WoW - Rest State
Author
I''m amazed this hasnt been brought up yet ... since the ripple it has around the blizzard forums.
Anyway ... here is the deal if you dont know
You have 4 states - Well Rested, Rested, Normal, Fatigued. You start at Well Rested. Based on the # of xp you get without logging or resting, will drop your state.
So it takes like N xp to go from Well Rested to Rested.
When you are anything BUT well rested you take an xp hit. Roughly -25% of the xp you would get if you were Well Rested each state. So fatigued you only get 25% of the normal xp.
The problem that people are complaining about is it takes 8 hours to get from ANY state to Well Rested. So if your rested or fatigued...it takes 8 hours to get back to Well Rested.
I''m curious as to what some of your thoughts are for this sytem and think anything like this can work?
First off, what are the goals of the system? Do you think its to slow down powergamers? or simply to slow down people on a whole so that the devs can complete higher content?
Second, do you think its fair to encourage people to sign off for a game they are paying to play?
I don''t like it. I know what they''re trying to do, but I think it unfairly penalizes people who like to run around and fight MOBs.
I also don''t think it even accomplishes the goal: slowing down power-levelers. They''re basically going to keep doing the exact same thing, only it will take 50% longer. The end result is you will have the exact same thing, only a few days later. There''s still going to be guilds full of level 60 super-D00DZ within the first week of launch.
Now granted, this isn''t going to hurt me a whole lot, I''ll have no problem logging out for 8 hours a day so I can sleep/eat/go to work.
I also don''t think it even accomplishes the goal: slowing down power-levelers. They''re basically going to keep doing the exact same thing, only it will take 50% longer. The end result is you will have the exact same thing, only a few days later. There''s still going to be guilds full of level 60 super-D00DZ within the first week of launch.
Now granted, this isn''t going to hurt me a whole lot, I''ll have no problem logging out for 8 hours a day so I can sleep/eat/go to work.
I believe that there should be something in the way of diminishing returns when it comes to online rpgs. The reason is, yes, to somewhat balance the game a bit between the casual and power gamers. While you''re never going to completely abolish the advantage that power gamers receive (nor do I think you should), the casual gamer should not be completely pushed aside and completely unable to compete. I can''t necessarily say that this is the best system (nor can anyone else, really, until it''s been thoroughly tested), but at least they''re doing something along those lines. Also, they''re not really encouraging players to stop playing the game, they''re simply slowing their progress if they play for excessive periods of time.
I am not in the beta but I did just read about this today. Penny arcade has a nice writeup on it.
On the surface it appears the goal is to simply slow down powergamers. It may have other side effects, such as allowing the developers to complete some of the high level content, as you mentioned. Or perhaps the goal is to prevent anyone from dieing from thirst in an internet cafe due to playing for 60 hours straight.
Whatever the goal is the question is, is this a good idea?
This is actually nothing new, just an old idea in a new wrapper. I can recall on old MUDs where once a player hit X exp in one 24 hour period he could no longer gain exp! Imagine if Blizzard did that! After 8 hours no more combat, sorry!
Anyhow I don''t like this exp limiter in any form. There are other, non-intrusive means to slow down level advancement, if that is truly the goal. Simply cutting down on low level exp is fairly effective. Meaning that if you are level 8 and the monster you killed is level 6 you get a percentage of the monster''s exp value. Make this percentage fairly low, or even 0%. Other options include making only quest kills count for full exp, making exp trickle in over time (you can gain all the exp you want, but only 10,000 points per level is applied each day) or require additional resources to raise a level (gold, time, magical spices, whatever). And the system can always be set up where the exp requirement for the higher levels is simply very steep.
DaveK
On the surface it appears the goal is to simply slow down powergamers. It may have other side effects, such as allowing the developers to complete some of the high level content, as you mentioned. Or perhaps the goal is to prevent anyone from dieing from thirst in an internet cafe due to playing for 60 hours straight.
Whatever the goal is the question is, is this a good idea?
This is actually nothing new, just an old idea in a new wrapper. I can recall on old MUDs where once a player hit X exp in one 24 hour period he could no longer gain exp! Imagine if Blizzard did that! After 8 hours no more combat, sorry!
Anyhow I don''t like this exp limiter in any form. There are other, non-intrusive means to slow down level advancement, if that is truly the goal. Simply cutting down on low level exp is fairly effective. Meaning that if you are level 8 and the monster you killed is level 6 you get a percentage of the monster''s exp value. Make this percentage fairly low, or even 0%. Other options include making only quest kills count for full exp, making exp trickle in over time (you can gain all the exp you want, but only 10,000 points per level is applied each day) or require additional resources to raise a level (gold, time, magical spices, whatever). And the system can always be set up where the exp requirement for the higher levels is simply very steep.
DaveK
Sounds as though it might be a first step towards games that impose health consciousness on the player.
I don''t know how long some people spend on Everquest per day, but lets be honest spending 8 hours a day on a game is bad for you. This may not be the main reason why they have created this rule.
I''ve often wondered about having games that only allow you to play for up to 2-3 hours a day. That would be quite interesting. Maybe having characters that go to sleep after a few hours.
I don''t know how long some people spend on Everquest per day, but lets be honest spending 8 hours a day on a game is bad for you. This may not be the main reason why they have created this rule.
I''ve often wondered about having games that only allow you to play for up to 2-3 hours a day. That would be quite interesting. Maybe having characters that go to sleep after a few hours.
Having a turn system would limit the amount of time players can spend on a game. Well, limit how much they can do anyhow.
Say each time they clicked the mouse was a turn, and each player had 1000 turns per day.
Or maybe its a bad idea...
DaveK
Say each time they clicked the mouse was a turn, and each player had 1000 turns per day.
Or maybe its a bad idea...
DaveK
Limiting the experiences that paying gamers want, especially for an MMO game, is a bad idea.
I think the idea of having a percentage of the XP be given to the player for killing "lower creatures" is a good idea. It will keep those people from constantly purging weak areas that new players will need to XP.
I don''t think the solution is to restrict the addicts, but simply to keep their XP-hording from affecting the experiences of the newer players.
Give the high level players motivation to go to areas that the new player will not (tough monsters) and allow them to have their fun. Simply put, there are going to be people who play the game solely to get a high rank.
One technique for keeping players relatively vincible could be to limit the XP they get after a certain amount of time in the game and reward them with other options.
The game world definately needs to detract people from staying in one area for repeated cleansing. Those XP-mongerers need to keep moving so that they cannot overburden a particular area of the game. At least if you run into one of them, they will be gone shortly.
I am not sure how WoW works yet (I don''t have time to play the beta, but I am really looking forward to the final game - Blizzard rarely disappoints), but I would like to see a system similiar to Diablo 2 in which groups of people in an area will raise the difficulty (and XP gains) of the enemies. However, in order to take part in such activities, a passing player should have to "be accepted" into that particular party in order to raise the stats of enemies for either group.
I''m assuming any boss areas (if there are bosses for certain missions) are "unreachable" by anyone who is not on that particular quest. I don''t see any good solution to allowing non-mission players to join in (or horde) boss battles if they have already completed the quest or have not reached a point in the game to join the quest.
Now that I am starting to get way off-track, I''ll bring this to a conclusion: Blizzard is one of the most talented (if not the most talented) developers in the world. I have faith in their abilities to design good games and I give them the benefit of the doubt that any "unreasonable techniques" are being tested simply to see if they can be controlled. If not, Blizzard knows how to handle the situation - the same way they handled Warcraft Adventures
I think the idea of having a percentage of the XP be given to the player for killing "lower creatures" is a good idea. It will keep those people from constantly purging weak areas that new players will need to XP.
I don''t think the solution is to restrict the addicts, but simply to keep their XP-hording from affecting the experiences of the newer players.
Give the high level players motivation to go to areas that the new player will not (tough monsters) and allow them to have their fun. Simply put, there are going to be people who play the game solely to get a high rank.
One technique for keeping players relatively vincible could be to limit the XP they get after a certain amount of time in the game and reward them with other options.
The game world definately needs to detract people from staying in one area for repeated cleansing. Those XP-mongerers need to keep moving so that they cannot overburden a particular area of the game. At least if you run into one of them, they will be gone shortly.
I am not sure how WoW works yet (I don''t have time to play the beta, but I am really looking forward to the final game - Blizzard rarely disappoints), but I would like to see a system similiar to Diablo 2 in which groups of people in an area will raise the difficulty (and XP gains) of the enemies. However, in order to take part in such activities, a passing player should have to "be accepted" into that particular party in order to raise the stats of enemies for either group.
I''m assuming any boss areas (if there are bosses for certain missions) are "unreachable" by anyone who is not on that particular quest. I don''t see any good solution to allowing non-mission players to join in (or horde) boss battles if they have already completed the quest or have not reached a point in the game to join the quest.
Now that I am starting to get way off-track, I''ll bring this to a conclusion: Blizzard is one of the most talented (if not the most talented) developers in the world. I have faith in their abilities to design good games and I give them the benefit of the doubt that any "unreasonable techniques" are being tested simply to see if they can be controlled. If not, Blizzard knows how to handle the situation - the same way they handled Warcraft Adventures
Ultima Online had power-hours. Asheron''s Call 2 has daily manas that last for one hour, and bi-weekly extra-power manas. Those are just well-marketed forms of the same concept. Goals:
- Prevent players from playing too much and become burned out or too addicted.
- Promote other aspects of the gameplay: alternative chars, crafting, exploration, socializing, etc.
- Give casual players some advantage during their limited time to encourage a balanced leveling curve.
- In general, encourage short play cycles for repetitive tasks.
Check out Gordon Walton''s presentation at GDC, he mentions the link between short play cycles and larger audiences:
http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2004/walton_gordon.ppt
Of course, the problem is that players feel penalized, while similar efforts were presented as "bonuses". They could have used a gradual curve instead of discrete steps, but this would probably make the whole process more tedious. By providing very specific, sharp boundaries, players can plan properly and avoid the "ok but just one more" syndrome that leads to addiction or burnout. Another interesting link in this regard is:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010427/hopson_01.htm
(Sidetrack: "addiction" is a word that scares more and more casual players)
In the Penny Arcade writeup, he mentions that his rest level didnt drop after more than four hours. I assume this is caused by the fact that he leveled during that time - interesting side-effect.
Most WoW betatesters are probably hardcore MMORPG gamers, and it''s to be expected that they dislike this feature, since it''s targetted specifically at their own way of playing. The fact that this feature was not part of the initial beta release encourages the feeling of being penalized.
My own view of the system is that it''s a step in the right direction, in the same way that Upkeep encouraged fast-paced gameplay in Warcraft 3.
- Prevent players from playing too much and become burned out or too addicted.
- Promote other aspects of the gameplay: alternative chars, crafting, exploration, socializing, etc.
- Give casual players some advantage during their limited time to encourage a balanced leveling curve.
- In general, encourage short play cycles for repetitive tasks.
Check out Gordon Walton''s presentation at GDC, he mentions the link between short play cycles and larger audiences:
http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2004/walton_gordon.ppt
Of course, the problem is that players feel penalized, while similar efforts were presented as "bonuses". They could have used a gradual curve instead of discrete steps, but this would probably make the whole process more tedious. By providing very specific, sharp boundaries, players can plan properly and avoid the "ok but just one more" syndrome that leads to addiction or burnout. Another interesting link in this regard is:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010427/hopson_01.htm
(Sidetrack: "addiction" is a word that scares more and more casual players)
In the Penny Arcade writeup, he mentions that his rest level didnt drop after more than four hours. I assume this is caused by the fact that he leveled during that time - interesting side-effect.
Most WoW betatesters are probably hardcore MMORPG gamers, and it''s to be expected that they dislike this feature, since it''s targetted specifically at their own way of playing. The fact that this feature was not part of the initial beta release encourages the feeling of being penalized.
My own view of the system is that it''s a step in the right direction, in the same way that Upkeep encouraged fast-paced gameplay in Warcraft 3.
If you''re worrying about a game that limits you for playing more than 8 hours per day, you probably need to rethink your life.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
