Now this idea is only valid based on trying to promote more grouping.

With that in mind, we have the plus exp with grouping. That's huge, but was curious if there could be any other hidden pluses implimented. Perhaps a higher chance for skill improvement. This comes to mind immediately because most warriors or other such melee's will not travel with others for the sake of improving skills.

Now, on the other hand. Any chance at bonuses to exp if you were without any other people to group with? There have been times on occasion when I've logged in to find nobody in range for grouping. I have even remained for 30+ minutes to no avail.

Anyhow. Thoughts and feedback plz.

EXB

>I have even remained for 30+ minutes to no avail.

that would be pure luxury for me.

I don't see either of these changes as needed.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Wait, so do you want to promote grouping or not? It seems like you want advantages for grouping and advantages for not grouping, which relatively doesn't encourage either, just makes the game easier.

As practicing skills is the main reason for most of the people out there who walk solo to walk solo.

Well what about this idea then:
An exp multiplier which rises in inverse proportion to the number of people around to group with.
Thus, if there are very few people you can group with, your exp per mob would be higher, but as more appear for you to (potentially) group with, your exp goes down to encourage you to group with them...

I think the original point is sound. Solo-ranking some classes is like banging your head against a brick wall. I've found it pretty common to have my PK range deserted because there's not enough critical mass to sustain the people who log in looking for PK's or people to group with. Such a move would only help to encourage core numbers, and wouldn't have any effect on peoples' desire to group.

What you're not accounting for there is the element of PK.

If the only people on are myself and my group, getting XP is *easy*. I can level in high-traffic high-PK-danger areas if I want to without fear. I don't have to spend time and energy taking anti-PK safety precautions.

On the other hand, if there are 20 people in my PK range, getting XP is highly dangerous. I can't go to a place like the Battlefield, Forbidden Forest, etc. unless I'm pretty sure that my group is bad ass enough to beat all comers.

I'd argue that getting XP in the former condition is easier, not harder, and not worthy of a reward.

That's all fine and well, having the only people in your pk range in your group, but what if you don't even have a group? Totally solo, not by choice. Just NOBODY on, or what if the only other person is your enemy? Other two?

What if it's me, Joe the Elf Paladin, and theres a group of three Imperials running around? There's really not much motivation for me to stay logged on unless I'm uber-big-balls and confident enough to go hunt them and try to pick them off while they're ranking.

What about those of us who aren't that badass, and/or don't have playing times that give us any ranking allies? What if people had an incentive to stay on and rank/explore/whatever when they're in danger, and don't feel they can pk the opposition? The ones who are confident enough don't need an incentive, they'll stay on as long as they have enemies to pk and rp with. Everybody wins if more people (especially the newer, unconfident ones) stay logged on, kill and be killed, rank, explore, rp, and learn the game more.

I believe giving people an incentive to stay logged in and, if all else fails, rank, cannot be a bad thing. It won't be as effective as having a group, so they'll have an incentive to get a group ASAP once one logs on. You could make "the bonus" go away once at least one person who isn't (1.)in a different cabal and (2.)of opposing align (good vs evil) logs on. They'd practically be forced to get together, for good or ill.

This would make it a rather rarely-invoked effect, but it could be quite valuable, because of the synergystic effect that people being logged on has: other people are more likely to stay logged on as well, as long as there's somebody in range...

If you do something to make a person more likely to stay on, the free market will take over and demand will shift to the right.

Thus we will reach equalibrium again.

Well that's what we want, isn't it - an equilibrium permanently shifted towards the right; i.e. a higher average number on.

What the @#$% are you talking about? Are you trying to be Alan Greenspan, or something?

At least back up a crappy analogy with some kind of explanation, please?

Will, in the end, ultimatly not matter.

If you make it easier, then you will have...

Bah. I'm tired.


Another time.

>What you're not accounting for there is the element of PK.
>
>If the only people on are myself and my group, getting XP is
>*easy*. I can level in high-traffic high-PK-danger areas if I
>want to without fear. I don't have to spend time and energy
>taking anti-PK safety precautions.
>
>On the other hand, if there are 20 people in my PK range,
>getting XP is highly dangerous. I can't go to a place like
>the Battlefield, Forbidden Forest, etc. unless I'm pretty sure
>that my group is bad ass enough to beat all comers.
>
>I'd argue that getting XP in the former condition is easier,
>not harder, and not worthy of a reward.

I'm not talking about a bonus on top of being in a group, but rather a bonus for solo-ranking when there are few groupable pc's in range.

And for soloing, you can say that it's easy enough all you like, but the facts speak for themselves. I have seen countless people log on via the who lists, get dispirited by lack of groupmates (when mine is the only group in range for instance) and log off. I've done it myself... With some classes, it really doesn't matter if there isn't a risk of pk, because spending an hour plus to get a single level in the low ranks just isn't fun.

I just think that the core number of players would be increased by what I suggested, and I can't see any negatives from it.

>If the only people on are myself and my group ...
>On the other hand, if there are 20 people in my PK range
> ...
> I'd argue that getting XP in the former condition is easier,
>not harder, and not worthy of a reward.

It's easier if your group happens to be good, but if there's 20 people in your range there's a much better chance of getting a group that's actually worthwhile. If it's just you and your group, chances are your group is pretty lousy for ranking. Especially around 20-35, when mages are mediocre* in a group. If your ranking groups ends up being an axe spec, a utility shifter and a thief then can't even handle the battlefield anyway, so the fact that nobody is going to kill you there is irrelevant.

I have definitely had a much easier time gaining levels despite occasional PK attempts when there are enough people on that I can find a good group. Not being PKed is at best a minor benefit, in my experience.

*Yes, there are exceptions, but generally from 20-35 a mage is only a highly valued group member in very specific circumstances not relevant to the high-traffic ranking areas. Except transmuters, of course.

Morale? You do good things with a group of people and your morale gets boosted, then other good things can happen easier?

If that is what you are talking about. The reference to learning faster means you get slightly more exp when you have high morale.

Cause I would speculate otherwise. BTW the reason warriors travel alone to train their skills isn't because they train faster that way.... they in fact do not, based upon the fact that you just plain aren't going to be able to fight as high a level mob alone as you are in a group, however, you get exp slower (less exp per kill/more rounds per kill), which gives you more time per level to learn vital skills. The exp bonus is generally the thing you are trying to avoid, so you suggestions are more or less pointless since unless you eliminate the group learning bonus (which would suck badly) learning skills solo will still be the best way to get the most skills perfected at the lowest rank....

Laearrist

Chronic Perfecter of Unneccessary Skills

At least that I've read posts by both Valg and Nep stating so.

Here is Valg's post,

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=8017&mesg_id=8017&listing_type=search#8031

I couldn't find Nep's

Cause I would speculate otherwise.

I'm going to keep posting this link until people begin using it as a reference.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

.

It doesn't say there are no other contributing factors.