Raid Curiousities - Important information we don't yet have

[DynamisLord]

Everyone in this thread is arguing over capping/uncapping players. Obviously there are pros and cons to either way they go with implementing or not implementing a system like that.

So INSTEAD of altering the player's level based on the dungeon, why not just alter the dungeon's level based on the players?

They already change the difficulty in game of behests based on the number of players signed up. Why not expand on a system like that?

Just lock players on whatever jobs they enter with. If you wanna roll with a party of 4 50s, go for it. The dungeon's difficulty will be scaled accordingly. Everyone wins?

That would keep the difficulty level challenging no matter who decides to enter at whatever level. It would end up being like they posted:

Rank 30 dungeon will be for Light parties, Rank 50 dungeon for full parties. The MINIMUM levels will be enforced and whatever levels ABOVE the minimum will only serve to increase the difficulty of that dungeon.

[DynamisLord]

You idiots are arguing over something that's not even out yet. I'm reposting this again. How does this not cater to both of your wants/needs?

Everyone in this thread is arguing over capping/uncapping players. Obviously there are pros and cons to either way they go with implementing or not implementing a system like that.

So INSTEAD of altering the player's level based on the dungeon, why not just alter the dungeon's level based on the players?

They already change the difficulty in game of behests based on the number of players signed up. Why not expand on a system like that?

Just lock players on whatever jobs they enter with. If you wanna roll with a party of 4 50s, go for it. The dungeon's difficulty will be scaled accordingly. Everyone wins?

That would keep the difficulty level challenging no matter who decides to enter at whatever level. It would end up being like they posted:

Rank 30 dungeon will be for Light parties, Rank 50 dungeon for full parties. The MINIMUM levels will be enforced and whatever levels ABOVE the minimum will only serve to increase the difficulty of that dungeon.

[Perrin_Aybarra]

You idiots are arguing over something that's not even out yet. I'm reposting this again. How does this not cater to both of your wants/needs?

I have to say that it's actually not a bad compromise. It would have to be significantly adjusted though. If you take behest as an exemple, even if it adjust itself with the number of players, it's still too easy but that's another matter entirely that will, I think, be addressed with the battle changes and jobs/classes adjustements.

So if you decide to go with 4 50's to the rank 30 dungeon to say, get gears for your level 30 job/class, then the content will be harder since it's "adjusted" to be level 50. I don't mind that. But the balancing would be a lot harder than just imposing a cap. Still a good compromise. And don't call me an idiot :P I just get passionate when I defend a point.

[DurtiMonkeyToe]

I have to say that it's actually not a bad compromise. It would have to be significantly adjusted though. If you take behest as an exemple, even if it adjust itself with the number of players, it's still too easy but that's another matter entirely that will, I think, be addressed with the battle changes and jobs/classes adjustements.

So if you decide to go with 4 50's to the rank 30 dungeon to say, get gears for your level 30 job/class, then the content will be harder since it's "adjusted" to be level 50. I don't mind that. But the balancing would be a lot harder than just imposing a cap. Still a good compromise. And don't call me an idiot :P I just get passionate when I defend a point.

And imposing a cap would be harder than just leaving it open ended.

[DurtiMonkeyToe]

You idiots are arguing over something that's not even out yet. I'm reposting this again. How does this not cater to both of your wants/needs?

It may cater to both sides but I don't think this is SE's current plan. If this was the case, why make the Dungeons based on level at all if it's just going to scale to the group's levels? Then if a group of 4 50's decide to run the 25+ dungeon, then its not a 25+ dungeon anymore it's a 50+ dungeon.

[Physic]

It may cater to both sides but I don't think this is SE's current plan. If this was the case, why make the Dungeons based on level at all if it's just going to scale to the group's levels? Then if a group of 4 50's decide to run the 25+ dungeon, then its not a 25+ dungeon anymore it's a 50+ dungeon.

well the advantage would be, that its available to level 25s, but enjoyable at multi levels, having minimum level reqs gives people something to aim for.

It wouldnt be that hard to balance honestly, in fact the game is pretty well balanced around level now, there are some slight differences from high level skills and having more room for traits/skills but its pretty true that a level 25 mongrel is as hard for level 25 players as a level 45 mongrel is for level 45 players.

big problem with level scaling though is you couldnt play with high levels without being a leech. whereas with a cap, you all are pretty close to the same. also since they are getting rid of physical level, this will likely be the case even more.

[Physic]

You idiots are arguing over something that's not even out yet. I'm reposting this again. How does this not cater to both of your wants/needs?

uhhh i made that suggestion pages ago.
the discussion boiled down to do you want steam roll to be an option or not, that solution is an answer to the make content not easy path. so i dont think it would solve Vedis problem.

Vedis question proposed is
should content be steam rollable, or not
Vedis says yes, steam rolling should be an option for those who want to do it
others say steam rolling can make the game suck.

the developers will make the descion at the end of the day, and people will deal with it accordingly, the forums are here for people to express their opinions, and in this stage so teh developers have feedback and a frame of reference on what players expect/want. so the discussion does serve a purpose.