I don't aim for some hardcore difficulty or whatever. NW a semi exception, that while I still don't aim to min-max to exceptional levels (I was always good stage behind BiS just for the sheer investment it took to upkeep), the tooltips and mechanics explanation were so poorly done that it forced me to sit and try to understand it, because for me there is a limit of how many months I can play and still have no clue which item I want to put on, which then was an incentive to make some tools to make it easier.
But I will not login to NW for the "beat demogorgon with Drizzt", I will login for the community (not the general one, but guild, friends etc.) and the group content I do with them. All the rest is a fluff. And while ofc everyone plays for whatever reason they choose, and I'm not here to tell anyone to not play or not enjoy the parts they want. The complete vast majority of the players, even those that familiar well with the entire background story and lore, do not mainly play because of it. They may started or joined because of it, but stayed for mainly other reasons. (I too tried this game because of the Neverwinter name, and ofc I've liked the original NW:Nights series and Ice wind dale games and so many more D&D / RPG games)
I guess that we agree to disagree. I think that the story in the game at some points is great, especially when the devs put some effort into it (see Ebon Downs). Fluff is very important, it's what makes D&D what it it is. The rest are numbers on a spreadsheet and I see already enough spreadsheets in my job to have to worry about them in a game (I'm with you in not using ACT and just relying upon observation and intuition).
I agree. Look at STO, they use voice actors from the TV Series to add another layer of immersion and it's brilliant. I started a new character when Discovery dropped and since I think Tilly is one of the best characters in that show really enjoyed that she was the lead NPC, and Mary Wiseman had done all the voice work.
Call that stuff "Fluff" if you want, I call it "Depth".
As far as I am aware in it's history Neverwinter has released one mini campaign that was written by a professional experienced D&D scribe. (Rob Salvatore).
Ed Greenwood is still alive... he created the Forgotten Realms in his head, and wrote it down so that other people could use it. He's probably still working in his local library somewhere in Canada. Gygax and Arneson are, sadly, no longer with us... so we will never see what madness Gary would create for an online community. (Probably giant undead bunny rabbits and mummified goats on the 8th Plane of Hell.) Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weiss are still alive and kicking. Tracy and his wife Laura invented HAMSTER RAVENLOFT... Tracy was the brains behind Dragonlance, which was when TSR suddenly realised there was a genuine market for spin off material... they're pretty good at what they do, these people.
Is it forbidden by contractual agreement to approach folk with an experienced tested, proven track record in writing Dungeons and Dragons adventures to maybe write something for Neverwinter that's the spicier side of vanilla for a change? Is there a fear that anything that requires more attention than skipping every line of dialogue will mean people stop playing? Is it really THAT lowest common denominator?
Just imagine if a professional writer who knows the subject matter better than we do, crafted a story and broke it down into chapters that unlock deeper secrets and mysteries until a final greater truth is revealed... and we get to play through those chapters with our characters.
I know that that would be less efficient than the shower rinse repeat of running enough mindless tasks to allow you to unlock and run a greater number of mindless tasks for four or five weeks and then run lots of the same mindless tasks to get boons and unlock Endgame Dungeon. Then run Endgame Dungeon without really being sure of any reason to do so beyond, "Get BiS...." But it might be more fun?
7
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
Old campaigns have the problem that, for the most part, once you have the boons you have no reason to go back to them. In addition to that however, they also have the problem that until you do have the boons you feel compelled to run them.
Feedback Goal.
Provide a reason to run old campaigns after obtaining the boons, without feeling compelled to do so.
Provide a reason for new players to run campaigns.
Make campaigns feel optional and fun, rather than compulsory activities.
Feedback Functionality.
The way I would resolve this issue is by adding new rewards to campaign daily quests after a player has completed the campaign. These rewards would either be in the form of RP, RAD or materials used for guild upgrades. The purpose of this is twofold, one to incentivize a player to run through this content and keep it relevant post its sell by date and the second is to provide an upgrade path to new players.
In addition to this, with the changes to itemization proposed in the next post, campaign specific items like hunt items should remain useful for much longer, so players may have a reason to want to farm them long after the campaign’s lifetime.
Risks and Concerns.
Campaigns become too rewarding if not balanced properly.
Hi Fabricant,
We are looking into campaigns, related rewards and progression as part of overall streamlining. Some of the ideas you have mentioned here we have discussed (-:
We have discussed rotating zones and content out and then reintroducing it as an Evolving World as well as how this would apply to new quests, rewards and related rewiring.
We want to create an enhanced experience with everything we do where earning rewards do not feel like a chore.
Anytime we provide an opportunity for the player to replay previous content we want it to be an enhanced and evolving experience.
So in short I disagree here with the concept of making folks work for rewards by playing content they have done previously without it being a new experience.
Chris
This is something i have been meaning to get back to for a while, as it is something that concerns me in the way it is phrased. Since we don't know what you mean by, "brings back as evolving worlds," it comes across like module 6 for neverwinter, where old content was removed (the dungeons) and they were brought back much later as "evolved content." This was... Not received well by the community, so saying that you plan to take old content out and reuse it in this manner is concerning to say the least.
I recommend being very careful with whatever you do here, there was a long running joke that Neverwinter is the only game that removes more content than it adds in its content releases, you don't want that to be a joke that ends up carrying forward.
Call that stuff "Fluff" if you want, I call it "Depth".
As far as I am aware in it's history Neverwinter has released one mini campaign that was written by a professional experienced D&D scribe. (Rob Salvatore).
Is there a fear that anything that requires more attention than skipping every line of dialogue will mean people stop playing? Is it really THAT lowest common denominator?
Just imagine if a professional writer who knows the subject matter better than we do, crafted a story and broke it down into chapters that unlock deeper secrets and mysteries until a final greater truth is revealed... and we get to play through those chapters with our characters.
I know that that would be less efficient than the shower rinse repeat of running enough mindless tasks to allow you to unlock and run a greater number of mindless tasks for four or five weeks and then run lots of the same mindless tasks to get boons and unlock Endgame Dungeon. Then run Endgame Dungeon without really being sure of any reason to do so beyond, "Get BiS...." But it might be more fun?
I agree and at the same time disagree.
I am (or more precisely was) a RP guy, driven by stories proposed by he devs/game/DM, and by stories created between players themselves. I don't like to skip through a dialogue, a cutscene or an entire storyline if it's my first time seing it.
I regret a lot the lack of alignement/faction concept and the one dimensionnal linearity of how the quests in Neverwinter are built, with not a singe meaningful choice to be made. Every player, every character, just do the same thing as others. Does it matter who you chose in IWD ? No, you can just change shirts whenever you want. There is no difference in the outcome. There are some fake choices, 2 lines of dialogues you can chose between, but they ultimately all lead to the same path.
Repeatable is not something i am not fund of, because for me it feels like the story is just trampling on the same spot.
The most rewardful thing for me is going through a great story, figure out what my choices may imply, take some time in some sort a Schrödinger's cat state, choose, opening one way while closing an other triggering side-effects in the process. (in fact, the most rewardful thing for me is see players thrilled to play with each others, kind of out of the "scripted game", and happy to have been part of any human organized event, RP or not)
But I disagree. I am a dreamer and love tossing ideas even though I pertinently know they aren't feasible, kind of trying to help in the brainstorming. But we are on a MMO who also need to do business, and sometimes realism have to destroy dreams.
Repeatable is for me like trampling on the same spot, but i understand it as a design to keep players "playing" the dev hardwork longer. And sometimes, i'm kind of like farming these braindeadly to wash my mind after a hard work day.
The kind of story driven UM campaign was overall quite a fairly nice job from my perspective (if i forget and forgive everything outside UM at the mod16 release). I had the same level of entertainement doing UM as when i was in the leveling 1-70 phase in the end of 2016. But as there was no timegate, no bottleneck currency, no repeatable system (ME are "after" the end of the campaign), players hungry to consume new content rushed it in no time (10-12h ?), some in one single day (took me 1 week with my old school daddy pace). And clearly, UM campaign requiered a lot much of dev (and author) work than Infernal Descent.
I have read (in french :P) almost every text, every quest, every item description. I really don't think anything is badly written, and i'm sure professionnal authors/scenarists (though not as famous as someone who sold tons of books) are part of the team (maybe not as a 100% resident ?). Stories are overall interesting (the one dimensional problem put aside), why aren't they more deep or intricated or complexe or designed as a tree (from your one root to the common trunk to your one final leaf choice) ? Surely because the game is designed, in the philosophy and on purpose, more or less right from the beggining (i don't know, wasn't around ^^), more as a Hack&Slash than a classic RPG. You have Diablo, but you want Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Night. Even though Neverwinter Online came from the NwN franchise, it is clearly more close to Diablo than to NwN (especially when you read NWO spreadsheets fan who think RPG, even p&p, is nothing more than calculations and rules to strictly follow ).
(...) I have read (in french :P) almost every text, every quest, every item description. I really don't think anything is badly written, and i'm sure professionnal authors/scenarists (though not as famous as someone who sold tons of books) are part of the team (maybe not as a 100% resident ?). Stories are overall interesting (the one dimensional problem put aside), why aren't they more deep or intricated or complexe or designed as a tree (from your one root to the common trunk to your one final leaf choice) ? Surely because the game is designed, in the philosophy and on purpose, more or less right from the beggining (i don't know, wasn't around ^^), more as a Hack&Slash than a classic RPG. You have Diablo, but you want Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Night. Even though Neverwinter Online came from the NwN franchise, it is clearly more close to Diablo than to NwN (especially when you read NWO spreadsheets fan who think RPG, even p&p, is nothing more than calculations and rules to strictly follow ).
I like reading your perspective on those matters a lot, simply because you seem to enjoy the game so much differently than I do, but in a way I wish I could. I often disappointed myself by the way I wanted to consume Neverwinter, simply because I didn't come to NW because of the story (or dnd in general), but because, to be completely honest, it looked interesting and it was free. Thats it. While I played (from what I can tell) every quest there is on my main, the story couldn't catch me often, and it couldn't get me to get more into the lore.
(Bear with me here, I know the Witcher games are no MMO, it is just another bad example: ) I played Witcher 3 before I read Sapkowski's books. My brother played it and thats how I found out about it, and while it was detailed, wonderful graphics (especially on his PC ;D) what was the most catching was that choices really influenced the course of the game. I mean, we could argue about the depth of those decisions, clearly, but I played some ARPGs, some Single-Player Big Names and some MMOs before, and I did a fair share of fetch-quests with next to no meaning before, too. But not many games make me want to read the lore. That one did.
I really wished I didn't take NW as seriously "endgame" as I did when I started playing, because then a lot of negativity (some of which I directed at myself) might have evaded me. I played a similar MMO before (a long time ago) that I somehow managed to NOT take serious, and I had a grand time with doing only what I liked without feeling the need to explain myself.
What is a thing currently is, that when I want to explain myself and how I would go about certain things, it feels like I have to justify myself for the way I play NW. How can I, when I do not run this or do not run that or do not play the game in the one way it is expected to be played, think that how I enjoy NW has any meaningful impact on the game? (I don't, anyway)
As you can imagine we have been extra busy over the last few days. I will catch up this weekend (although I have been skimming the posts). Phase 3 starts on Monday (3 top likes).
You shut me up with the ZARIEL TRIAL in July. I am happy since the map was posted because I could not watch the stream. I can not say more bc spoilers but I hope that the trial is for 1001 players - 500 clerics, 500 paladins and 1 dps with a death wish. Thank you all the devs team for bringing this challenge to us. .
Hey, Controllers are people too! If I bring my CW rest assured she'll be packing the Valindra set and rocking 71% control bonus. NO ONE escapes the ice -- not even Zariel's minions.
Harper Chronicles: Cap Snatchers (RELEASED) - NW-DPUTABC6X Blood Magic (RELEASED) - NW-DUU2P7HCO Children of the Fey (RELEASED) - NW-DKSSAPFPF Buried Under Blacklake (WIP) - NW-DEDV2PAEP The Redcap Rebels (WIP) - NW-DO23AFHFH
My Foundry playthrough channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Ruskaga/featured
I haven't seen any followup to my mentor-mentee post, so I assume I didn't explain the essence and the implications well enough.
Hypothesis: Neverwinter MMO would receive significant benefits from redesigning its core gameplay around (experience-wise unequal) 2-player teams. Some of the longstanding problems would be alleviated or outright solved. Unwanted negative effects of this change can be mitigated (to a certain degree).
Currently, gameplay is in essence solipsistic (in the "extreme egocentrism" sense). There are a few exceptions (upgrading Stronghold structures to improve boons for all guild members, collaborating while gearing up and training for the hardest queued content, etc.), but the majority of the gameplay and rewards is self-centered. The best strategy to maximize efficiency is to avoid (relatively) undergeared or low-skilled players and try to run with (relatively) overgeared and high-skilled players. Ignoring this strategy results in loss of time (longer time-to-completion or outright failing and needing to restart with different group), as well as loss of resources (health stone charges, scrolls of life, food/potion buffs) with no change in rewards.
In other words, trying to be helpful is punitive, unless the player you're trying to help is already almost at the same level as yourself (a peer instead of a junior). This type of demotivator works against the better nature of MMO players, leads to accusations of elitism, and general alienation and distrust between different progression tiers of players. It undermines collaborative social interaction, which I would argue is one of the strongest player retention mechanics available to an MMO.
I propose a change where more and more of character progression towards "endgame" becomes dependent on gainfully assisting a newer player. Not by completing content instead of them (like we had in leveling dungeons), but explicitly by teaching and assisting (mentoring) them to better play their class and role. Mentoring success should be determined by mentee performance only. The rewards for successful mentoring (let us call them Mentoring Points) should become the most effective method for further progressing one's own character. Not the only method (we still want to let hardcore loners and professions/market mavens live), but the most effective by a significant margin.
This requires scaling to be implemented correctly. While it's okay for the mentor to be "more powerful" than the mentee, the difference should be relatively small (say up to 20%). Otherwise, contribution from mentee cannot remain significant in the outcome of the challenge.
A special consideration should be given to disparity between current role trinity (tank-healer-dps) and a 2-person mentor-mentee pair. I think that this disparity is actually useful (choosing a role becomes a meaningful choice for mentoring player). The slack could be covered by better implementation of companions. For example, when mentoring a newbie healer, mentor can choose to run tank and summon a dps companion OR run dps and summon a tank companion. My gut feeling says that summoned companions performing at 40-50% efficiency of the player character would do the trick.
In content with more than 2 players, role trinity will naturally function as before - player characters would still be the best healers, tanks and dps after all. However, summoned companions might become a viable alternative to augments. Queuing system should be modified to explicit mentor-mentee pairs (in addition to role requirements). This would mean changing dungeons from 5-man content to either 4-man or 6-man.
5
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
I haven't seen any followup to my mentor-mentee post, so I assume I didn't explain the essence and the implications well enough.
Hypothesis: Neverwinter MMO would receive significant benefits from redesigning its core gameplay around (experience-wise unequal) 2-player teams. Some of the longstanding problems would be alleviated or outright solved. Unwanted negative effects of this change can be mitigated (to a certain degree).
Currently, gameplay is in essence solipsistic (in the "extreme egocentrism" sense). There are a few exceptions (upgrading Stronghold structures to improve boons for all guild members, collaborating while gearing up and training for the hardest queued content, etc.), but the majority of the gameplay and rewards is self-centered. The best strategy to maximize efficiency is to avoid (relatively) undergeared or low-skilled players and try to run with (relatively) overgeared and high-skilled players. Ignoring this strategy results in loss of time (longer time-to-completion or outright failing and needing to restart with different group), as well as loss of resources (health stone charges, scrolls of life, food/potion buffs) with no change in rewards.
In other words, trying to be helpful is punitive, unless the player you're trying to help is already almost at the same level as yourself (a peer instead of a junior). This type of demotivator works against the better nature of MMO players, leads to accusations of elitism, and general alienation and distrust between different progression tiers of players. It undermines collaborative social interaction, which I would argue is one of the strongest player retention mechanics available to an MMO.
I propose a change where more and more of character progression towards "endgame" becomes dependent on gainfully assisting a newer player. Not by completing content instead of them (like we had in leveling dungeons), but explicitly by teaching and assisting (mentoring) them to better play their class and role. Mentoring success should be determined by mentee performance only. The rewards for successful mentoring (let us call them Mentoring Points) should become the most effective method for further progressing one's own character. Not the only method (we still want to let hardcore loners and professions/market mavens live), but the most effective by a significant margin.
This requires scaling to be implemented correctly. While it's okay for the mentor to be "more powerful" than the mentee, the difference should be relatively small (say up to 20%). Otherwise, contribution from mentee cannot remain significant in the outcome of the challenge.
A special consideration should be given to disparity between current role trinity (tank-healer-dps) and a 2-person mentor-mentee pair. I think that this disparity is actually useful (choosing a role becomes a meaningful choice for mentoring player). The slack could be covered by better implementation of companions. For example, when mentoring a newbie healer, mentor can choose to run tank and summon a dps companion OR run dps and summon a tank companion. My gut feeling says that summoned companions performing at 40-50% efficiency of the player character would do the trick.
In content with more than 2 players, role trinity will naturally function as before - player characters would still be the best healers, tanks and dps after all. However, summoned companions might become a viable alternative to augments. Queuing system should be modified to explicit mentor-mentee pairs (in addition to role requirements). This would mean changing dungeons from 5-man content to either 4-man or 6-man.
I am staunchly against this proposal.
Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
Not everyone is good at teaching, not everyone is good at learning.
Some people don't like teaching and will lash back at this system, possibly (probably, who am I kidding here) taking it out on the person they are supposed to teach.
Some people don't want to have people helping them out.
This would fundamentally change the game NW is.
Don't force people to play together if they don't want to. If players want to interact with each other, it should be organic, they should be choosing to interact with each other. If players feel their progress is locked behind teaching someone else, I guarantee you within 1 day of this system being implemented there will be at least 5 threads of people complaining that their mentor treated them like HAMSTER and another 5 threads of people complaining they don't want to have to mentor people in order to progress. Exactly the same way random queues backfired.
I haven't seen any followup to my mentor-mentee post, so I assume I didn't explain the essence and the implications well enough.
Hypothesis: Neverwinter MMO would receive significant benefits from redesigning its core gameplay around (experience-wise unequal) 2-player teams. Some of the longstanding problems would be alleviated or outright solved. Unwanted negative effects of this change can be mitigated (to a certain degree).
Currently, gameplay is in essence solipsistic (in the "extreme egocentrism" sense). There are a few exceptions (upgrading Stronghold structures to improve boons for all guild members, collaborating while gearing up and training for the hardest queued content, etc.), but the majority of the gameplay and rewards is self-centered. The best strategy to maximize efficiency is to avoid (relatively) undergeared or low-skilled players and try to run with (relatively) overgeared and high-skilled players. Ignoring this strategy results in loss of time (longer time-to-completion or outright failing and needing to restart with different group), as well as loss of resources (health stone charges, scrolls of life, food/potion buffs) with no change in rewards.
In other words, trying to be helpful is punitive, unless the player you're trying to help is already almost at the same level as yourself (a peer instead of a junior). This type of demotivator works against the better nature of MMO players, leads to accusations of elitism, and general alienation and distrust between different progression tiers of players. It undermines collaborative social interaction, which I would argue is one of the strongest player retention mechanics available to an MMO.
I propose a change where more and more of character progression towards "endgame" becomes dependent on gainfully assisting a newer player. Not by completing content instead of them (like we had in leveling dungeons), but explicitly by teaching and assisting (mentoring) them to better play their class and role. Mentoring success should be determined by mentee performance only. The rewards for successful mentoring (let us call them Mentoring Points) should become the most effective method for further progressing one's own character. Not the only method (we still want to let hardcore loners and professions/market mavens live), but the most effective by a significant margin.
This requires scaling to be implemented correctly. While it's okay for the mentor to be "more powerful" than the mentee, the difference should be relatively small (say up to 20%). Otherwise, contribution from mentee cannot remain significant in the outcome of the challenge.
A special consideration should be given to disparity between current role trinity (tank-healer-dps) and a 2-person mentor-mentee pair. I think that this disparity is actually useful (choosing a role becomes a meaningful choice for mentoring player). The slack could be covered by better implementation of companions. For example, when mentoring a newbie healer, mentor can choose to run tank and summon a dps companion OR run dps and summon a tank companion. My gut feeling says that summoned companions performing at 40-50% efficiency of the player character would do the trick.
In content with more than 2 players, role trinity will naturally function as before - player characters would still be the best healers, tanks and dps after all. However, summoned companions might become a viable alternative to augments. Queuing system should be modified to explicit mentor-mentee pairs (in addition to role requirements). This would mean changing dungeons from 5-man content to either 4-man or 6-man.
as long as nothing is mandatory and by choice. I have no problems with a mentor system. I have no interest in it whatsoever, but since it doesn't effect me I don't care. I think what it means that no one brought it up for debate is that it isn't very controversial. (but I could be wrong)
Legendary vs epic rings in content. the tomm rings don't make a lot of sense to me. in past content there was a clear advantage to having leg rings over epic. in tomm really the epics are as good as the the legs. only difference is a tiny boost in il (Which really doesn't matter with how scattered il is due to old hunt gear retaining value and back end comp gear not accurately being reflected) and a tiny boost in stats from the rings which again with how giant the stat bonuses already are a tiny increase doesn't matter. imo leg rings should have a better bonus than epic. Even if not by a lot by something. as it is I am in no rush to try for leg because it probably isn't even worth the 50k stat kits that I have already on my epics.
I haven't seen any followup to my mentor-mentee post, so I assume I didn't explain the essence and the implications well enough.
Hypothesis: Neverwinter MMO would receive significant benefits from redesigning its core gameplay around (experience-wise unequal) 2-player teams. Some of the longstanding problems would be alleviated or outright solved. Unwanted negative effects of this change can be mitigated (to a certain degree).
Currently, gameplay is in essence solipsistic (in the "extreme egocentrism" sense). There are a few exceptions (upgrading Stronghold structures to improve boons for all guild members, collaborating while gearing up and training for the hardest queued content, etc.), but the majority of the gameplay and rewards is self-centered. The best strategy to maximize efficiency is to avoid (relatively) undergeared or low-skilled players and try to run with (relatively) overgeared and high-skilled players. Ignoring this strategy results in loss of time (longer time-to-completion or outright failing and needing to restart with different group), as well as loss of resources (health stone charges, scrolls of life, food/potion buffs) with no change in rewards.
In other words, trying to be helpful is punitive, unless the player you're trying to help is already almost at the same level as yourself (a peer instead of a junior). This type of demotivator works against the better nature of MMO players, leads to accusations of elitism, and general alienation and distrust between different progression tiers of players. It undermines collaborative social interaction, which I would argue is one of the strongest player retention mechanics available to an MMO.
I propose a change where more and more of character progression towards "endgame" becomes dependent on gainfully assisting a newer player. Not by completing content instead of them (like we had in leveling dungeons), but explicitly by teaching and assisting (mentoring) them to better play their class and role. Mentoring success should be determined by mentee performance only. The rewards for successful mentoring (let us call them Mentoring Points) should become the most effective method for further progressing one's own character. Not the only method (we still want to let hardcore loners and professions/market mavens live), but the most effective by a significant margin.
This requires scaling to be implemented correctly. While it's okay for the mentor to be "more powerful" than the mentee, the difference should be relatively small (say up to 20%). Otherwise, contribution from mentee cannot remain significant in the outcome of the challenge.
A special consideration should be given to disparity between current role trinity (tank-healer-dps) and a 2-person mentor-mentee pair. I think that this disparity is actually useful (choosing a role becomes a meaningful choice for mentoring player). The slack could be covered by better implementation of companions. For example, when mentoring a newbie healer, mentor can choose to run tank and summon a dps companion OR run dps and summon a tank companion. My gut feeling says that summoned companions performing at 40-50% efficiency of the player character would do the trick.
In content with more than 2 players, role trinity will naturally function as before - player characters would still be the best healers, tanks and dps after all. However, summoned companions might become a viable alternative to augments. Queuing system should be modified to explicit mentor-mentee pairs (in addition to role requirements). This would mean changing dungeons from 5-man content to either 4-man or 6-man.
I am staunchly against this proposal.
Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
Not everyone is good at teaching, not everyone is good at learning.
Some people don't like teaching and will lash back at this system, possibly (probably, who am I kidding here) taking it out on the person they are supposed to teach.
Some people don't want to have people helping them out.
This would fundamentally change the game NW is.
Don't force people to play together if they don't want to. If players want to interact with each other, it should be organic, they should be choosing to interact with each other. If players feel their progress is locked behind teaching someone else, I guarantee you within 1 day of this system being implemented there will be at least 5 threads of people complaining that their mentor treated them like HAMSTER and another 5 threads of people complaining they don't want to have to mentor people in order to progress. Exactly the same way random queues backfired.
He didn't say to "force people", he says "...should become the most effective method for further progressing one's own character. Not the only method (we still want to let hardcore loners and professions/market mavens live), but the most effective by a significant margin."
Ignoring the proposal for a mentor/mentee system, he's pretty spot on when he describes the type of behavior and interactions between players the current state of the game promotes. It's not good, it's very alienating to a lot of people, and there's a lot of xenophobia in the game in the sense that "pug" [1] is a bad word , when it really shouldn't be. I was thinking about this earlier today, and it may be that the guild/alliance system exacerbates this issue to a certain extent.
I would like to see more systems in the game that promote healthy player interaction with the wider population, than just someone's own clique, for example, a solo queue for dungeons that has really good rewards in it. While this might not appeal to someone who has more than they can ever want, if the rewards were good enough, I could see a lot of people doing it, just like a lot of people do random queues because it's the most efficient way to get your daily rad. It could for example award a token that allows you to purchase items like they have in the PvP seasonal store and the Legacy campaign store.
I haven't seen any followup to my mentor-mentee post, so I assume I didn't explain the essence and the implications well enough.
Hypothesis: Neverwinter MMO would receive significant benefits from redesigning its core gameplay around (experience-wise unequal) 2-player teams. Some of the longstanding problems would be alleviated or outright solved. Unwanted negative effects of this change can be mitigated (to a certain degree).
Currently, gameplay is in essence solipsistic (in the "extreme egocentrism" sense). There are a few exceptions (upgrading Stronghold structures to improve boons for all guild members, collaborating while gearing up and training for the hardest queued content, etc.), but the majority of the gameplay and rewards is self-centered. The best strategy to maximize efficiency is to avoid (relatively) undergeared or low-skilled players and try to run with (relatively) overgeared and high-skilled players. Ignoring this strategy results in loss of time (longer time-to-completion or outright failing and needing to restart with different group), as well as loss of resources (health stone charges, scrolls of life, food/potion buffs) with no change in rewards.
In other words, trying to be helpful is punitive, unless the player you're trying to help is already almost at the same level as yourself (a peer instead of a junior). This type of demotivator works against the better nature of MMO players, leads to accusations of elitism, and general alienation and distrust between different progression tiers of players. It undermines collaborative social interaction, which I would argue is one of the strongest player retention mechanics available to an MMO.
I propose a change where more and more of character progression towards "endgame" becomes dependent on gainfully assisting a newer player. Not by completing content instead of them (like we had in leveling dungeons), but explicitly by teaching and assisting (mentoring) them to better play their class and role. Mentoring success should be determined by mentee performance only. The rewards for successful mentoring (let us call them Mentoring Points) should become the most effective method for further progressing one's own character. Not the only method (we still want to let hardcore loners and professions/market mavens live), but the most effective by a significant margin.
This requires scaling to be implemented correctly. While it's okay for the mentor to be "more powerful" than the mentee, the difference should be relatively small (say up to 20%). Otherwise, contribution from mentee cannot remain significant in the outcome of the challenge.
A special consideration should be given to disparity between current role trinity (tank-healer-dps) and a 2-person mentor-mentee pair. I think that this disparity is actually useful (choosing a role becomes a meaningful choice for mentoring player). The slack could be covered by better implementation of companions. For example, when mentoring a newbie healer, mentor can choose to run tank and summon a dps companion OR run dps and summon a tank companion. My gut feeling says that summoned companions performing at 40-50% efficiency of the player character would do the trick.
In content with more than 2 players, role trinity will naturally function as before - player characters would still be the best healers, tanks and dps after all. However, summoned companions might become a viable alternative to augments. Queuing system should be modified to explicit mentor-mentee pairs (in addition to role requirements). This would mean changing dungeons from 5-man content to either 4-man or 6-man.
Not everyone is good at teaching, not everyone is good at learning.
Some people don't like teaching and will lash back at this system, possibly (probably, who am I kidding here) taking it out on the person they are supposed to teach.
Some people don't want to have people helping them out.
This would fundamentally change the game NW is.
Don't force people to play together if they don't want to. If players want to interact with each other, it should be organic, they should be choosing to interact with each other. If players feel their progress is locked behind teaching someone else, I guarantee you within 1 day of this system being implemented there will be at least 5 threads of people complaining that their mentor treated them like HAMSTER and another 5 threads of people complaining they don't want to have to mentor people in order to progress. Exactly the same way random queues backfired.
Though i am not as radical as you and not staunchly in favor of this proposal, the idea behind make sense in my opinion (especially has I already voiced that kind of idea not long ago, in a lesser fluent english, though i can't remember on which topic ^^'). It comes with the idea to try to enhance means of interactions between players.
As you probably want your position to be a barricade in the hope to generate ideas to improve the intital one or look for other lead (which is a more constructive way to brainstorm) :
Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
Why my progress couldn't be linked with the progress of someone else, structurally (not just by the good will) ? Not as something mandatory, but as a real option, with real incentives to do so ? Different players, different way to play. I mean, not a a truly good exemple of that but : my bro and I did all the quests from level 1 up to Elemental Evil together (not "student-mentor" relation idea, but more peer to peer), but he had a bit more playtime compared to mine at this period. Waiting me for story discovering, he was just doing some dungeons. Result was I started Elemental Evil with him being level 64, he was level 70. And both of us would have love to stay same level (he searched about a "stop xp" option, would have also been a solution).
I would love helping level 10 newbies if there was something physically rewarding ingame at the end. (I already do help in fact, maybe because my campfire for my alt-army is blacklake... and as a reward i feel good after helping someone + I met a new potential nice face).
I have no concrete idea (i know you may want some fact, precise exemples, numbers or development to maybe change a bit from your firm position) how to realize both wish : solo play in a MMO, or multi-play in a MMO. Maybe something will come tomorrow :P or below these lines as i'm live brainstorming myself.
Some people don't like teaching and will lash back at this system, possibly (probably, who am I kidding here) taking it out on the person they are supposed to teach.
Sure. Toxicity is wide spread. I'm french, i would obviously go on strike if i was well paid for not teaching and suddenly my government forced me to teach.
Not a single system is backlashing proof. Volounteer to teach is needed, so it can't be mandatory, it should be breakable at any moment (by the "student" or the mentor). By volunteering you accept investing time for maybe nothing, which it's great, would deter people who are not in the helping newbies mindset. And any reward if it's a success at the end, because you don't want to attract people only looking for more stats more strengh, more power, should be anecdotic about how it can influence the stats/efficiency/etc of the mentor. Flashy fashion items/dies/etc or titles exclusive to "mentor-student" system as rewards would be enough for my so big pride. And also my name in the "best mentor of the month" chart (because why not allowing students to rate the quality of my teachings with stars, as I did with the foundry creations ?) Something useful for the successfull "student", temporary or programmed to be obsolete at level 80 (a special student epic mount that disappear at level 80 [so he can follow more easily the mentor on his legendary] ? a long buff ? an item which evolve with his level like the bone weapons ?)
Some people don't want to have people helping them out.
Strangely, though I like explain and teach, i fall in this category. But some wants, and only find silence or "i have no time", or the rare good samaritan. See above, more or less the same idea. Best student of the month :P.
Feedback Overview Provide meaningful context and rewards for doing sub-level 80/IL 14K content
I have been recently experimenting with the effects of scaling in Tyranny and 'Leveling' dungeon areas using my level 80 characters and the equipment that can be created with professions. I have tested the Primal (IL700 - best of crown seal gear prior to mod 16), Barovian/Vistani/Undermountain (IL644), Swordlinen/Hardsteel (IL795), Spy's Guld (IL940), Velvet/Cobalt (IL950) and Crushing Wave (IL390) gear. What I have found was that I typically was better geared with equipment for the level (like Crushing Blade EE gear) than the scaled gear. This has led me to begin enjoying playing the campaign areas *at the level intended* by changing equipment to that which is rewarded by the campaign. This has led to the proposal here to provide incentives for acquiring this gear as a source/ingredient to upgrade better gear for higher IL requirement areas.
Feedback Goal Provide incentives for players to keep current campaign and quest rewards beyond transmute/fashion purposes. Revitalize the lower areas skipped due to excessive XP(due to invoking/dungeon/SH-quests) in a manner that provides a viable reason to return and complete/repeat them.
Feedback Functionality
Gameplay: Introduce a K-team style encounter mechanic that rewards players for completing a lower IL level lair/dungeon while wearing equipment that does not exceed a certain total IL level. The resulting rewards the players with a token or other device that will permit them to use the resulting reward equipment to upgrade (provide some ability aspect to) other equipment. This concept could also include certain bounty reward equipment or vendor (PE or Stronghold) items, depending on requirements to obtain the reward. The player that has completed a currently non-repeatable dungeon area, could substitute the bounty/vendor equipment for the equipment normally rewarded for the dungeon. The key is not to exceed the max IL qualification criteria
Ease of implementation: Most of the mechanics and rewards provided by the current dungeons can remain unchanged allowing both new, intermediate, and veteran players to work together in queues. Existing equipment sold by vendors in all instances become viable again.
Economy: The shift in importance of lower-end equipment provides a means for the new/lower players to sell the unequipped reward gear in the AH to earn the much needed AD to progress. Dungeon-specific drops can return to the game further incenting the repeat of areas by higher character level players. The mechanism provides a path for horizontal scaling as discussed elsewhere in this CDP.
Risks & Concerns Storage space needs to be provided for additional equipment sets. Limits to the number and size of bags and bank slots need to be increased. The ability tokens need to be meaningful/useful to the players. They need to be stackable for more impact (similar to the insignia upgrade system). The success of this approach relies on the level requirements for an area remaining stable and not re-balanced every time a new mod is introduced (mob IL/HP creep)
1
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
This wall of text was too long and I had to edit it down.
@tchefi#6735 so long as it is not mandatory, I do not care. My complaints stem entirely from the basis that the system proposed is mandatory. If a player finds themselves in a position where they cannot progress their own character without helping someone else, the system is in effect mandatory and that is where problems will arise.
And as for, "fundamentally change the game nw is," what I mean is, the change would be so significant that nw would no longer be nw. NW is not a game where it is mandatory to help others, if it ever became a game where it is mandatory to help others, there would be a not insubstantial number of players who quit because it is not the game they want to play.
From my own perspective, if someone seeks me out and asks for help with something, I am usually willing to go to (near enough) the ends of the earth to help them out . If people genuinely show a desire to learn, I am more than happy to help them. However, if you point me at some random person and say, "help this player," the chances are, I won't be happy doing it. I do not want to waste time trying to help someone who is belligerent and frankly, I don't think they want me wasting time trying to help them either.
Comments
I like that idea but not sure if it would work in this game.
We come again to the point that we need to have good options and not obvious options in items so the choice is hard. But we also need that in boons, feats, class features, companions etc. Now there are only few clear BIS items / feats / features, etc.
Caturday Survivor
Elemental Evil Survivor
Undermontain Survivor
Mod20 Combat rework Survivor
Mod22 Refinement rework Survivor
For example, something that I think could greatly improve the genre is frequent server resets (as in, all of your progress is lost and you start with nothing). It solves the problem of old players having a significant gear advantage over new players, because there would always be a point where they start on the same level in the future. It also solves the problem of people running out of content, because the entire game is essentially recycled. It also, incidentally, would make the game not neverwinter and so it is not something that I would propose or recommend was changed about this game.
Making this game adhere to the rules of DND, is also something that would completely change the game. As much as people might want it to be a dnd game, it isn't one. It is an action game set in a dnd world, with dnd characters, stories and themes. Change the gameplay to make it a dnd game and you have just lost a significant part of the game's audience, because the people who play the game because of its gameplay would no longer want to play. The value of an idea is determined by how well it upholds itself in the face of confrontation. If an idea cannot withstand the heat of debate, it is an idea which should probably be discarded, or modified in such a way so that it can. This is how ideas evolve and become better, by being put through scrutiny. Everyone is able to share ideas. Incidentally, everyone is also able to tell people who share their ideas if they think that idea is good or bad and why. Am I harsh in my criticism? Probably. I could probably do much better to phrase it in a way which is less offensive, I admit, I am not the best at being nice in my delivery. I do my best and do generally try, but that is just the way I am. Most of my criticism however, comes with a reason attached to it, it is constructive. Where it is not, feel free to point it out and bash me over the head for it. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong.
Maybe boons with negatives that you can balance out with other boons? Obviously "boons" would not be the correct term anymore. Something like:
A ) +50% HP, -50% Stamina
B ) +50% Attack, -50% HP
If both were active, you'd get +50% attack but -50% stamina? Hmm yeah, tough one.
Maybe if the boons/benefits per campaign were more fleshed out I could get behind it more.
Small guilds need a hand up in earning currency to work on getting their boons up (at least that's the hook I'm using to put this in a "rewards" CDP).
Feedback Goal
Have an "buildable" temporary NPC who gives quests.
Feedback Functionality
Much like the one that generates influence or the mysterious merchant, this NPC is a temporary and cheap "installment" but instead of generating anything all they do is give quests which need to be handed in before they vanish.
These could be new tasks to areas far and wide but I was thinking more simply for starters, along the lines of - they offer all the quests that the builder doesn't offer that day.
At the very least it would reduce the time gate for some of the stronghold related currencies, which I'm guessing is ideal based on the roadmap video where Cryptic mentioned that they wanted to "help people get to the end game quicker".
Also it makes it really easy for guilds to schedule a "stronghold run". Just log in when your guild master says so, visit this new NPC and bam, all of you have all the same quests to complete.
Risks & Concerns
This makes it less of a hand out since guild leads still need to hire the guy and then subsequently get members to do the tasks within the time frame. Also, it might still be simpler to just impose a mathematical discount across the board rather than go through all of this.
Rewards via crafting (especially Masterwork)
After seeing the roadmap today I think I understand a little better how the CDP influences this process. I’ll try to keep this in mind in future posts. (Not so much in this one.)I've read several posts (30) talking about Crafting and how to implement "New" items and rewards through this system. Some of the ideas that stood out to me:
- A few talked about changes to the crafting system as a whole and presented several ideas. @thefabricant , @sheeho#6228, @thefiresidecat, @jbear79, @tchefi#6735, @krzrsms and @lordaeolos all proposed several great ideas.
- Crafting New Unique Gear From Old Gear as discussed by @sandukutupu
- Using crafting to upgrade existing gear and items as discussed by @krumple01 , @statto12345 , @vitherborth , @throsbi , @tempus86#1158 , @lantern22 and @geminisky59#9345
- Making more and varied consumables through crafting as discussed by @sheeho#6228
- Craftable companion and mount gear as discussed by @hoverist , @grey, @geminisky59#9345 , and @fluffy6977
- Master Forge kits as discussed by @josephskyrim
- If more MW weapons or gear are added to the game the main ingredients for those should come from the latest content, dungeon and trial as discussed by @marvyn#9793
- Recipes or other functions to allow placing any bonus on any gear through MW Crafting as discussed by @statto12345#8910 , @tempus86, @sheeho#6228 and @burnthedead
- Use masterwork to craft appearance/cosmetic items @trelamy
All of these are really interesting ideas that IMO deserve further discussion. Many would require a CDP of their own. As far as what can be done right now or within the next few months to be included as part of the roadmap, I think just updating the MW recipes to reflect the current state of the game would go a long way in acting as a bandaid until a more detailed discussion or CDP could be planned.QOL / Rewards that could be used as progression mechanics or AD sinks in crafting
- Increase crafting storage or implement an Account wide crafting bag as discussed by @mystar and @thefiresidecat
- Upgrading workshops / custom workshops
These two topics were mentioned several times. I think both could provide either great additions to the Zen store or be used as big AD sinks without giving an unfair advantage to those who purchased them.Specific concerns related to crafting that may require a future CDP
- Crafting as it relates to Strongholds and Guilds.
- RNG - Maps and gathering resources / ingredients
- RNG - Failure -vs- loss of ingredients
- Devaluation of Forge hammer and older assets
- Keep masterwork equipment up to date, regardless of the module
- Cost involved in crafting as discussed by @shrineerune#9386 and @thefiresidecat
- Profiteering and unrealistic AD sinks
- Relevance of rewards / crafted items from MOD to MOD
- Make gathering of resources rewarding to both new players and endgame players
- Resource gathering - time -vs- reward, fun -vs- chore
- Botting concerns as it relates to crafting and gathering
All of these concerns were mentioned in various posts. IMO they are all very valid and deserve further discussion in a Master work or Crafting CDP.I admit to being one of those that heavily invested into Master work crafting and crafting in general back when I first started playing Neverwinter. At one time I had 2 MW crafters with everything unlocked and 20 or so with 3 or 4 professions at rank 20 (or whatever the max rank was at the time.).
I gave up on crafting when it was radically changed in AI. I don’t think I’ll ever get back into crafting because of this experience, but I do think it is an important part of the game that provided hours of entertainment to me at one time. Some people really do play the game just to craft and sell their wares. Thus the name of my avatar.
As a dwarven character I would RP crafting, and I think I was trying to make it into something that it wasn’t or trying to recapture a crafting experience I had in another game. This is why I don’t have much to contribute to this specific topic. Sadly, that part of the game is over for me now.
To read specific posts from each author just click on their name in this post and look through their comments. You will see this CDP title under the relevant comment. That will take you to the right page but you still have to search for the comment using their name and Control+F. Sorry I could not quote all of the authors in this post it would have been over 9k words long.
MW 1 to 3 need to remain viable. And (including all MW) preferably removed from the Stronghold as a gate.
The idea to have Campaign based Masterwork was used in Chult, did no one consider continuing that idea and adding situational, ad hoc, sets of Crafting Recipes?
It's also worth remembering that it doesn't have to be expensive to get MC.
I have MC 3 on 7 characters, still turn a profit from it, and have reserves of those items needed for level advancement (stuff like Lacquered Ebony) waiting in nice stacks of twenty for when people eventually start doing it again.
It's time consuming when there are double professions events to spend a few days running charts, and of course you need patience to see it work, but I don't think I've ever bought a single MC required ingredient on the AH. I sell a tonne, but never buy them. Having 7 lots of free daily Morale makes this much easier. Since the L80 Tools and Supplements mean that a Forgehammer is no longer necessary, Masterwork is no longer the impossible dream it once was for so many people.
But the whole of the Professions system needs to be valid, not just "What can Master Crafters make that can keep up with BiS Campaign Weapons and be sold for millions a pop on the AH?"
The only reason it is even vaguely useful to run sub MC professions is that Mod 16 saw L80 recipes, which outstripped Master Craft.
If MC1-3 is fixed, but renders L1-80 redundant then you are unlikely to see anyone new to the game ever go on to chase Master levels as there will be such a huge grind with no intermediate reward to keep them interested.
Professions (1-80) need to be relevant beyond being a route to Master Crafting. By the nature of the game, unless someone is playing a very slow, deliberate, route; Professions will always be far behind the character in terms of level.
You won't be making level appropriate gear.
Ever.
There is no need to have so many level breaks in the Professions system.
Once every ten levels, buy new tools, start back at low return on Professions XP as better grinds unlock, make loads of stuff you don't want/need and either sell it for less than it cost to make or hope your Guild has space for the junk in the Mimic.
At best it gets used as transmute/fashion.
Is there a reason that Professions need to be stepped in grades of 10 levels?
If there isn't a specific reason beyond "Ten is a round number and it needs to be grindy" then reduce the number of steps. Dump much of the gear within (it shouldn't be hard to work out what isn't being crafted/used) and have some models left over for future transmutes.
At lower levels it might be perceived that advancement is faster by virtue of being able to run lots of low cost, fast commissions. This is true, while you are actually playing, but that low level delivery box fills up real quick when you have even ONE task running on "As many as possible" and the task takes only 5 or 10 minutes. High level Crafting, down time auto fills are a Godsend, Low level it's a handicap.
It's been suggested already but the scope for item buffs is massive and Professions is the ideal place to put that to use.
Overloads, Armour Reinforcement Kits, and Jewels.
But spice it up a bit.
Extend that principle and drill down into specific class/role boosts.
New enhancement specifically for one item type - Take Boots... Spurs for heavy armoured characters, Buckles for those in robes or leather. Temporary buffs, with countdowns (like the current overload timers) or Charges, (e.g. an Enchanted Feather that sits in a Wizards Hat and "Adds XX Bonus On Daily Use - 100 charges")
Make this stuff more interesting than generic "Kit" "Jewel" or "Overload" that adds +XXXX to Stat A or +YY% Damage and people will feel a modicum of increased investment in participating.
Make variants of these things available at lower levels, beneath Master, but instead of making the lower level stuff flat out garbage, give them half decent bonuses, but crappy charges or timers. That way usefulness vs redundancy isn't a binary issue.
Oh, while I remember... something I begged and hoped for before Mod 15 dropped the new Professions on us, and still believe is a valid and viable option for Professions.
Allow the crafting of Treasures for Guild Donations.
Yeah, we can make Astral Diamond coffers, and Gold, and toss the regular junk we make in the Professions box, but the facility to craft Crates of Treasures would see Professions get used more.
Maybe even make the Guild Stuff we craft Unbound? (Shock, Horror...)
If you want to genuinely see Professions used more and the economy shift as a result of that, allow the Guild Crates from Crafting to be sold on the open market.
Call that stuff "Fluff" if you want, I call it "Depth".
As far as I am aware in it's history Neverwinter has released one mini campaign that was written by a professional experienced D&D scribe. (Rob Salvatore).
Ed Greenwood is still alive... he created the Forgotten Realms in his head, and wrote it down so that other people could use it. He's probably still working in his local library somewhere in Canada. Gygax and Arneson are, sadly, no longer with us... so we will never see what madness Gary would create for an online community. (Probably giant undead bunny rabbits and mummified goats on the 8th Plane of Hell.)
Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weiss are still alive and kicking. Tracy and his wife Laura invented HAMSTER RAVENLOFT... Tracy was the brains behind Dragonlance, which was when TSR suddenly realised there was a genuine market for spin off material... they're pretty good at what they do, these people.
Is it forbidden by contractual agreement to approach folk with an experienced tested, proven track record in writing Dungeons and Dragons adventures to maybe write something for Neverwinter that's the spicier side of vanilla for a change?
Is there a fear that anything that requires more attention than skipping every line of dialogue will mean people stop playing? Is it really THAT lowest common denominator?
Just imagine if a professional writer who knows the subject matter better than we do, crafted a story and broke it down into chapters that unlock deeper secrets and mysteries until a final greater truth is revealed... and we get to play through those chapters with our characters.
I know that that would be less efficient than the shower rinse repeat of running enough mindless tasks to allow you to unlock and run a greater number of mindless tasks for four or five weeks and then run lots of the same mindless tasks to get boons and unlock Endgame Dungeon. Then run Endgame Dungeon without really being sure of any reason to do so beyond, "Get BiS...."
But it might be more fun?
I recommend being very careful with whatever you do here, there was a long running joke that Neverwinter is the only game that removes more content than it adds in its content releases, you don't want that to be a joke that ends up carrying forward.
I am (or more precisely was) a RP guy, driven by stories proposed by he devs/game/DM, and by stories created between players themselves.
I don't like to skip through a dialogue, a cutscene or an entire storyline if it's my first time seing it.
I regret a lot the lack of alignement/faction concept and the one dimensionnal linearity of how the quests in Neverwinter are built, with not a singe meaningful choice to be made. Every player, every character, just do the same thing as others. Does it matter who you chose in IWD ? No, you can just change shirts whenever you want. There is no difference in the outcome. There are some fake choices, 2 lines of dialogues you can chose between, but they ultimately all lead to the same path.
Repeatable is not something i am not fund of, because for me it feels like the story is just trampling on the same spot.
The most rewardful thing for me is going through a great story, figure out what my choices may imply, take some time in some sort a Schrödinger's cat state, choose, opening one way while closing an other triggering side-effects in the process. (in fact, the most rewardful thing for me is see players thrilled to play with each others, kind of out of the "scripted game", and happy to have been part of any human organized event, RP or not)
But I disagree. I am a dreamer and love tossing ideas even though I pertinently know they aren't feasible, kind of trying to help in the brainstorming. But we are on a MMO who also need to do business, and sometimes realism have to destroy dreams.
Repeatable is for me like trampling on the same spot, but i understand it as a design to keep players "playing" the dev hardwork longer. And sometimes, i'm kind of like farming these braindeadly to wash my mind after a hard work day.
The kind of story driven UM campaign was overall quite a fairly nice job from my perspective (if i forget and forgive everything outside UM at the mod16 release). I had the same level of entertainement doing UM as when i was in the leveling 1-70 phase in the end of 2016.
But as there was no timegate, no bottleneck currency, no repeatable system (ME are "after" the end of the campaign), players hungry to consume new content rushed it in no time (10-12h ?), some in one single day (took me 1 week with my old school daddy pace). And clearly, UM campaign requiered a lot much of dev (and author) work than Infernal Descent.
I have read (in french :P) almost every text, every quest, every item description. I really don't think anything is badly written, and i'm sure professionnal authors/scenarists (though not as famous as someone who sold tons of books) are part of the team (maybe not as a 100% resident ?).
Stories are overall interesting (the one dimensional problem put aside), why aren't they more deep or intricated or complexe or designed as a tree (from your one root to the common trunk to your one final leaf choice) ?
Surely because the game is designed, in the philosophy and on purpose, more or less right from the beggining (i don't know, wasn't around ^^), more as a Hack&Slash than a classic RPG.
You have Diablo, but you want Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Night. Even though Neverwinter Online came from the NwN franchise, it is clearly more close to Diablo than to NwN (especially when you read NWO spreadsheets fan who think RPG, even p&p, is nothing more than calculations and rules to strictly follow
While I played (from what I can tell) every quest there is on my main, the story couldn't catch me often, and it couldn't get me to get more into the lore.
(Bear with me here, I know the Witcher games are no MMO, it is just another bad example: ) I played Witcher 3 before I read Sapkowski's books. My brother played it and thats how I found out about it, and while it was detailed, wonderful graphics (especially on his PC ;D) what was the most catching was that choices really influenced the course of the game. I mean, we could argue about the depth of those decisions, clearly, but I played some ARPGs, some Single-Player Big Names and some MMOs before, and I did a fair share of fetch-quests with next to no meaning before, too.
But not many games make me want to read the lore. That one did.
I really wished I didn't take NW as seriously "endgame" as I did when I started playing, because then a lot of negativity (some of which I directed at myself) might have evaded me. I played a similar MMO before (a long time ago) that I somehow managed to NOT take serious, and I had a grand time with doing only what I liked without feeling the need to explain myself.
What is a thing currently is, that when I want to explain myself and how I would go about certain things, it feels like I have to justify myself for the way I play NW.
How can I, when I do not run this or do not run that or do not play the game in the one way it is expected to be played, think that how I enjoy NW has any meaningful impact on the game? (I don't, anyway)
As you can imagine we have been extra busy over the last few days. I will catch up this weekend (although I have been skimming the posts). Phase 3 starts on Monday (3 top likes).
Thanks,
Chris
Blood Magic (RELEASED) - NW-DUU2P7HCO
Children of the Fey (RELEASED) - NW-DKSSAPFPF
Buried Under Blacklake (WIP) - NW-DEDV2PAEP
The Redcap Rebels (WIP) - NW-DO23AFHFH
My Foundry playthrough channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Ruskaga/featured
Hypothesis: Neverwinter MMO would receive significant benefits from redesigning its core gameplay around (experience-wise unequal) 2-player teams. Some of the longstanding problems would be alleviated or outright solved. Unwanted negative effects of this change can be mitigated (to a certain degree).
Currently, gameplay is in essence solipsistic (in the "extreme egocentrism" sense). There are a few exceptions (upgrading Stronghold structures to improve boons for all guild members, collaborating while gearing up and training for the hardest queued content, etc.), but the majority of the gameplay and rewards is self-centered. The best strategy to maximize efficiency is to avoid (relatively) undergeared or low-skilled players and try to run with (relatively) overgeared and high-skilled players. Ignoring this strategy results in loss of time (longer time-to-completion or outright failing and needing to restart with different group), as well as loss of resources (health stone charges, scrolls of life, food/potion buffs) with no change in rewards.
In other words, trying to be helpful is punitive, unless the player you're trying to help is already almost at the same level as yourself (a peer instead of a junior). This type of demotivator works against the better nature of MMO players, leads to accusations of elitism, and general alienation and distrust between different progression tiers of players. It undermines collaborative social interaction, which I would argue is one of the strongest player retention mechanics available to an MMO.
I propose a change where more and more of character progression towards "endgame" becomes dependent on gainfully assisting a newer player. Not by completing content instead of them (like we had in leveling dungeons), but explicitly by teaching and assisting (mentoring) them to better play their class and role. Mentoring success should be determined by mentee performance only. The rewards for successful mentoring (let us call them Mentoring Points) should become the most effective method for further progressing one's own character. Not the only method (we still want to let hardcore loners and professions/market mavens live), but the most effective by a significant margin.
This requires scaling to be implemented correctly. While it's okay for the mentor to be "more powerful" than the mentee, the difference should be relatively small (say up to 20%). Otherwise, contribution from mentee cannot remain significant in the outcome of the challenge.
A special consideration should be given to disparity between current role trinity (tank-healer-dps) and a 2-person mentor-mentee pair. I think that this disparity is actually useful (choosing a role becomes a meaningful choice for mentoring player). The slack could be covered by better implementation of companions. For example, when mentoring a newbie healer, mentor can choose to run tank and summon a dps companion OR run dps and summon a tank companion. My gut feeling says that summoned companions performing at 40-50% efficiency of the player character would do the trick.
In content with more than 2 players, role trinity will naturally function as before - player characters would still be the best healers, tanks and dps after all. However, summoned companions might become a viable alternative to augments. Queuing system should be modified to explicit mentor-mentee pairs (in addition to role requirements). This would mean changing dungeons from 5-man content to either 4-man or 6-man.
- Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
- Not everyone is good at teaching, not everyone is good at learning.
- Some people don't like teaching and will lash back at this system, possibly (probably, who am I kidding here) taking it out on the person they are supposed to teach.
- Some people don't want to have people helping them out.
- This would fundamentally change the game NW is.
Don't force people to play together if they don't want to. If players want to interact with each other, it should be organic, they should be choosing to interact with each other. If players feel their progress is locked behind teaching someone else, I guarantee you within 1 day of this system being implemented there will be at least 5 threads of people complaining that their mentor treated them like HAMSTER and another 5 threads of people complaining they don't want to have to mentor people in order to progress. Exactly the same way random queues backfired.Ignoring the proposal for a mentor/mentee system, he's pretty spot on when he describes the type of behavior and interactions between players the current state of the game promotes. It's not good, it's very alienating to a lot of people, and there's a lot of xenophobia in the game in the sense that "pug" [1] is a bad word , when it really shouldn't be. I was thinking about this earlier today, and it may be that the guild/alliance system exacerbates this issue to a certain extent.
I would like to see more systems in the game that promote healthy player interaction with the wider population, than just someone's own clique, for example, a solo queue for dungeons that has really good rewards in it. While this might not appeal to someone who has more than they can ever want, if the rewards were good enough, I could see a lot of people doing it, just like a lot of people do random queues because it's the most efficient way to get your daily rad. It could for example award a token that allows you to purchase items like they have in the PvP seasonal store and the Legacy campaign store.
[1] https://gaming.stackexchange.com/a/113172
As you probably want your position to be a barricade in the hope to generate ideas to improve the intital one or look for other lead (which is a more constructive way to brainstorm) : Why my progress couldn't be linked with the progress of someone else, structurally (not just by the good will) ? Not as something mandatory, but as a real option, with real incentives to do so ? Different players, different way to play.
I mean, not a a truly good exemple of that but : my bro and I did all the quests from level 1 up to Elemental Evil together (not "student-mentor" relation idea, but more peer to peer), but he had a bit more playtime compared to mine at this period. Waiting me for story discovering, he was just doing some dungeons. Result was I started Elemental Evil with him being level 64, he was level 70. And both of us would have love to stay same level (he searched about a "stop xp" option, would have also been a solution).
I would love helping level 10 newbies if there was something physically rewarding ingame at the end. (I already do help in fact, maybe because my campfire for my alt-army is blacklake... and as a reward i feel good after helping someone + I met a new potential nice face).
I have no concrete idea (i know you may want some fact, precise exemples, numbers or development to maybe change a bit from your firm position) how to realize both wish : solo play in a MMO, or multi-play in a MMO. Maybe something will come tomorrow :P or below these lines as i'm live brainstorming myself. Sure. Toxicity is wide spread. I'm french, i would obviously go on strike if i was well paid for not teaching and suddenly my government forced me to teach.
Not a single system is backlashing proof.
Volounteer to teach is needed, so it can't be mandatory, it should be breakable at any moment (by the "student" or the mentor). By volunteering you accept investing time for maybe nothing, which it's great, would deter people who are not in the helping newbies mindset.
And any reward if it's a success at the end, because you don't want to attract people only looking for more stats more strengh, more power, should be anecdotic about how it can influence the stats/efficiency/etc of the mentor. Flashy fashion items/dies/etc or titles exclusive to "mentor-student" system as rewards would be enough for my so big pride. And also my name in the "best mentor of the month" chart (because why not allowing students to rate the quality of my teachings with stars, as I did with the foundry creations ?)
Something useful for the successfull "student", temporary or programmed to be obsolete at level 80 (a special student epic mount that disappear at level 80 [so he can follow more easily the mentor on his legendary] ? a long buff ? an item which evolve with his level like the bone weapons ?) Strangely, though I like explain and teach, i fall in this category. But some wants, and only find silence or "i have no time", or the rare good samaritan. See above, more or less the same idea. Best student of the month :P. Yeah. Changes. Kind of the goal of CDP topics. (though i agree, you can't change things radically, or earthquakes are coming).
Provide meaningful context and rewards for doing sub-level 80/IL 14K content
I have been recently experimenting with the effects of scaling in Tyranny and 'Leveling' dungeon areas using my level 80 characters and the equipment that can be created with professions. I have tested the Primal (IL700 - best of crown seal gear prior to mod 16), Barovian/Vistani/Undermountain (IL644), Swordlinen/Hardsteel (IL795), Spy's Guld (IL940), Velvet/Cobalt (IL950) and Crushing Wave (IL390) gear. What I have found was that I typically was better geared with equipment for the level (like Crushing Blade EE gear) than the scaled gear.
This has led me to begin enjoying playing the campaign areas *at the level intended* by changing equipment to that which is rewarded by the campaign. This has led to the proposal here to provide incentives for acquiring this gear as a source/ingredient to upgrade better gear for higher IL requirement areas.
Feedback Goal
Provide incentives for players to keep current campaign and quest rewards beyond transmute/fashion purposes.
Revitalize the lower areas skipped due to excessive XP(due to invoking/dungeon/SH-quests) in a manner that provides a viable reason to return and complete/repeat them.
Feedback Functionality
Gameplay:
Introduce a K-team style encounter mechanic that rewards players for completing a lower IL level lair/dungeon while wearing equipment that does not exceed a certain total IL level. The resulting rewards the players with a token or other device that will permit them to use the resulting reward equipment to upgrade (provide some ability aspect to) other equipment.
This concept could also include certain bounty reward equipment or vendor (PE or Stronghold) items, depending on requirements to obtain the reward. The player that has completed a currently non-repeatable dungeon area, could substitute the bounty/vendor equipment for the equipment normally rewarded for the dungeon. The key is not to exceed the max IL qualification criteria
Ease of implementation:
Most of the mechanics and rewards provided by the current dungeons can remain unchanged allowing both new, intermediate, and veteran players to work together in queues.
Existing equipment sold by vendors in all instances become viable again.
Economy:
The shift in importance of lower-end equipment provides a means for the new/lower players to sell the unequipped reward gear in the AH to earn the much needed AD to progress.
Dungeon-specific drops can return to the game further incenting the repeat of areas by higher character level players.
The mechanism provides a path for horizontal scaling as discussed elsewhere in this CDP.
Risks & Concerns
Storage space needs to be provided for additional equipment sets. Limits to the number and size of bags and bank slots need to be increased.
The ability tokens need to be meaningful/useful to the players. They need to be stackable for more impact (similar to the insignia upgrade system).
The success of this approach relies on the level requirements for an area remaining stable and not re-balanced every time a new mod is introduced (mob IL/HP creep)
And as for, "fundamentally change the game nw is," what I mean is, the change would be so significant that nw would no longer be nw. NW is not a game where it is mandatory to help others, if it ever became a game where it is mandatory to help others, there would be a not insubstantial number of players who quit because it is not the game they want to play.
From my own perspective, if someone seeks me out and asks for help with something, I am usually willing to go to (near enough) the ends of the earth to help them out . If people genuinely show a desire to learn, I am more than happy to help them. However, if you point me at some random person and say, "help this player," the chances are, I won't be happy doing it. I do not want to waste time trying to help someone who is belligerent and frankly, I don't think they want me wasting time trying to help them either.