test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

CDP Topic: Rewards & Progression

1141517192023

Comments

  • hexngone#5489 hexngone Member Posts: 350 Arc User
    Workshop Expansion Leveling Progression Requirement Adjustment

    Feedback Overview

    Profession Workshop levels control production capacity, yet the requirements for advancement/progression rely on character level which is controlled by XP earned outside the workshop activity.
    Currently the Mod 15 Workshop level expansion gates/quests are based on character levels that are unrelated to produce the required Lady Begum items. As a result characters can earn the proper number of credits to upgrade, but cannot until they gain enough XP to reach a specific character level.
    The quests enabling the upgrading of the workshop need to be gated by workshop/Begam requirements or Artisan level and not character level.

    Current Requirements
    Workshop level 2 - Profession skill to level 20
    Workshop level 3 - Profession skill to level 30, character to level 30 - Speak with Lady Begum
    - Profession skill to level 40, character to level 40 - Lessons Learned
    - Profession skill to level 50, character to level 50 - A Box for Knox
    - Character to level 60 - Facilities Upgrade
    Workshop level 4 - level 70


    Feedback Goal
    Adjust the gating for Workshop expansion to depend solely on the ability to meet Lady Bugam credit requirements.

    Feedback Functionality
    Requirements should be:
    Workshop Level 2 - Profession skill to level 20
    Workshop level 3 - Profession skill to level 30 - get Speak with Lady Begum quest
    - Profession skill to level 40 - get Lessons Learned quest
    - Profession skill to level 50 - get A Box for Knox quest
    - Profession skill to level 60, accumulate 500,000 credits - Facilities Upgrade quest

    Ease of implementation:
    Remove character level gates from quests that do not involve combat XP
    DO NOT add combat XP to professions (there is already too much in the game)


    Risks & Concerns
    Some may cite gold farming, but those with multiple alts know that they earn their production by the time they spend clicking endlessly and are bound by the Morale bank and time.
    Bots should be detected and eliminated in some other method than adding layers of unrelated requirements to tasks.
  • hexngone#5489 hexngone Member Posts: 350 Arc User
    Seal Vendor Reward Progression

    Feedback Overview
    Before mod 16, skirmishes rewarded 60 Seals of the Crown per dungeon/skirmish run and 20 per Demonic encounter. A full set of gear (Primal) costs 3900 seals, or 65 runs. That is over two months of daily random dungeon/skirmish runs.
    When mod 16 was introduced the reward for the time invested became rather worthless (due to IL/level changes) without a direct upgrade path.
    This submission provides a suggestion for upgrading old gear for use in new releases.

    Feedback Goal
    Provide a clear and simple upgrade path for gear earned with legacy Seal currency
    Provide an equitable exchange rate for all legacy seal types (currently Crown seals cannot be exchanged for Mountain/Deep seals)
    Restore respect for the time invested by players in the game and minimize the waste from legacy gear

    Ease of implementation
    Allow the exchange of unbound equipment earned with seals for current seal currency.
    Allow old bound equipment purchased with seals to be upgraded with new seals.
    Assure that all legacy seals have an established exchange rate with the seal vendor

    Examples:
    1) Unequipped Spy Guild Ring can be exchanged for 100 seals of the Deep (300 mountain seals)
    2) Equipped Primal Off-hand weapon can be exchanged for 30 seals of the Deep
    3) 2 Equipped Primal Raid Rings + 260 Seals of the Deep can purchase a Protege Raid Ring

    Risks & Concerns
    Introduces more complexity to the Seal Trader payment system - this could be minimized by only providing credits for old equipment

  • thefiresidecatthefiresidecat Member Posts: 4,486 Arc User
    edited February 2020

    haden42ee said:

    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.
    1. Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
    2. Not everyone is good at teaching, not everyone is good at learning.
    3. 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.
    4. Some people don't want to have people helping them out.
    5. 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.

    [1] https://gaming.stackexchange.com/a/113172
    this shows how little I cared. I didn't actually read. imo if a mentor program goes in it should be any end game player who has completed the content. It shouldn't have anything to do with the end gamers progression in anyway. the end gamer should get a chest like they would at the end of a dungeon for a 20 minute activity. or if you include people that are clearly noob in your dungeon runs you should get a hearty bonus. like double chest or something. that's really it.

    edit, don't remember who said this and I'm not going to go hunting for it but I do really like the idea of just tying it to strongholds and giving guildmarks in return for help.
    Post edited by thefiresidecat on
  • thefiresidecatthefiresidecat Member Posts: 4,486 Arc User
    For Mastercraft I would support new types of things being added but I do not support the types of things being crafted being taken away. why wouldn't we do gear? Also I think there is an importance on keeping early levels of Mastercrafting and skill node items relevant. I think if a bonus is craftable it should be for certain gear and only outdated mastercraft gear to be brought up to date for a new mod with particular bonus's relevant for certain gear only so you can't just put the best on everything.
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User

    haden42ee said:

    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.
    1. Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
    2. Not everyone is good at teaching, not everyone is good at learning.
    3. 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.
    4. Some people don't want to have people helping them out.
    5. 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.

    [1] https://gaming.stackexchange.com/a/113172
    I disagree with this as well. It can be an alternative method to progress, but it should not be the most effective. There is a portion of the game that cares about efficiency. If this is the most effective method, they will feel forced to do it and the chances are that particular portion of the game is also not exactly the best type of player to be a mentor.
  • shrineerune#9386 shrineerune Member Posts: 48 Arc User



    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?

    Super agree.

    I think this is still on topic, due to it being about Rewards and experience of Progress in a story. If not, I totally understand removal of the post.

    I just wanted to emphasize that for some of us (and I don't know what percentage of your customers), it is the very best kind of reward and progress to get a bit of story and a community based voice actor. An example of this was Rob Salvatore's work, which was part of the reason that I came here. I cannot express how much fun I had running his content and taking screenshots with the various characters, or how I didn't look up any spoilers so was genuinely surprised when certain events took place. I thought Acquisitions Incorporated was also really a fun thing to bring in, although maybe it suffered a bit from the grinding nature of the campaign. There were moments that were priceless though, like when my character could climb up a piece inspired by the artwork of David Trampier and steal the jewel from the eye. That was brilliant! One of my favorite moments playing! As someone who poured over his artwork as a kid, it was actually emotional for me.

    I was similarly pleased to hear Satine Phoenix as one of the voice actors, as she is a genuinely delightful member of the D&D community and I didn't know she'd be part of Undermountain. I love those moments of discovery!

    I've wondered if you could maybe get Jason Carl involved in some writing, as he runs a good tabletop game himself and also has extensive background with D&D? There are so many folks out there with proven records with the story material and rulebooks, and a lot of folks that may not be SAG members but are well known to people that watch or listen to popular podcasts and such.

    Anyway, one of the things that sometimes makes me sad when I listen to other people's experiences is that they seem to be having a stressful or boring time with Neverwinter. I don't play games that stress or bore me. I don't play with spread sheets, spoilers, or a lot of competitiveness (but don't knock anyone that does as that is a totally valid way to approach things). I have a lot of genuine fun with Neverwinter. If I don't, then I log out. I've been playing pretty consistently for over a year, so you can tell that I love this game!

    I hope that we'll be seeing more progress that may be guided a bit by community writers, and more voice acting by community personalities. We had some outstanding Foundry writers. Maybe you could talk to some of the most popular ones, and see if they could be involved? That could ease some of the pain of losing the Foundry for good. It could be a way to not bring back the Foundry, but reward and celebrate what the Foundry was and the folks that made it outstanding? If you want to know some that helped you build worlds, they did!

    I get that writers and actors are expensive and if resources are put toward one project they have to be pulled from another, so this may not be something that can be done at this time. I just wanted to say that for me, unlocking more stuff like this would be the most outstanding feeling of progress and reward. I've been playing MMOs since Everquest (and with characters that now find themselves here), and I rarely remember the mechanics or even bugs. I remember how they made me feel.

  • tchefi#6735 tchefi Member Posts: 309 Arc User
    edited February 2020


    I was similarly pleased to hear Satine Phoenix as one of the voice actors, as she is a genuinely delightful member of the D&D community and I didn't know she'd be part of Undermountain. I love those moments of discovery!

    Hope they won't forget other localizations in this mater :P. French has a great voice acting casting for Barovia, with the cherry of the pie : the enormous official french doubler of Hugo Weaving (and some other deep voice actors), and his strobbing monotonous voice acting was a perfect match for Strahd. I was damn thrilled and exited, forearm hairs rising, when i heard the big boss of Barovia speaking for the first time in the campaign, resonnating a bit with Elrond/Smith Agent/V/Dr House.
    We also have voices coming from my childhood and my young adult gaming phase like Linu la'neral (same voice actor as 2002 Neverwinter Night and also the Princess Athena in Saint Seiya :P) and plenty of others (i can't pinpoint all the characters, but I notice at least one DBZ voice actor, and some familiar ones heard in very popular shows).

    Unfortunately, quality of french voices is not constant (some NPCs have, for me, some very average, if not poor, acting level ^^')

    I hope they will stick with the idea to invite/hire some huge guests time to time
  • krzrsmskrzrsms Member Posts: 163 Arc User



    I disagree with this as well. It can be an alternative method to progress, but it should not be the most effective. There is a portion of the game that cares about efficiency. If this is the most effective method, they will feel forced to do it and the chances are that particular portion of the game is also not exactly the best type of player to be a mentor.

    Yes there is a portion of this game that care about efficiency.. and that part encompasses the worst and most despised pieces of the game. People focus on efficiency because of a lack of any alternative. We run the same content thousands of times, we run it with the same eq, the same character stats because we have nothing else. The only thing left is to compare one run to another, how fast can we run it, how efficiently.

    For the people here that are actually bringing new ideas up instead of just negating them.. there is a theme that isn't about efficiency. Many of them are about creativity, cooperation, alternatives. ..choices.

    Rewards are about encouraging desired activity, not just unending profit. Adding a mentor relationship of some type could be an excellent addition. Certainly that kind of cooperation is something that people latch on to in this game. People have long commented on the toxicity of the Neverwinter community such as it is. The ones that don't, have usually by that time been able to find their mentor group, or guild and been able to take shelter from the rest. However for a newcomer this game is a nightmare. Moreso if you don't fall into one of the cliques that have grown up, or heaven forbid you post an independent thought in the forums lest it be shot down by the high and mighty.

    There certainly are people that like to help. They should be rewarded for doing so..

    My own thought is that it could also be integrated into the new achievements. Make achievements for finishing a dungeon/trial with certain metrics x amount of DPS for those classes, z healing .. maybe it takes finishing it 10 times with the above metrics.. whatever. At that point your 'qualified' as a mentor, and can queue up as such.

    By adding that tick mark for queuing you are stating you are volunteering as a mentor. Then the queue would prioritize grouping you with at least 1 player thats new to that dungeon. The mentor is expected to take the extra time needed to help win. How is this determined? On end of the dungeon .. over some moderate time minimum a dialog pops up to let the other players vote if the role was fulfilled. Perhaps they get rad or a special chest, whatever.

    Of course you're potentially doing hard content with a handicap. You may not finish, but that shouldn't be punished. After an expected time.. 1 hour in a dungeon say.. with participation measured as all players meeting activity metrics (dps, heals), it would be easy to determine that they tried. Pop up a dialogue to vote on abandoning the instance, and asking if the mentor did their job. If no the team abandons like we do now. If yes then the team leaves, with minor prizes to the mentor.Not the full chest prize of ending it, but some rad, or perhaps special transmutes chances as a drop into inventory.

    Award a token for every mentor success.. this could be used at a store like the legacy shop that gives things of known value. It could even just give legacy tokens without the need to make a whole new vendor.

    Above I have that 'new players' would be prioritized to the queue. Perhaps there would be a 'teach me' tickmark as well, that would put you in the new player position seeking help and instruction.

    Best of all these things reward people for doing things in game that we all say we like people doing, and does it using largely structures, dialogues, prizes, and metrics that already exist. With the right minimum time and activity metrics it doesn't even matter if someone 'bots' it or games it, as other simpler and less time consuming methods for that would exist.

    These mentor ideas we've come up with may seem complex for players to understand.. but thats ok, even desirable. That is content too. Give us something to figure out, another system to play.. and this time it helps bring along the next generation of players customers in a more supportive environment than we have today.
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User
    krzrsms said:



    Yes there is a portion of this game that care about efficiency.. and that part encompasses the worst and most despised pieces of the game. People focus on efficiency because of a lack of any alternative. We run the same content thousands of times, we run it with the same eq, the same character stats because we have nothing else. The only thing left is to compare one run to another, how fast can we run it, how efficiently.

    In your opinion. Efficiency in itself is a neutral term. It is not positive or negative. There are great people who care about efficiency, there are also awful people who care about efficiency, like everything else, it is a spectrum.
    krzrsms said:



    For the people here that are actually bringing new ideas up instead of just negating them.. there is a theme that isn't about efficiency. Many of them are about creativity, cooperation, alternatives. ..choices.

    I wrote a 16,000 word essay here bringing up new ideas. You probably didn't even read any of it. I think I can very safely say I have spent the most time out of anyone here thinking about this topic. I have also spent the most time suggesting new approaches. Discounting chris's comments, I have probably written more on this topic than every single other person in this thread combined. But yes, keep telling me how I am just, "negating ideas."

    But it is ok to dismiss all of that I guess, because you don't like the fact that someone disagrees with you, or thinks that not enough thought has been put into your ideas. Phase 2 of the CDP, is about, as chris put it, "distilling," ideas. In case you were not aware, the process of distillation involves refinement, purification and that part of that process is getting rid of impurities. Ideas are not sacred (neither yours nor mine), they can and should be challenged.
    krzrsms said:


    Rewards are about encouraging desired activity, not just unending profit. Adding a mentor relationship of some type could be an excellent addition. Certainly that kind of cooperation is something that people latch on to in this game. People have long commented on the toxicity of the Neverwinter community such as it is. The ones that don't, have usually by that time been able to find their mentor group, or guild and been able to take shelter from the rest. However for a newcomer this game is a nightmare. Moreso if you don't fall into one of the cliques that have grown up, or heaven forbid you post an independent thought in the forums lest it be shot down by the high and mighty.

    Rewards are about encouraging desired activity in the desired subset or group. If someone falls outside of that group, you probably don't want them to feel compelled to participate in that activity, because people who feel like they are forced to do something against their will usually act on that feeling in a negative, or undesired manner. There is a subset of players who cares about efficiency, which probably does not want to be spending time mentoring people. There are also people who do not want to be mentored. The first group of players, should not feel like they have to mentor other people in order to play and the second group should not feel like they have to learn.

    You can offer an optional reward for all the people who want to participate in such a system, but it should be just that, optional. It should not be the most efficient way to progress and nor should it be required to progress, because that is when problems arise.
  • krzrsmskrzrsms Member Posts: 163 Arc User
    edited February 2020

    Why do you presume that the new players are not toxic?
    .
    I pug everyday, every dungeon I run.
    The rule is - I invite in the order of reply .
    From CR above I check and refuse if I think the party can not carry.
    So I have an extensive experience.
    The personality of the player does not depend on the rank of the enchantments.
    .
    And you are going to put me through a vote at the end too? That will generate entitlement behavior even in mostly nice players.
    So you try to avoid narcissistic behavior on top only to generate narcissistic behavior on the bottom.
    .

    That is an additional problem but not one that negates the benefit. I also PUG frequently. In doing so I've run into toxic players of both varieties.. however there is far less complaint in all the various forums of the powered being toxic in various ways than stories about newbs doing so. Besides as grizzled vets we've learned to shake off a lot of the toxic people. There is a group of newbs that don't survive the early period to learn that talent, who need systems that support them and help them find the helpful people they need.

    "From CR above I check and refuse if I think the party can not carry."

    This is in itself a problem. Not that its bad on you to do this. Its really the best we can hope for within the current system.

    This is a role playing game with no role playing. Its end of dungeon playing. We have groups and especially vets who are only rewarded for getting to the end of a dungeon and nothing else. If they deem to have charity and actually carry someone we're supposed to fawn over their generosity.? Its nice, but we know exactly how well this lack of an organized system works, and that is that it promotes a toxic atmosphere of people gatekeeping who can go while still being able to get a finish. Its the system we have right now, which has resulted in the toxicity problem that we have right now.

    There should be some benefit for the mentor relationship without a finish as thats still a learning experience.

    "And you are going to put me through a vote at the end too? "

    In the scenario I described... Did you click on the checkmark 'I want to be a mentor' while queueing? If so, then yes. If you don't then you queue as normal.

    By prioritizing mentors to get at least 1 new player or someone who marks that they want instruction in their group it also channels some number away from those who don't want to. Dont mark the box and you would tend (to varying degrees) to get fewer new players or those that self describe as needing help. Both groups benefit.

    "The rule is - I invite in the order of reply ."
    Also this is more of a private queue PUG that you're describing here. This idea would work only for random queues. If you're inviting people yourself, presumably you have your own plan going on and don't want or need incentives to act nicely.
  • micky1p00micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,462 Arc User
    How exactly that idea works?

    It is relatively fast to get from start to the LoMM level of end-game. And the plan as described by the Devs is to get this much shorter.
    So we get "top heavy", I need a mandatory mentorrie to progress, so we hunt new players like fresh kill in the Savanna?

    I'm not against rewarding mentoring, but IMO forced setup will be detrimental to everyone. There should be a system of incentive and balance to counter abuse + the system can't be too incentivized so there will not be people that are only there for the reward.

    hmm maybe this is why teachers in most countries are underpaid
  • krzrsmskrzrsms Member Posts: 163 Arc User
    edited February 2020


    The personality of the player does not depend on the rank of the enchantments.

    Had a further thought on this..

    It kinda does depend on the rank of enchantments. Obviously not in a direct manner.

    I was reminded of times when we still had salvage. I would happily go with low IL guildies and even rand queue sometimes to just support and get them through. Nothing was a challenge at that point, most of them I could have solod. I'd hold some of my fire and rescue them when they got in trouble, maybe offer hints and tips. Getting to the end didnt matter because there was absolutely nothing of worth in the end chest. Same story before and after that loot table rebalancing they promoted.

    What WAS nice however was that I would pick up the random purples for salvage. Getting 5-10k for a 45 minute dungeon run. I wasn't getting rich, but also it was a bit of a paycheck for coming in. I could definitely have made more AD through other activities, but it was still a nice perk.

    So .. point being I didnt have need of them. I volunteered to be there. I wasn't a tyrant while there, and I imagine you're not either. It was a role I chose, and got rewarded for both through fun AND materially through salvage AD. It made it an easy choice to raise my hand and come along when people were filling up a group for a dungeon that was going to be challenging for them, but was insignificant for me.

    Meanwhile they DO need me. They wouldn't finish the dungeon without me. There are some that don't respond well to this. But I got far more appreciation than scorn for helping them out.

    Rewards are things that encourage good behaviour, activities that the game wants to encourage players to pursue. There should be an incentive for this good behaviour which people say they want to see, and that even the detractors say they take on themselves. ...but doing it ourselves is not a system, and more people could be encouraged to play that mentor role. Positive reinforcement works.
  • jules#6770 jules Member Posts: 671 Arc User
    edited February 2020
    A mentoring system should in my eyes be a part of guild/alliance system.
    In a theoretical world where guildmarks would have a more obvious value (or systems tied to guildmarks are stable) this could be a way of rewarding a mentoring program.
    In my wildest fantasies, being a guild member as a new player would be the norm you have to opt out. Like, for example:
    - New players play through the Tutorial and are placed in a sort of starter guild (it can be a tutorial guild, whatever) and they can leave any time, but only after they went through a tutorial on what guilds are, how they work, how you contribute and how guild marks can be used.
    - They can leave to join any "real" guild they want to join, or, as we have now, join a guild they want from the scratch if they have an invite.
    Pros would be instant access to a guild chat to ask questions without having to use zone chat to scream into the void.
    Cons are, how to manage starter guilds, would it be a normal guild or only a tutorial, if the second it would be possible to link the chat to it's own channel that vets have access to, too.

    My personal wet dream:
    Tie mentoring to guild progression / as a guild mark farming method / keep associated systems important enough / give frequent reasons to progress the guild.

    Guild Vets usually WANT to help their fellow guild members. They ARE already mentoring.
    - bye bye -
  • modestmouse75modestmouse75 Member Posts: 61 Arc User
    edited February 2020
    haden42ee said:

    Feedback Overview
    Meaningful player to player interaction is arguably the most potent retention tool available for an MMO. Neverwinter should implement a reward system for mentor-mentee pair-ups when playing through challenging game content (both open world questing and queued content).
    Replace some of the existing rewards (specifically the daily random queue AD rewards) with a new reward structure that incentivises meaningful social interaction between a veteran player (mentor) and a newer player (mentee).
    Feedback Functionality
    Player to player interaction is naturally a part of every MMO. In Neverwinter, we currently have guilds/alliances, zone/custom chat, and multiplayer content (open world parties, queued instances) as the primary channels/drivers for interaction.

    I propose a system to explicitly track and reward a specific type of two-player interaction while completing any challenging content in game - one between the mentor (teacher) and the mentee (student).

    Just imagine - what if a new player, fresh out of character creation, would be met on the beach by an experienced player? One who is rewarded by built-in game mechanics for being a good mentor. What if that mentor-mentee pairing was in effect throughout the game, offering rewards to both mentor and mentee for completing challenging content together?

    It is not terribly difficult to imagine an automated system that keeps track of player expertise with a class and role, measured by completed content. For example, if you’ve successfully completed challenging content in a given difficulty range as a cleric healer a couple of times, it stands to reason that you would be able to advise a new cleric healer. On the other hand, a veteran cleric healer with tens or hundreds of completions probably has good advice for you to further improve your game, making her a good mentor for you in turn.
    I’m currently envisioning 3 game features for mentoring:
    * A private, persistent mentoring chat channel. Entries should be annotated with timestamp and position (mentor/mentee) in addition to character’s name.
    * (Optional) in-game voice chat between mentor and mentee, instead of current party-wide voice chat.
    * Shadow copy of mentee’s action bar visible to mentor (in addition to his/her own action bar). This way, the mentor can see the powers selected by the mentee and also advise on the proper timing of actions.
    Note that you wouldn't be required to actively play that character at the time you’re mentoring - you can play your rogue character while giving advice to cleric healer mentee.
    This system would obviously need a list of spoken languages for each player (in order of preference for those of us who speak more than 1 language).
    I expect that queued content needs to be changed somewhat to better match this new system. Instead of 5-man content, they should probably be balanced for 4 or 6 players (2 or 3 mentor-mentee pairs). This actually creates an opportunity for varying difficulty without changing the content - something balanced around 4 players would naturally be easier for 6 players and harder for 2 players.
    Risks & Concerns
    There’s a subset of players who sometimes prefer not to engage with other players while playing the game (even though it’s an MMO). The new system should act as a carrot, not as a stick when it comes to those players - rewarding desired social behavior, but not outright prohibiting solo adventuring when one feels like it.

    I think this is one of the best ideas I have seen!! Many are trying to help new players as they meet them, and a few guilds out there invite new players in so they can help guide them and make sure they find their way through all the different avenues in the game.
    @haden42ee
    To have a reward system in place would, I hope, encourage more to help people and assist them with their journey. One thing I would add though is the option for the new player to choose whither they want the help or not.

    Some do prefer playing blind with no help. I do not know all the technical points of how this would be implemented into the game but to be able to have the ability to see how they are doing and when they are doing their quests would also help to know if they are “ serious” about the game or not. To not waste one’s time as well.

    I would be interested in seeing how this could be done and excited to test this out if it comes available!




    @thefabricant
    I am staunchly against this proposal.

    1. Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
    2. Not everyone is good at teaching, not everyone is good at learning.
    3. 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.
    4. Some people don't want to have people helping them out.
    5. 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 truly do not understand why you seem to feel that anywhere in there you saw that he was MAKING YOU do this and that if would affect YOUR progress?
    Also, nowhere in there do I see you being forced to interact in helping another person. Sadly, this tells a lot about you as a person and your character.
    Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
    There would also be the option of the person choosing to have the help or not in my suggestions.
    image
    SW:Mouse
    OP:MisfitMouse
  • tom#6998 tom Member Posts: 952 Arc User

    haden42ee said:

    Feedback Overview
    Meaningful player to player interaction is arguably the most potent retention tool available for an MMO. Neverwinter should implement a reward system for mentor-mentee pair-ups when playing through challenging game content (both open world questing and queued content).
    Replace some of the existing rewards (specifically the daily random queue AD rewards) with a new reward structure that incentivises meaningful social interaction between a veteran player (mentor) and a newer player (mentee).
    Feedback Functionality
    Player to player interaction is naturally a part of every MMO. In Neverwinter, we currently have guilds/alliances, zone/custom chat, and multiplayer content (open world parties, queued instances) as the primary channels/drivers for interaction.

    I propose a system to explicitly track and reward a specific type of two-player interaction while completing any challenging content in game - one between the mentor (teacher) and the mentee (student).

    Just imagine - what if a new player, fresh out of character creation, would be met on the beach by an experienced player? One who is rewarded by built-in game mechanics for being a good mentor. What if that mentor-mentee pairing was in effect throughout the game, offering rewards to both mentor and mentee for completing challenging content together?

    It is not terribly difficult to imagine an automated system that keeps track of player expertise with a class and role, measured by completed content. For example, if you’ve successfully completed challenging content in a given difficulty range as a cleric healer a couple of times, it stands to reason that you would be able to advise a new cleric healer. On the other hand, a veteran cleric healer with tens or hundreds of completions probably has good advice for you to further improve your game, making her a good mentor for you in turn.
    I’m currently envisioning 3 game features for mentoring:
    * A private, persistent mentoring chat channel. Entries should be annotated with timestamp and position (mentor/mentee) in addition to character’s name.
    * (Optional) in-game voice chat between mentor and mentee, instead of current party-wide voice chat.
    * Shadow copy of mentee’s action bar visible to mentor (in addition to his/her own action bar). This way, the mentor can see the powers selected by the mentee and also advise on the proper timing of actions.
    Note that you wouldn't be required to actively play that character at the time you’re mentoring - you can play your rogue character while giving advice to cleric healer mentee.
    This system would obviously need a list of spoken languages for each player (in order of preference for those of us who speak more than 1 language).
    I expect that queued content needs to be changed somewhat to better match this new system. Instead of 5-man content, they should probably be balanced for 4 or 6 players (2 or 3 mentor-mentee pairs). This actually creates an opportunity for varying difficulty without changing the content - something balanced around 4 players would naturally be easier for 6 players and harder for 2 players.
    Risks & Concerns
    There’s a subset of players who sometimes prefer not to engage with other players while playing the game (even though it’s an MMO). The new system should act as a carrot, not as a stick when it comes to those players - rewarding desired social behavior, but not outright prohibiting solo adventuring when one feels like it.

    I think this is one of the best ideas I have seen!! Many are trying to help new players as they meet them, and a few guilds out there invite new players in so they can help guide them and make sure they find their way through all the different avenues in the game.
    @haden42ee
    To have a reward system in place would, I hope, encourage more to help people and assist them with their journey. One thing I would add though is the option for the new player to choose whither they want the help or not.

    Some do prefer playing blind with no help. I do not know all the technical points of how this would be implemented into the game but to be able to have the ability to see how they are doing and when they are doing their quests would also help to know if they are “ serious” about the game or not. To not waste one’s time as well.

    I would be interested in seeing how this could be done and excited to test this out if it comes available!




    @thefabricant
    I am staunchly against this proposal.

    1. Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
    2. Not everyone is good at teaching, not everyone is good at learning.
    3. 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.
    4. Some people don't want to have people helping them out.
    5. 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 truly do not understand why you seem to feel that anywhere in there you saw that he was MAKING YOU do this and that if would affect YOUR progress?
    Also, nowhere in there do I see you being forced to interact in helping another person. Sadly, this tells a lot about you as a person and your character.
    Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
    There would also be the option of the person choosing to have the help or not in my suggestions.
    making mentoring new players the best way to improve your character, while not forcing someone outright, defenitly would make me feel forced to do it. I also dont think its needed to throw shade at someones character just because you dont agree with his opinion.
    Having rewards for players that use their time to help new players, great Idea.
    Making it the best way to aquire the newest gear, big no from me.
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User
    edited February 2020



    I truly do not understand why you seem to feel that anywhere in there you saw that he was MAKING YOU do this and that if would affect YOUR progress?
    Also, nowhere in there do I see you being forced to interact in helping another person. Sadly, this tells a lot about you as a person and your character.
    Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
    There would also be the option of the person choosing to have the help or not in my suggestions.

    Here was what I was responding to, I have cut down to the important part:
    haden42ee said:



    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.

    The implication exists here that in order to be functional at endgame, you need to teach others. I don't know what you do for a living, but you sure as hell do not teach. I know teachers and I know the HAMSTER they get from students. I have comforted them on rough days when they have an absolute HAMSTER day dealing with people who do not want to be taught. They teach despite this, because they genuinely care.

    Not everyone is cut out to be a teacher. Not everyone should have to deal with that. I am not, that is for sure and this is not a game built around a teacher student relationship. There are many different player groups that exist here and most of the people in those groups would not make good teachers. Some also won't make good pupils. What you do not want, is for the people who are not good teachers to feel that they need to teach.
  • krzrsmskrzrsms Member Posts: 163 Arc User




    In your opinion. Efficiency in itself is a neutral term. It is not positive or negative. There are great people who care about efficiency, there are also awful people who care about efficiency, like everything else, it is a spectrum.

    Well yes in my opinion. Thats the one I have, and the only one I would present. Just as a focus on efficiency as a aspirational goal is your opinion.

    Efficiency in itself is not a neutral term, it is a technical term, a clinical term. Its one that describes the worth of a creative endeavor as entirely quantifiable within a certain set of metrics.


    I wrote a 16,000 word essay here bringing up new ideas. You probably didn't even read any of it. I think I can very safely say I have spent the most time out of anyone here thinking about this topic. I have also spent the most time suggesting new approaches. Discounting chris's comments, I have probably written more on this topic than every single other person in this thread combined. But yes, keep telling me how I am just, "negating ideas."

    But it is ok to dismiss all of that I guess, because you don't like the fact that someone disagrees with you, or thinks that not enough thought has been put into your ideas. Phase 2 of the CDP, is about, as chris put it, "distilling," ideas. In case you were not aware, the process of distillation involves refinement, purification and that part of that process is getting rid of impurities. Ideas are not sacred (neither yours nor mine), they can and should be challenged.

    Yes you did. ..and thats your normal tactic. You buy your way into a conversation with an initial, granted often high quality post. Then you proceed to dominate the conversation and negate other ideas as though you feel the need to pre-filter them before any other conversation can begin.

    I did read your idea. It was fine, a bit dry and boring, but they were cogent ideas. Though I disagreed with the direction that was taken you'll see I did not directly respond to it, because thats not my position here. Its not useful. This is a place for Chris to see what new ideas we can bring to the table for the improvement of the game for all of us. Thats explicitly what he's asked of us.

    Since that initial post you and a few others have gone to significant effort to purely negate other voices. You have taken hardly any space to support or expand, merely choosing to state how things 'can't be', would affect market prices, or would make 'neverwinter cease to be neverwinter'. Again.. thats above your paygrade.


    Rewards are about encouraging desired activity in the desired subset or group. If someone falls outside of that group, you probably don't want them to feel compelled to participate in that activity, because people who feel like they are forced to do something against their will usually act on that feeling in a negative, or undesired manner. There is a subset of players who cares about efficiency, which probably does not want to be spending time mentoring people. There are also people who do not want to be mentored. The first group of players, should not feel like they have to mentor other people in order to play and the second group should not feel like they have to learn.

    You can offer an optional reward for all the people who want to participate in such a system, but it should be just that, optional. It should not be the most efficient way to progress and nor should it be required to progress, because that is when problems arise.

    So... speaking of not reading.

    Note that the idea I wrote started out with a voluntary act of identifying yourself as a mentor. It also specified a minimum time would be needed as one of the metrics. This takes efficiency off the table as something for making ad or prizes. With that people who are centering on that are not 'compelled' to take this role on in the game. It also works to channel some of the 'needy' 'carry me' players away from those that are efficiency minded, which would actually improve their experience. It helps (obvisouly doesnt solve, just helps) deal with one of the conditions that they frequently complain about which is news slowing down their runs.

    At the moment all we have is efficiency.. its time to start promoting systems that reward and encourage other types of play, especially since this could make greater use of older content instead of always pushing for the next bigger thing. (which of course forward development should also occur, but this allows us to work on rewarding the use of older areas which this game should use as an asset instead of a liability as it does now.
  • krzrsmskrzrsms Member Posts: 163 Arc User

    I did not said I refuse a slow run or a chance run.
    But to whom benefit would be if I look at my party and know for sure we can not pass the first boss, but still invite?
    I am not an irrational person.
    .
    Also , having the rewards tied to vote is placing the mentor in a clearly abusive situation.
    The mentor must endure whatever bc it might be voted down and the new player can do whatever bc= hey, you depend on my click.
    Would you ever go to a work place where you are paid on a vote base?
    No agreement on minimum payment , on 3 party evaluation, on minimum requirements?
    Then you have no place mentoring anybody.

    Who would benefit? Everyone, if you're any fun to play with. Again this plays into the whole idea that only possible reward of a dungeon run is opening the chest in the end. In the current game this is the situation we live with, so is obviously the primary way to achieve a successful dungeon run and not have 'leet' requirements. That doesn't mean we should aspire to having systems that do better than this and set us up for more cooperative game play and potentially even more rewarding play of dungeons even if you dont have the group to finish all of it.

    "Would you ever go to a work place where you are paid on a vote base?"
    Every day man. ..every day.

    "Also , having the rewards tied to vote is placing the mentor in a clearly abusive situation."
    No it isn't. Have you never reviewed someone's work? Taken a survey? Given a tip for service? (I realize the last is a bit american centric, but still its an example).

    Again we're not talking a BIS TOMM run here. We're talking a BIS character taking time to walk others through something they could otherwise solo. They dont NEED this reward. This system is about encouraging and enabling 2 groups to find each other. 1 group is clearly needing, or would like to indicate that they want help. The other group is voluntarily indicating that they want to teach and mentor others. Then you let these people reward each other for having fun together instead of ONLY rewarding a full completion as we do today.

    I do take your point. There will be some people that don't get along. There will be some clicks withheld. This is nothing we don't currently experience with vote kicking, afking, etc. The point is attempt to reward people who act nicely not limit everything because I ran into someone mean once.

    I think my idea has been described well enough here though. I look forward to reading others you may have which would improve the situation in another manner.
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User
    krzrsms said:



    Well yes in my opinion. Thats the one I have, and the only one I would present. Just as a focus on efficiency as a aspirational goal is your opinion.

    Efficiency in itself is not a neutral term, it is a technical term, a clinical term. Its one that describes the worth of a creative endeavor as entirely quantifiable within a certain set of metrics.

    Whether someone is efficient or not tells you nothing about whether or not they are a good or bad person, it just tells you about how well they perform the task they set out to do. It is "neutral" with regards to their character. Someone could be very efficient at feeding the homeless for example and you would say they are a good person.
    krzrsms said:



    I did read your idea. It was fine, a bit dry and boring, but they were cogent ideas. Though I disagreed with the direction that was taken you'll see I did not directly respond to it, because thats not my position here. Its not useful. This is a place for Chris to see what new ideas we can bring to the table for the improvement of the game for all of us. Thats explicitly what he's asked of us.

    Since that initial post you and a few others have gone to significant effort to purely negate other voices. You have taken hardly any space to support or expand, merely choosing to state how things 'can't be', would affect market prices, or would make 'neverwinter cease to be neverwinter'. Again.. thats above your paygrade.

    Except its not, as you have put it, above my paygrade. Here is chris, explicitly asking us to constructively challenge other players posts.

    Guess what I am doing, I am constructively challenging other players posts. I can link you more examples if you like, of him quoting people and asking others participating in the CDP, what their opinions on that idea are. You don't like it? Fine, but it is not your place to tell others that it is above their pay grade to comment on it.
    krzrsms said:




    Rewards are about encouraging desired activity in the desired subset or group. If someone falls outside of that group, you probably don't want them to feel compelled to participate in that activity, because people who feel like they are forced to do something against their will usually act on that feeling in a negative, or undesired manner. There is a subset of players who cares about efficiency, which probably does not want to be spending time mentoring people. There are also people who do not want to be mentored. The first group of players, should not feel like they have to mentor other people in order to play and the second group should not feel like they have to learn.

    You can offer an optional reward for all the people who want to participate in such a system, but it should be just that, optional. It should not be the most efficient way to progress and nor should it be required to progress, because that is when problems arise.

    So... speaking of not reading.

    Note that the idea I wrote started out with a voluntary act of identifying yourself as a mentor. It also specified a minimum time would be needed as one of the metrics. This takes efficiency off the table as something for making ad or prizes. With that people who are centering on that are not 'compelled' to take this role on in the game. It also works to channel some of the 'needy' 'carry me' players away from those that are efficiency minded, which would actually improve their experience. It helps (obvisouly doesnt solve, just helps) deal with one of the conditions that they frequently complain about which is news slowing down their runs.

    At the moment all we have is efficiency.. its time to start promoting systems that reward and encourage other types of play, especially since this could make greater use of older content instead of always pushing for the next bigger thing. (which of course forward development should also occur, but this allows us to work on rewarding the use of older areas which this game should use as an asset instead of a liability as it does now.
    The idea I was initially responding to implicitly implied the goal would be to move more and more of character progression into a mentor system. Following that logic, eventually, the most efficient way to progress would be through mentoring others and at that point problems will occur. As I said in response to @tchefi#6735, so long as nobody feels like in order to progress their character, they have to mentor others, I am ambivalent towards the system, but the way the idea I was responding to was structured it was heavily implied this is not the case.
  • modestmouse75modestmouse75 Member Posts: 61 Arc User



    I truly do not understand why you seem to feel that anywhere in there you saw that he was MAKING YOU do this and that if would affect YOUR progress?
    Also, nowhere in there do I see you being forced to interact in helping another person. Sadly, this tells a lot about you as a person and your character.
    Why should my progress depend on the progress of someone else. Different players play at different rates.
    There would also be the option of the person choosing to have the help or not in my suggestions.


    The implication exists here that in order to be functional at endgame, you need to teach others. I don't know what you do for a living, but you sure as hell do not teach. I know teachers and I know the HAMSTER they get from students. I have comforted them on rough days when they have an absolute HAMSTER day dealing with people who do not want to be taught. They teach despite this, because they genuinely care.

    Not everyone is cut out to be a teacher. Not everyone should have to deal with that. I am not, that is for sure and this is not a game built around a teacher student relationship. There are many different player groups that exist here and most of the people in those groups would not make good teachers. Some also won't make good pupils. What you do not want, is for the people who are not good teachers to feel that they need to teach.
    I understand your frustration but you forget the part where I suggested that they have the option in beginning to opt out of taking the mentor.
    Side note: I have raised many children, not that I need to explain myself, so I do know what it is like to deal with teaching ones who do not want to be taught, only I didn't have someone to comfort me as I was a single mom.
    image
    SW:Mouse
    OP:MisfitMouse
This discussion has been closed.