Static Quest Awards

[Castano]

The options are either dimrets or telling the most active members to play less alfa. I'd say dimrets. But dimrets primarily in chacter level, not real time. Slowing static xp gain of higher level PCs, regardless of how fast they got to their level, best reduces level gaps around our virtual gaming table and allows people to best play together.

If by higher level you mean levels 3-6 then yes. The current issue is people using all our static content to zoom to level 6 in 1 month.

[t-ice]

If by higher level you mean levels 3-6 then yes. The current issue is people using all our static content to zoom to level 6 in 1 month.

Well, with most of our PCs at levels 5-10, why are we hating on low levels who want to be able to join in where the game is?

Yes we could well do with some per real time gap to cut the handful of most glaring extremes of xp per month. But primarily we need to slow down advancement rates at the high end. Particularly static content advancement rates.
So that :
1) low levels aren't forced to play catch-up with a constrained throttle to a target that speeds away. (especially when mid-high levels can best take advantage of static monsters)
2) high levels don't enthusiasticly speed off the edge of the world our game happens, finding their content -rich and time and rp -invested characters surrounded by a boring void in appropriate content.

[Galadorn]

Anybody at all disagree with the dimrets against "high level"?

I am not bored with the "ALFA content not scaled for high level".

I get low amount of DM attention, #1 reason usually IS because i'm high level.

I see many laid encounters on several servers that specifically say: "high levels stay away". So even the planned and placed encounters my high level could do... i'm not allowed to... (less XP there).

I play most times when there are not many PCs on, or none.

So........ those things... for me, make those statics ...helpful to keep a little pace.... Not to mention with all of the above.... high levels need MORE XP (of course) to make any new levels....

soooooooo.......dimrets hammer high levels way more than would be expected.... need more... get less....?

I KNOW why... but for me (and maybe others), not bored, low DM attention, not allowed most placed encounters, low PC count (no one to RP with often enough), and most of all, the need for a lot more XP by default to level....

Please? Don't put dimrets in!



((haha, here it comes.... GO GET 'IM! ))

[I-KP]

The higher the PC level the less well that PC interfaces with the current ALFA model so if dimrets slows down the rate at which said high level PC continues to effectively write him/herself out of the game then that’s probably a good thing.

Allowing high level characters in ALFA is very much the elephant in the room in my opinion, an opinion that I held when playing from Level 1 and an opinion now cemented with having reached a level that DMs find difficult to integrate into regular gaming. I’m not quite at the point where Tam’s level requires special treatment to be DMed adequately, as some players are, but I’m not far away from that point. When ALFA had a much larger player base the number of high level characters would have been higher thus somewhat enabling adequate DM love; however, even though the proportion of low to high level characters is probably about the same now as it was then, the much smaller player base equates to a far smaller number of high level characters, characters too dispersed across the various game zones and time zones to do anything with.

I appreciate this is one reason why alts are now allowed. Here’s the thing: I don’t want an alt. I want to keep playing my PC. I want Tam to easily integrate with the predominantly and perennially ‘low’ level player base without giving the DM additional headaches. (I’ve even offered to play a ‘fixer’ role and not actually take part in the nitty-gritty just to get involved here and there.) I’m not wedded to Tam’s stats or level, I’m wedded to the character. I’ve deliberately avoided levelling quickly over the years -- less than 2% of Tam’s XP comes from statics and combat combined -- because I knew the time would eventually come whereby the primary roadblock to getting involved would become Level. I’m not quite there yet, as I said, but I am beginning to feel its unwelcome influence.

[Zelknolf]

Well, with most of our PCs at levels 5-10

Eh... most of our PCs are 1-6. Do keep in mind that no single person here meets all of our active players-- kinda a big part of the point in the thread. There are about 85 people who log in at least some time right now, and we've had 125 unique characters logging in and acquiring at least some XP this month (obvious filter-- don't want stats on characters who never did anything), and so folk shouldn't be trusting anecdotal measures of normalcy.

[Rumple C]

I appreciate this is one reason why alts are now allowed. Here’s the thing: I don’t want an alt. I want to keep playing my PC. I want Tam to easily integrate with the predominantly and perennially ‘low’ level player base without giving the DM additional headaches. (I’ve even offered to play a ‘fixer’ role and not actually take part in the nitty-gritty just to get involved here and there.) I’m not wedded to Tam’s stats or level, I’m wedded to the character. I’ve deliberately avoided levelling quickly over the years -- less than 2% of Tam’s XP comes from statics and combat combined -- because I knew the time would eventually come whereby the primary roadblock to getting involved would become Level. I’m not quite there yet, as I said, but I am beginning to feel its unwelcome influence.

There are ways of retaining the same character and reducing or freezing xp to make them more compatible with lower levels.

Can always ask a friendly dm to remove xp every once in a while if you reach a level you (and others) are happy with.

[Ithildur]

I appreciate this is one reason why alts are now allowed. Here’s the thing: I don’t want an alt. I want to keep playing my PC. I want Tam to easily integrate with the predominantly and perennially ‘low’ level player base without giving the DM additional headaches. (I’ve even offered to play a ‘fixer’ role and not actually take part in the nitty-gritty just to get involved here and there.) I’m not wedded to Tam’s stats or level, I’m wedded to the character. I’ve deliberately avoided levelling quickly over the years -- less than 2% of Tam’s XP comes from statics and combat combined -- because I knew the time would eventually come whereby the primary roadblock to getting involved would become Level. I’m not quite there yet, as I said, but I am beginning to feel its unwelcome influence.

There are ways of retaining the same character and reducing or freezing xp to make them more compatible with lower levels.

Can always ask a friendly dm to remove xp every once in a while if you reach a level you (and others) are happy with.

Can I trade my xp for some loot?

[t-ice]

Well, with most of our PCs at levels 5-10

Eh... most of our PCs are 1-6. Do keep in mind that no single person here meets all of our active players-- kinda a big part of the point in the thread. There are about 85 people who log in at least some time right now, and we've had 125 unique characters logging in and acquiring at least some XP this month (obvious filter-- don't want stats on characters who never did anything), and so folk shouldn't be trusting anecdotal measures of normalcy.

Yes, but looking at all PCs is way misleading. What matters for the player is "when I log in, what level other PCs do I see on average". That means that one should weigh each PC by how much it is played on average. Not just put zero weight on PCs that aren't played at all and the same weight for everyone who logged in even for a minute a month. And of course those PCs that are played way more have way higher levels. That is why my "anecdotal evidence" of 5-10. But that data sure would be interesting to see, levels weighed by playing time.

(But yes I was clearly wrong saying "most our PCs are 5-10", and stand corrected.)

[I-KP]

I appreciate this is one reason why alts are now allowed. Here’s the thing: I don’t want an alt. I want to keep playing my PC. I want Tam to easily integrate with the predominantly and perennially ‘low’ level player base without giving the DM additional headaches. (I’ve even offered to play a ‘fixer’ role and not actually take part in the nitty-gritty just to get involved here and there.) I’m not wedded to Tam’s stats or level, I’m wedded to the character. I’ve deliberately avoided levelling quickly over the years -- less than 2% of Tam’s XP comes from statics and combat combined -- because I knew the time would eventually come whereby the primary roadblock to getting involved would become Level. I’m not quite there yet, as I said, but I am beginning to feel its unwelcome influence.

There are ways of retaining the same character and reducing or freezing xp to make them more compatible with lower levels.

Can always ask a friendly dm to remove xp every once in a while if you reach a level you (and others) are happy with.

Next time I see a DM I'll do that.

[Zelknolf]

Yes, but looking at all PCs is way misleading. What matters for the player is "when I log in, what level other PCs do I see on average". That means that one should weigh each PC by how much it is played on average. Not just put zero weight on PCs that aren't played at all and the same weight for everyone who logged in even for a minute a month. And of course those PCs that are played way more have way higher levels. That is why my "anecdotal evidence" of 5-10. But that data sure would be interesting to see, levels weighed by playing time.

(But yes I was clearly wrong saying "most our PCs are 5-10", and stand corrected.)

And... when I log on and look around, it's closer to 3-7? It's still anecdotal-- and in a different context, even; I only really know peoples' levels on MS-- and it's therefore unreliable. If someone tried to make a formal decision based on that 3-7, I would surely be flapping my arms frantically and shouting to not do so. It would be a terrible idea.

But sure, there's a causal relationship between playing and getting XP. I imagine a different kind of report would be inventible, but I'm not sure that the best output is an average or a 'central' range (like... Persephone would certainly shift averages, but that's not really fair; the reality is that there's a very-available highbie in U.S. evenings -- means pretty much nothing to the folk in a T-Eyes campaign. Even though they've totally asked.)

I'm also not sure I buy the "farming is OK because these players are just trying to join the fun!" argument. I've had plenty of entirely-fulfilling RP with characters whose levels are widely different than my own (both as being a lowbie hiding behind Alyra's and Olaf's skirts, and as being a highbie with various other toons doing the hiding). Of course there's a special kind of fun that comes from being in a group of like-leveled folk, but you don't need to match their levels to join them, contribute meaningfully, and survive. That group of levels 5-10 can probably integrate a 3-4, and just tell said extra person to not melee anything and to take cover when fired on.

[Veilan]

Well, curbing wealth on top of the 1/lvl (or variation) static scheme to grow not so fast after 10 or so also helps with that, as it quite effectively limits power-spread (at least among non-full-progression-casters, but those are a whole own world of trouble).

You really want characters within "striking distance" of each other. As opposed to currently prominent trends in Admin, I believe that this is achieved easier on higher (average) levels than on lower ones, as you leave behind the silliness of DnD numbers for the starting levels. A push there - the approved toughness feat rework, +hp backpacks, - coupled with a dampening of the power spread between (higher) levels achieves better results (for partying) than increasing "turnaround" or new characters. A level 12 might reasonably easy party with a level 7 and a level 17, but trying to make a level 1, a level 6 and a level 11 fit is bound to be more trouble.

But anyway, yeah, I guess it doesn't matter for pure roleplaying and interaction. But hand on your heart - in the long run, if you have only that, it gets boring. You need some adventuar!1! to fuel your interactions and keep your character developing, numerical as well as personality-wise.

Cheers,

[Zelknolf]

trying to make a level 1, a level 6 and a level 11 fit is bound to be more trouble.

Eh... more trouble, but not that much more. Make that 1 into a 3 (which you can totally do without farming in a short time. Probably be able to get help from the 6 and the 11, too.) and it's downright reasonable.

Knowing the engine and equipping all of the characters for their levels helps, 'course-- if that 11 is a cleric and everyone's underwealth, he's gonna be lonely and the 3 and the 6 are probably gonna have a bad time. Excessive AoEs or "save v. being screwed" abilities require micromanaging the critters and liberal pausing. Intelligent bad guys who want prisoners instead of corpses let you work in a realistic chance of failure without murdering the lowbies. Such distributions also tend to respond very well to skill or strategy based challenges (provided they're different character classes; if that's three clerics, the level 11 is going to solve the heavy rock, the locked door, and the magic-rune-activated bridge-- if that's a fighter, a rogue, and a cleric, everyone's important!). Tend to respond reasonably well to turn-based action, too.

[Regas]

Just putting my player hat on here a moment ( as opposed to PA hat), for me anyway it's really not an issue to play with or dm different level players. As a player, my group has regularly worked in pcs of lower level, and the group has evolved to the 9 to 11 level. We have fun, challenging sessions and really have no issue at all with levels. Oft times over the last year players have joined the session with low level pcs that have particular skills much needed by the party that have added great fun and dimension for the group as well as the lower level pc.

As for dming, I don't mind high level pcs at all- I do prefer to have the lows mids and highs sorted by group, but certainly have no issue challenging or having fun dming with high level pcs. The issue I think is lack of player density, and lack of DM time.

Our high level pcs that go out wandering the servers alone have a fair chance of dying too, as we've seen over the last year.

As far as issues with statics, I suppose it comes in two flavors. One is new pcs grinding through statics to quickly level. The other is pcs grinding risk-less, repeatable statics for extra xp that is maybe a bit ooc- done by high level pcs. I think the issues of wealth and level spreads are a separate discussion, and while tangential to quest xp discussions, probably warrant their own discussion separate from here.